The second Thursday of every month is when SIG Conveners join the FOLIO Product Council with updates about their work. Most SIGs have been working through feature prioritization and other planning related to the MVP.
The Capacity Planning Team provided an update on their work. They have identified where the most significant capacity gaps are and where some development teams may have extra capacity. They will provide a more complete recommendation at next week’s meeting.
The Consortia SIG met with members of the Apps Interaction Group to discuss consortia requirements related to ERM and Acquisitions, especially related to sharing and/or isolating data between libraries in a consortium. There are long-term desires to have some level of consortial sharing of agreements and license data; however, these are not critical for either FLO or Five Colleges currently. It appears the most significant area of work involves making sure that appropriate data isolation is achieved for consortia implementing a shared tenant model.
The Metadata Management SIG subgroups and small groups continued to work on modeling use cases for the container record. A few members of MM are discussing solutions to the need for multiple graphical representations with the Tech Council. Most of the meeting this week was devoted to looking at and clarifying questions/assumptions around models for instance-instance relationships for in-analytics, item-item relationships for bound-with materials, and how these differ from but might be relevant to some of the container use cases.
The Reporting SIG has been discussing the organization of Reporting JIRA issues based on “clusters” of areas for query development to streamline capacity planning for the MVP. TAMU joins the LDP SysOps group as the third institution to implement the test version of the Library Data Platform data warehouse. The SIG will continue to work with FOLIO Core Developers to address technical dependencies required to implement the LDP software by Summer 2020.
The Resource Access SIG report out from and RA response to UM SIG questions about dummy users, distinguishing types of lost items (e.g. grossly overdue, long missing from the shelf, patron reported lost).
The SIG is also looking for thin thread solutions to the need for an in-app report to deal with missing in transit items and the need for a default request expiration period. The Reserves subgroup is reviewing documentation from earlier incarnation.