Kristin Wilson indicated that the workshop was successful. She noted that the notes from the workshop are posted on the WIKI and that the most useful things to look at are the presentations
Vince presented on data model & architecture
Kathryn presented on the metadata elements. This is the first time we’ve seen a list of metadata elements that we’ll see on Codex record. Lots of discussion around this.
Wireframes presented by Cate – similar to those we’ve seen. Saw new ones drilling deeper down. Filip asked about universal search (Google-style) vs. search of collection. What kind of searches would we want?
It’s been decided that going forward CODEX discussions will be held Thursdays at noon eastern during Metadata Management meeting time. No CODEX discussions at RM meeting moving forward.
Filip needs more time on workflow prototype, so this presentation was postponed & the bulk of the meeting will be given over to the demo from Stacks. We will return to the discussion of the workflow prototype at next week's meeting.
Order prototype - review workflow and fields in each step
Presenting was Leah Elzinga, Analyst, digital projects manager at Stacks. Leah pointed out that today’s presentation was not a demo of the prototype but a walkthrough of the workflow diagrams, with the goal of evaluating Stacks’ interpretation of the RM Sig’s previous work on workflows. The presentation is broken up into three sections:
Workflow: a crash course
Order physical monographs process - happy path
Providing feedback - focus on individual steps
This was an overview of the process leading to the creation of a prototype.
Discovery – user stories, etc.
Work and data flow diagrams (leave less to imagination and interpretation)
Development – based on analysis stage
Q: Ann Marie: There is a ton of documentation that we’ve already gathered; has Stacks been through all of that?
A: Leah: it may or may not be useful; Stacks will need to verify that they have the proper interpretation of data gathered.
2. Workflow Diagrams:
The group was instructed on how to read workflow diagrams, followed by a discussion of how to provide feedback on such documents.
How to provide feedback: RM Sig members access weekly (?) work package delivered to Kristin Martin/Kristen Wilson, who make it available via the Wiki.
Package will contain:
Data/info required for each step
SIG members add suggestions to work package as comments. Members should provide feedback by Thursday AM before following SIG meeting.
Q: Kristen Wilson: You’ll walk us through diagram during the weekly meeting & the we’ll make comments before the following Thursday?
A: Leah: we may be working on multiple diagrams each week; so we may review previous weeks comments at the meeting, then move onto another workflow.
Q: AMB: all comments should go into the work package google doc?
A: Leah: preferably, but feedback mechanism is to be handled by RM SIG administrators.
A: Kristen Wilson: agreed that comments should stay in googledoc, but we could have a discussion post in addition.
3. Process Walkthrough:
BPMN 2.0 Used to create diagram.
This is a “Happy Path” diagram
START: Choose items for purchase
This is the initial trigger for the process
The plan seems to be that users will browse for available titles through Folio.
There is extensive discussion, driven largely by Ann Marie Breaux, Bill Verner, and Kristen Wilson around the need for manual entry of titles in addition to any kind of importing functionality. Leah seems at first to question this need but agrees to add a note about the needed option.
Import – you can import & then add (marc files imported)
Kristen Wilson: many libraries use the GOBI FTP server and automate the process of importing bib info.
Q: Ann Marie: there are better and newer ways to import – do we want to be locked into old ways of doing things?
A: Leah: Right now, Stacks is planning for how institutions currently work but building in flexibility to allow for vendor integration etc.
Kristen Wilson: It’s probably good to allow for current ways rather than forcing institutions to change dramatically at the point of adopting FOLIO.
Michael Winkler: are we capturing alternative forms of import?
AMB: We should be careful not to build the ACQ process in triplicate
LEAH agrees to capture concerns in document, but notes that Folio’s open source nature means that need can drive innovation by participating parties
CHOOSE ITEMS FOR PURCHASE- “Select Vendor” step:
Kristen Wilson: vendor information imported w/records so often there is no need to assign vendor – need that option built in.
Kristin Delwo (Stacks): Individual institutions can customize options on intial implementation.
KW: We’ll need some kind of error kickout functionality if required fields aren’t completed properly
LEAH: Reiterating the promise of robust options on setup
This is not yet a fully fleshed out part of the diagram.
Diagram seems to assume widespread practice of scanning a packing list barcode. None of the participants on the call do this.
Q: Martina Tumulla – Claiming functionality?
A: LEAH: Yes, but not reflected in current diagram
Kristen Wilson notes that at this stage cataloging might already be done.