WEBVTT 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:25.000 That's good. 00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:32.000 Yeah, I know. 00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:38.000 Morning, Tara! 00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:39.000 I can't hear you. 00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:41.000 Ooh. 00:02:41.000 --> 00:02:45.000 If you're talking. 00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:47.000 Oh. 00:02:47.000 --> 00:03:08.000 Well, there they go. 00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:09.000 Can you hear me now? 00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:10.000 Yep. 00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:11.000 Yes. 00:03:11.000 --> 00:03:13.000 Okay, perfect. That was odd. 00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:15.000 Howdy! 00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:21.000 Howdy. 00:03:21.000 --> 00:03:25.000 So… 00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:28.000 I know some people are out today, but I… 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:31.000 See folks still rolling in, so… give it a second, Polly. 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:50.000 try to figure out screen sharing. 00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:55.000 Good lord. 00:03:55.000 --> 00:04:02.000 Uh, okay, all right. Well, I hate to make people wait, and I've got a few minutes of housekeeping stuff to take care of, um, so… 00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:04.000 Uh, we'll do that, and then, uh… 00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:07.000 Jennifer Useless is here to talk about… 00:04:07.000 --> 00:04:09.000 Uh, deleting records. 00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:18.000 I think. Yes. 00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:20.000 I have an interesting, interesting Zoom morning, I think. 00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:26.000 Over here. Um, okay, uh, so, uh, first I wanted to take a look at upcoming sessions that we have on our calendar. 00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:34.000 Um, so today we're doing record deletion. Um, next Monday I have a conflict, so I was gonna go ahead and cancel, uh, Monday's meeting. 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:38.000 Unless there are any objections. 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:41.000 We'll say there are not, and I'll go ahead and do that. 00:04:41.000 --> 00:04:48.000 Um, and then on the 18th, uh, Joe Reimers reached out to talk about, um, bringing acquisitions behavior in line with folio defaults. 00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:50.000 So, I think that we'll do that on the 18th. 00:04:50.000 --> 00:04:55.000 Uh, if that's okay with everyone. And then, uh, we'll have the 23rd to plan as well. 00:04:55.000 --> 00:04:57.000 Um, so some cool stuff coming up. 00:04:57.000 --> 00:05:00.000 That sounds good to me. 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:06.000 Uh, great. Uh, the next thing I wanted to mention, um, is that we are still in search of a new convener. 00:05:06.000 --> 00:05:11.000 Co-combiners are, uh, welcome if you have a pair that would like to take on this role. 00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:15.000 Um, so I'll keep… I'll keep looking around to find someone to take my place. 00:05:15.000 --> 00:05:22.000 Uh, there was also a message posted on the channel, um, the PCs trying to, uh… 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:26.000 proactively monitor upcoming releases for new development that needs PC input. 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:34.000 Um, they're starting with umbrella Leaf, so they're wondering if there's any features in umbrella Leaf that CrossAppSig 00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:35.000 is involved in. Um… 00:05:35.000 --> 00:05:40.000 I think I need to think about this one a little bit more, but if you know anything, uh, we can reply on the channel. 00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:46.000 And then the last thing that I sort of wanted to deal with, uh, housekeeping-wise, was WolfCon presentations. 00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:53.000 Uh, so traditionally, we have, uh, submitted a working group session, and then, like, another sort of theme session. 00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:56.000 So we should decide if we want to do that. 00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:03.000 But the problem is that I will not be there to run it, so we would also need to decide who will run it. So, something to think about a little bit more. 00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:07.000 I don't know if folks know if they're going yet or not. 00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:10.000 But it seems like we should submit something one way or another. 00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:11.000 Any thoughts on any of those topics, or should we move on to record deletion? 00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:18.000 Yep, I'm here. 00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:24.000 I just had one comment that, um, we do have a… 00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:29.000 Um, submission guidelines, because I know people are like, well, what's on the submission form? 00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:34.000 So, you, uh, don't have to ask that question any longer. 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:44.000 So, we… so here it is with the values, and there's… on the top of the page, there's a link to a presentation. 00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:46.000 Um, that you can go through. 00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:49.000 Um… 00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:50.000 Nice. 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:55.000 And, yeah, and so that explains everything. And if you still have questions, 00:06:55.000 --> 00:06:59.000 Um, you know, just reach out at Wolf Calling Conference, 00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:03.000 Chat, um, or myself, or… 00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:08.000 Tratt, um, and we'll answer your questions. 00:07:08.000 --> 00:07:16.000 That's awesome. Um, yeah, I wonder if… I wonder if Tom might be interested in doing something with item state. That could be something that we're involved in, for sure. 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:19.000 I'm pretty sure Tom will be there. 00:07:19.000 --> 00:07:24.000 I will not be there either in person or virtually, so I won't be able to run this virtually either. 00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:30.000 Well, we do have a… so we do have it open, so if you're presenting virtually, 00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:32.000 If you can find someone 00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:35.000 who is there in person, 00:07:35.000 --> 00:07:39.000 Who can be your moderator, you can still submit. 00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:40.000 For people who can go virtually? 00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:42.000 Yeah. Yeah. 00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:43.000 Okay. 00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:48.000 You just have to find that in-person moderator for you. 00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:52.000 Awesome. Well, I do… I do have colleagues who will be there in person. 00:07:52.000 --> 00:07:54.000 But I… I will be in… 00:07:54.000 --> 00:07:58.000 I will not be in either modality, so… 00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:01.000 Uh, hopefully we can find someone. 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:03.000 Um… 00:08:03.000 --> 00:08:07.000 I see many more people. 00:08:07.000 --> 00:08:08.000 joined us. Welcome. Uh, we were just doing housekeeping stuff. 00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:15.000 Yes. Yes, Tara, the… some of us clicked on the link in the… in the minutes, and it's for… 00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:16.000 Oh, Jesus. 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:20.000 Yeah. I just realized that. 00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:22.000 So… 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:25.000 And it's for, like, a different meeting? 00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:27.000 Um, I think it's for… 00:08:27.000 --> 00:08:33.000 Probably, uh, the Wednesday. 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:34.000 Today's Wednesday. 00:08:34.000 --> 00:08:37.000 Aren't there… I think there… oh, wait, then it's for the mon… I… I don 00:08:37.000 --> 00:08:38.000 It doesn't match the calendar, is what you're saying. 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:42.000 It doesn't match the calendar, yes. 00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:43.000 Okay. 00:08:43.000 --> 00:08:48.000 And you weren't there. Several of us were. 00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:49.000 No. 00:08:49.000 --> 00:08:51.000 Alright, are there people still there? Should I attempt to resolve this? Perfect, okay. 00:08:51.000 --> 00:08:54.000 All right, I'm so sorry about the mix-up, um… 00:08:54.000 --> 00:08:57.000 I will look and make sure… I must have just copied it from the previous week. 00:08:57.000 --> 00:08:58.000 Sorry about that. Um… 00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:01.000 That would be the rational thing to do. 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:03.000 I… yeah. 00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:06.000 And yet, and yet I have led so many astray. 00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:10.000 terribly embarrassed. Thank you for your patience. 00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:20.000 I will… I will hang my head in shame for the rest of the meeting. Um, okay, so, uh, right, we went through the housekeeping. The one thing that's probably important is, um, I'm gonna cancel March 9th, because I have a conflict. 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:25.000 Um, unless there are any objections. 00:09:25.000 --> 00:09:30.000 And, uh, Jennifer Eustace is here to talk about, uh, record deletion. 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:31.000 That's what we got. 00:09:31.000 --> 00:09:32.000 Yeah, yeah. 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:34.000 Uh, did you want to share your screen? 00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:40.000 Um, you know, I did not prepare a presentation for this, so I thought, you know, 00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:50.000 And one of the reasons I did not was, well, I was, you know, uh, lack of time, sorry, but also, we're at the very beginning. 00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:56.000 of this conversation, and bits and pieces have been happening. 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:59.000 Well, in bits and pieces, like over the last… 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:05.000 probably 2 years, but I… what's really lacking is kind of this… 00:10:05.000 --> 00:10:14.000 Um, holistic approach to, uh, you know, how do we handle DELETE? Not just for folio, but also how folio interacts. 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:21.000 With, uh, third-party, um, integrations, such as Discovery, reporting, and the like. 00:10:21.000 --> 00:10:27.000 Um, so… and I really want to thank… I did post this on Slack. 00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:31.000 And I think it was Owen and maybe Brooks, 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:33.000 Who highlighted that this came up 00:10:33.000 --> 00:10:51.000 Actually, several years ago, or maybe… I don't know. Time is fluid for me after COVID, so several years ago could be, like, a year and a half ago. Who knows? Back in time, um, this did come up through technical counsel, and there really was not a resolution. 00:10:51.000 --> 00:10:54.000 on how to handle set for delete. 00:10:54.000 --> 00:10:59.000 So, I just want to give people, um, a perspective of where data import 00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:03.000 has been, and what it's discussing now. 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:10.000 Um… oh, 2020. There you go. I mean, that's a couple years… 6 years ago, so… so there you go, that's a couple years. 00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:13.000 Thank you, Maura. Um… 00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:18.000 Recently, we had on the new feature, request lists for data import. 00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:21.000 Deleaning, holdings and items. 00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:23.000 Um, and the discussion kind of… 00:11:23.000 --> 00:11:27.000 went in tangentially and very quickly, 00:11:27.000 --> 00:11:30.000 to, well, how do we handle instances? 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:36.000 Um, so, we went back to that conversation. 00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:40.000 Because we thought, well, we aren't talking about instances 00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:43.000 Right now, we're just talking about holdings and items. 00:11:43.000 --> 00:11:47.000 So we developed a spreadsheet, and I put the link in chat. 00:11:47.000 --> 00:11:52.000 of what are the use cases for deletioning in batch, 00:11:52.000 --> 00:11:57.000 Holdings and items. So right now, we can hard delete. I think it's a hard delete. 00:11:57.000 --> 00:12:02.000 Um, manually, and one by one, holding an item. 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:06.000 So, you're in folio, you go to folio, inventory app, 00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:11.000 You navigate to maybe an item record, or a holdings record. 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:14.000 And you can actually do actions and delete that. 00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:22.000 Um, at this moment, I'm pretty sure it's hard delete. I sure if there's something like a… 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:25.000 tombstone or a… 00:12:25.000 --> 00:12:30.000 A record that says, you know, uh, item record with UUID, blah blah blah has been deleted. 00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:34.000 So, we couldn't get information on that. 00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:37.000 So you'll see from this spreadsheet, the rationale really is 00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:44.000 You know, you're dealing with mistakes, you know, these are records, there aren't tied to anything. 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:49.000 Financial circulation requests or any of that. 00:12:49.000 --> 00:12:52.000 a lot of, uh, e-resource management, 00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:57.000 Where, you know, you're dealing with subscription packages, you know, the items… 00:12:57.000 --> 00:13:02.000 come in, and they go out. So you want to easily remove all of these. 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:04.000 But in the discussion, um, 00:13:04.000 --> 00:13:06.000 Especially, not only for this, 00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:11.000 But also, when we were looking at the phases on how to implement 00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:29.000 The mark for delete discussion, and this is another spreadsheet that we started in data import that looks at that behavior, and this is the behavior in sunflower where we have the flag set for delete, and then it changes the position 5 of the leader, 00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:32.000 and a Marcus or S to D. 00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:37.000 Um, we included in that discussion instances, 00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:45.000 And… in all of our discussions, one of the major concerns was that there are no guardrails. 00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:48.000 So what happens if… 00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:50.000 your record is linked to… 00:13:50.000 --> 00:13:58.000 Um, you know, an order record, which is maybe still open, or even if it's closed, 00:13:58.000 --> 00:14:03.000 It's linked to an invoice in some capacity, or it's linked to a request 00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:06.000 Or perhaps it has something to do in 00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:10.000 courses. So, there are a lot of dependencies. 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:22.000 And because of the business logic of folio, these dependencies in terms of which way they're going from which app is not always clear. 00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:32.000 And that's not highlighted right now. So a lot of people are in the discussion in data import, were really like, well, you kind of have to slow down, and before we have 00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:37.000 Like a hard delete or even a soft delete, we really need to… 00:14:37.000 --> 00:14:40.000 in some way, ensure that we… 00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:46.000 guard against these dependencies. So we're not just wholescaling… 00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:54.000 you know, getting rid of records, and then messing up logic in a different app, or even messing up 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:56.000 kind of, um… 00:14:56.000 --> 00:15:01.000 data that would be used by third-party integrations, like Discovery, so… 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:08.000 All of a sudden, you know, if the record is no longer there, can EDS still display that? And I think it… 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:15.000 And only doesn't display it, it's based on suppression. So if nothing's there, then… 00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:22.000 Um, you could have these really funky, kind of corrupt kind of records, either in Discovery, 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:25.000 reporting or, um… 00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:30.000 elsewhere, depending on the integration you use, perhaps ILL as well. 00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:32.000 So, um… 00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:37.000 We saw in data import that this discussion was much larger. 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:43.000 than just data import. You know, how do you just delete something and batch? 00:15:43.000 --> 00:15:47.000 Because it involves, um, many more subject areas. 00:15:47.000 --> 00:15:51.000 than… than what our, you know… 00:15:51.000 --> 00:15:55.000 members were involved with. Some were involved, but not all of them. 00:15:55.000 --> 00:15:58.000 So we are bringing it to Cross Up. 00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:01.000 To see if maybe we can… 00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:05.000 Like, find a path forward on how to… 00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:08.000 navigate this… 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:15.000 this functionality, you know, is it functionality that we want? You know, can we come to terms with… 00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:20.000 you know, maybe a soft delete, for instances, which we do have a little bit… 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:25.000 But, you know, what is a hard delete mean? You know, do we implement tombstones? 00:16:25.000 --> 00:16:31.000 Um, that interact with our third-party integrations, and even maybe an… 00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:34.000 I don't know, an archived version of the record? 00:16:34.000 --> 00:16:40.000 Um, so, that's why we're bringing the conversation here. And it really is just a conversation. 00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:43.000 Um, so, I think it was Owen… 00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:46.000 Um, if you did any reading… 00:16:46.000 --> 00:16:50.000 Um, there was a technical… 00:16:50.000 --> 00:16:51.000 Council… 00:16:51.000 --> 00:16:56.000 Did, uh… 00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:01.000 Not that, um… 00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:06.000 It was the… here, I'll just copy the link here. 00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:12.000 Yeah, I think it was… and this one, the… yeah, so we have that, if you've read that. 00:17:12.000 --> 00:17:19.000 Um, so anyway, so I'd like to open it up for discussion, see what people think, and see… 00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:27.000 you know, I'm not sure if we can decide on how to move forward now, or maybe we… maybe the path forward is, 00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:30.000 More discussions, um… 00:17:30.000 --> 00:17:32.000 or to reach out to more SIGs, 00:17:32.000 --> 00:17:36.000 So, that's… that is my brief 00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:46.000 presentation for y'all, and I'll open it up for discussion. 00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:48.000 Pimian. 00:17:48.000 --> 00:17:51.000 I had put this in the chat, but um… 00:17:51.000 --> 00:17:54.000 the… 00:17:54.000 --> 00:17:58.000 The question of dependencies is… 00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:03.000 compounded for those sites who are using ECS, because… 00:18:03.000 --> 00:18:06.000 The tenants can't see each other's data. 00:18:06.000 --> 00:18:09.000 I mean, in some cases, 00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:14.000 can see that another library has holdings, but can't see the holdings. 00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:17.000 And so, when you talk about, you know, order data, 00:18:17.000 --> 00:18:20.000 an order record dependencies. 00:18:20.000 --> 00:18:23.000 I mean, that is… 00:18:23.000 --> 00:18:30.000 One tenant won't even know if another tenant has ordered data attached to a given instance. 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:32.000 And so… 00:18:32.000 --> 00:18:37.000 my… in my saying that isn't coming from a place of, oh, you know, 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:42.000 a bad idea. I'm, you know, it was actually part of the original discussion. 00:18:42.000 --> 00:18:47.000 It's more that we need to make sure that there are fail-safes built in. 00:18:47.000 --> 00:18:54.000 So, if we're gonna do a hard delete, or frankly, even if a soft… even a soft delete, 00:18:54.000 --> 00:18:56.000 There should be some… there should be some… some… 00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:03.000 guardrails built in to be able to say, you know, oh, you know… 00:19:03.000 --> 00:19:12.000 Folio is not going to allow you to do this because there are depend… because this record has other things that are dependent upon it not being deleted. 00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:20.000 I don't really know the right words for this, but that's the… that's the general idea. 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:26.000 Um, I think, Maura, I think your hand was up next. 00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:31.000 I'll jump in. Yeah, I just thought I would mention that. 00:19:31.000 --> 00:19:36.000 Uh, in the, uh… in user management. 00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:47.000 Um, uh… One of the libraries created a they created a bit of code that, you know, before you delete a user. 00:19:47.000 --> 00:20:04.000 uh, it checks for dependencies first, so it checks to see if there are any loans or any fines or anything else that is connected to any of the other apps. And I think that, um… Uh, that if there was something like that. 00:20:04.000 --> 00:20:15.000 Um, that's sort of like… that connected to any of the other apps and, you know, just sort of like… It just looked for wherever else that record is touching. 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:25.000 be it orders, or discovery, or loans, God forbid, when you're deleting it that you know. 00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:32.000 that it would check for dependencies, and then, like in the user's app, it would like. 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:42.000 uh, it'll pop up the, you know, they'll have a modal window that pops up and says, this is, you know, these are the things that are happening, and, you know. 00:20:42.000 --> 00:20:49.000 So it's, I think if you had something like that, I think that, you know. 00:20:49.000 --> 00:21:00.000 there could be. 00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:17.000 Um, so I'm speaking up, uh, as the person who actually brought the use case back to the data import SIG, and as a co-convener of the data import SIG. And I think that it is a real… it is a complex issue. 00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:25.000 And some of the conversations are happening at cross purposes because. 00:21:25.000 --> 00:21:41.000 We have two completely different use cases, or let's say buckets or types of use cases for needing to delete records. One of those is a part of the natural lifecycle of resource management. 00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:57.000 You've withdrawn a title from your collection. And you know the the set for deletion functionality that is being developed is kind of in support of that workflow. 00:21:57.000 --> 00:22:26.000 And that is different from needing to just make records gone. I can just say that our biggest use case is needing to… correct an import gone awry, needing to delete junk data. It's so easy to create a lot of corrupt data in Folio. And then it just is going to be there forever. And there's a lot of work that has to happen. 00:22:26.000 --> 00:22:44.000 So that that junk data doesn't interfere with other processes. You have to go in and you have to strip identifiers, you have to suppress things. You can delete things, but you have to go in and do it manually. And I think that for a lot of these use cases. 00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:52.000 It doesn't matter if there's a dependency that all the things need to be gone right in an ideal world. 00:22:52.000 --> 00:23:04.000 Um, so tackling this from multiple perspectives at the same time, I think is important rather than. 00:23:04.000 --> 00:23:21.000 It feels like there's an assumption that. Um… you know, dependencies should always be a stopgap, and we shouldn't be able to delete anything that is attached to the order. And that is just not the case. 00:23:21.000 --> 00:23:37.000 We need to be thoughtful and intentional about it and understand the implications of doing so. But, you know, there are certain… if you create an order in batch, if we get, say, a batch of 400 orders from a vendor. 00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:56.000 And, you know… certain… I can't, for the life of me, off the top of my head, you know, say it's this property or that property, but once an order has been created, you can't actually edit all of the fields in the order. And. 00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:12.000 The only way to recreate those orders is to delete them. The only way we have of doing that is doing it manually, and we have to do that with the, you know, the holdings and the items in inventory, too, because these things are coming in with barcodes. 00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:28.000 We can't just suppress them. We have to delete them because the barcode is there. We can't create another item with that same barcode. And if we have to recreate the orders, we're going to have to recreate the inventory. 00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:38.000 Um, at least how data import works. We're gonna have to recreate all of the records. So what we really need is for everything just to be gone. 00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:57.000 And… I don't know where that gets us, other than I just want to be sure that we're not limiting ourselves to what I think is the most obvious use case, which is we had a resource. It was a real thing. It represented something. 00:24:57.000 --> 00:24:58.000 It's gone from our collection, and now we need to, you know, manage, manage that phase of the resource lifecycle versus… We have junk data. It needs to be gone. We need to clean it up so that we can actually load the orders and, you know, get the money encumbered on the right funds, and then load the invoice and get it paid. 00:24:58.000 --> 00:25:24.000 Uh, Christy. 00:25:24.000 --> 00:25:29.000 Oh, um… 00:25:29.000 --> 00:25:32.000 I… the thing, like, and… 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:34.000 So I… I… I kind of get that… 00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:36.000 Christy is… 00:25:36.000 --> 00:25:38.000 making an argument that 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:41.000 Perhaps we shouldn't overcomplicate this, and… 00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:46.000 I think that's a fair point. I want to just come back to what Mara said. 00:25:46.000 --> 00:25:48.000 And… and say, 00:25:48.000 --> 00:25:52.000 And I think the same goes for what Christy just said, actually. 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:56.000 The problem, like, even if we're talking about deleting everything that's 00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:04.000 that's there. The problem with folio architecture, and this is why it's a deep technical discussion, and why 00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:06.000 The previous discussion was so hard, 00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:11.000 Um, for those of you who were involved in it, if there's somebody else on the call, 00:26:11.000 --> 00:26:15.000 Um, and long, is because… 00:26:15.000 --> 00:26:22.000 By their nature, the folio modules do not know anything about each other, so it is not possible to know. 00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:25.000 Whether another module references something 00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:30.000 That… that is in your module. And in the sense that 00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:33.000 Um… 00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:36.000 Christie's talking about getting rid of everything, 00:26:36.000 --> 00:26:40.000 It might be… 00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:42.000 slightly easier, but the same… 00:26:42.000 --> 00:26:46.000 problem could occur, like, deleting everything 00:26:46.000 --> 00:26:51.000 You can only delete everything if you know 00:26:51.000 --> 00:26:54.000 that. 00:26:54.000 --> 00:26:57.000 It is all connected in the first place. 00:26:57.000 --> 00:26:59.000 And… 00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:06.000 So you have to be careful about the… the way in which you're exploring that data. I think in the example that you were giving, Christy, 00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:09.000 Obviously, that data is all connected. 00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:14.000 But it's about knowing where those connections are stored, and making sure that you… 00:27:14.000 --> 00:27:21.000 not deleting the thing that knows what it's connected to before you delete the other things that are connected to it, because 00:27:21.000 --> 00:27:27.000 a order knows it's connected to inventory, but an inventory doesn't know it's connected to an order. 00:27:27.000 --> 00:27:29.000 Um, so… 00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:32.000 the… in terms of data that's being stored. 00:27:32.000 --> 00:27:35.000 So, 00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:38.000 I… I feels… 00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:42.000 kind of… from the… I also think, actually, although 00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:49.000 I do understand what you've just said, Christy. I… I don't understand how you would know you were definitely not deleting something that… 00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:53.000 mattered in that… 00:27:53.000 --> 00:28:03.000 I guess you just have to be careful that something didn't exist before, that that job that you've just run that's created all of this extra stuff. 00:28:03.000 --> 00:28:06.000 that could interact with stuff that already exists as well, so… 00:28:06.000 --> 00:28:13.000 I guess that… I guess… I mean, you know this, um, I don't want to be… I'm not trying to teach people how to suck eggs, but… 00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:18.000 what I would say is, like, 00:28:18.000 --> 00:28:20.000 there are… there are… 00:28:20.000 --> 00:28:25.000 definite architectural issues here in supporting DELET. 00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:30.000 Um, and having all of these interconnected things know about each other, 00:28:30.000 --> 00:28:33.000 is something that Twilio has designed 00:28:33.000 --> 00:28:35.000 against. Now, 00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:38.000 You can obviously… 00:28:38.000 --> 00:28:42.000 change that, um… 00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:43.000 Or you can implement 00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:45.000 things like the… 00:28:45.000 --> 00:28:47.000 mod FQM… 00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:52.000 Which is there to know how things… well… 00:28:52.000 --> 00:28:56.000 that somehow bridges that gap to some extent. 00:28:56.000 --> 00:29:00.000 It's not, uh, I think a… 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:05.000 It's not a universally agreed-on solution, but it does do some of that work for you. 00:29:05.000 --> 00:29:09.000 But I think that… 00:29:09.000 --> 00:29:11.000 the… 00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:15.000 Yeah, I don't see how we have this discussion without 00:29:15.000 --> 00:29:18.000 people who are deep in the architecture of folio in the room, 00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:24.000 who can, like, say, well, how is this going to actually work in a technical sense? Because… 00:29:24.000 --> 00:29:26.000 I feel like we know what the… 00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:29.000 what it is the users want, but we… 00:29:29.000 --> 00:29:33.000 you know, that has never got as far as implementation. 00:29:33.000 --> 00:29:38.000 And so we have to look at the reasons why not. 00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:41.000 I think, and I think it's because it's technically difficult and a lot of effort. 00:29:41.000 --> 00:29:46.000 Um… and maybe we haven't got the right technical solutions in place, I don't know. 00:29:46.000 --> 00:29:50.000 But, um, yeah. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:56.000 I think I… in terms of having a conversation here, 00:29:56.000 --> 00:30:04.000 it's very easy for… well, not easy, but I think we can agree on the requirements much more easily than we've been able to implement. 00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:07.000 work that actually fulfills those requirements, and I think that's the 00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:08.000 been the blocker in the past. 00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:14.000 Owen! 00:30:14.000 --> 00:30:19.000 Uh, Christine, did you want to have a chance to respond? 00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:29.000 Um, I can let Martin go first, because, um, they've had their hand up for quite a while. 00:30:29.000 --> 00:30:36.000 Yeah, well, Owen… Already said a lot of what I wanted to say. 00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:44.000 And I want to add that I think maybe, I mean, if you want to have checks. 00:30:44.000 --> 00:30:49.000 before deleting, I mean… As Owen said, you basically. 00:30:49.000 --> 00:30:59.000 The modules can't know… Everything that is within a folio system that has dependencies on on a record. But. 00:30:59.000 --> 00:31:05.000 If you want to have from a practical standpoint, maybe you could say that for each record. 00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:11.000 type like items, instances, users, and so on. You could define a set of. 00:31:11.000 --> 00:31:19.000 maybe standard. modules or standard dependencies that get get checked. 00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:28.000 But then maybe… a lot of libraries will use modules or apps that. 00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:34.000 have dependents outside of that set and that also have dependencies. And then. 00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:43.000 You will maybe get the false impression that before a deletion, every dependency is checked. 00:31:43.000 --> 00:31:47.000 And then suddenly those apps that are not considered. 00:31:47.000 --> 00:31:58.000 The yeah, so the the link is broken. Yeah. But from a practical point of view, I think it. 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:04.000 Maybe it would be okay to say, Wow, only the maybe. 00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:13.000 You can say on maybe the modules that are within the official release or whatever they get checked, because there you know. 00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:17.000 If there can be dependencies or something like this. 00:32:17.000 --> 00:32:23.000 But, um… Jennifer mentioned before that. 00:32:23.000 --> 00:32:26.000 There could be the possibility of some kind of tombstone. 00:32:26.000 --> 00:32:33.000 I really like the idea that is. that you have some kind of. 00:32:33.000 --> 00:32:39.000 functionality that says, okay, there was this record was there. 00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:48.000 It got deleted, and um… And that the user gets gets to know that this is not a. 00:32:48.000 --> 00:32:57.000 arrow within the system that someone entered false data, but. 00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:13.000 There's just something missing because it was deleted. And if you have if you delete, for example, the… Um, inventory data and then have an order. 00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:18.000 You can just display that the corresponding instances or whatever. 00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:27.000 Actually got deleted and not that they… Just don't display or… Yeah. 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:32.000 Okay, that's that's what I wanted to. Add. 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:40.000 I had to, I don't know, Laura or Kristen. 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:50.000 So, I… I hear everything that's being said. You know, it's difficult, um, it's hard. There's a lot of risk. 00:33:50.000 --> 00:34:06.000 Um, what I will say is that this is functionality that Folio should have. It is expected functionality. Other library systems have it. Other library systems that we've had have had it. 00:34:06.000 --> 00:34:18.000 Been able to do this before. So how do we move it forward to figure out how to make it happen? And I think that that's what we need to talk about. 00:34:18.000 --> 00:34:33.000 That's… I think that that is what I would like to see us thinking about how to make this happen. I will also say that one, um. 00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:52.000 This dependency issues have been resolved, at least. partially for other types of functionality that has been implemented. I'm thinking about the ability to maintain relationships when. 00:34:52.000 --> 00:35:03.000 certain relationships change in inventory. You move a holdings from one instance to a next, and you can now maintain the relationship with the order. So, you know. 00:35:03.000 --> 00:35:22.000 It is possible to… to be able to achieve this and I am not going to speak to how that gets achieved. The other thing that I will say is that, you know, we're deleting records left and right via the API. 00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:30.000 And I don't actually know exactly what you mean by tombstone, but, you know. 00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:51.000 All versions of… all previous versions of, like, say, we delete holdings in batch on a regular basis, um, via the API, and those holdings are still there in the system. They're just not available via the UI. They're in the data in the back end, and a table. I forget what the table is called. 00:35:51.000 --> 00:36:06.000 But I think it's history or archive, or something like that. So these records are still available. You can look them up in the data and get them. 00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:24.000 They're just not… active any longer. Um, and I don't think that there's an undelete function. So, you know, I just want to say that, you know, I think that there's a lot of groundwork that we can leverage for doing this. 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:39.000 And, um… Uh, so… I can see this data. I'm going to Jennifer, who's saying that might be a feature of MetaDB, and. 00:36:39.000 --> 00:36:55.000 Um, yeah, you know, that actually could be it. Um, but I… I… I do think that there is there actually is a table in folio via the Api. 00:36:55.000 --> 00:37:07.000 Where, um, records that have been deleted, the holdings and items that have been deleted via the API, you know, go to, you know, out to pasture. 00:37:07.000 --> 00:37:17.000 Um, I can find the name of that table for you, or the name of that endpoint for looking that up. 00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:34.000 Anyway, I will… I will hand it off, uh, to Laura now, but I just wanted to say, I do think that there's functionality that at least gets us part of the way in thinking about how to resolve some of these problems, and I think that it is imperative that we figure out how to move forward. 00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:46.000 Because, functionally. you know, we should be able to do this. And I don't want the end of the story to be. It's hard, and it's a lot of work. 00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:47.000 Um… I mean, that actually may be the end of the story, but anyway. Thanks. 00:37:47.000 --> 00:37:55.000 I think Christy. 00:37:55.000 --> 00:38:03.000 So, yeah, so I've been part of conversations about this for as long as I can remember, and it… 00:38:03.000 --> 00:38:11.000 is hard, um, and I feel like part of the challenge is that every time I have 00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:20.000 been part of a discussion about addressing this. We've tried to think about it holistically, which is great, but we've tried to figure out how can we solve all of this all at once. 00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:22.000 And to Christy's point, I think… 00:38:22.000 --> 00:38:29.000 I'm… what I was… I made a note to myself that I… I don't think this group can solve this, but I think this group could 00:38:29.000 --> 00:38:34.000 could come up with a plan for, okay, we'd like to address this piece first, 00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:37.000 And then we would like to address this part, etc. 00:38:37.000 --> 00:38:40.000 Um, I do, um… 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:46.000 Christina, you said other systems deal with this, and yes, they do, but I've also worked with systems that dealt with it very badly. 00:38:46.000 --> 00:38:56.000 Um, so there are lots of challenges, even with an integrated system, and Folio, as we know, is microservices, or at least was 00:38:56.000 --> 00:38:59.000 Envisioned to be microservices and functions as sort of a… 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:09.000 I don't know how it functions. We don't need to go there. Um, but what I was thinking was… what I would propose 00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:12.000 for a plan would be that we start with 00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:14.000 Making it easier to do. 00:39:14.000 --> 00:39:21.000 a hard delete without guardrails, making it very clear that it is a hard delete without guardrails. 00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:24.000 Um, and that would allow… 00:39:24.000 --> 00:39:31.000 us. To delete the records that we know we really just need to get rid of. 00:39:31.000 --> 00:39:35.000 And then we start thinking about how 00:39:35.000 --> 00:39:37.000 we could… 00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:43.000 realistically identify dependencies. I don't see it being something that 00:39:43.000 --> 00:39:48.000 like, each app in folio can identify. I think there has to be some 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:56.000 some workflow, um, some app that just is identifying dependencies, because as Owen says, 00:39:56.000 --> 00:40:02.000 that the apps in folio often don't know anything about each other. 00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:08.000 Um, and that is the hard part, but we… we trip ourselves up when we feel like, well, we can't… 00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:14.000 develop… we can't let anyone delete through the UI in any way until we've figured out how to solve the whole thing. 00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:18.000 And I would love to see us solve this bit by bit. 00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:23.000 While making sure that when people come to folio, they don't assume 00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:24.000 that they… that Delete is doing things that it isn't doing. 00:40:24.000 --> 00:40:35.000 Um, yeah, I'll stop there. 00:40:35.000 --> 00:40:41.000 I just want to be really clear. I'm not making an argument at all that this should not be part of the 00:40:41.000 --> 00:40:45.000 the functionality in folio… I mean, it… 00:40:45.000 --> 00:40:49.000 I… I… yeah. And it's not my place, and I have 00:40:49.000 --> 00:40:52.000 you know, no interest in… in… 00:40:52.000 --> 00:40:56.000 in arguing against a perfectly rational and sensible 00:40:56.000 --> 00:40:59.000 unreasonable set of functionality. 00:40:59.000 --> 00:41:02.000 All I'm saying is that the problems we've encountered 00:41:02.000 --> 00:41:04.000 in getting this done, 00:41:04.000 --> 00:41:07.000 are not. 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:09.000 about a group like this agreeing 00:41:09.000 --> 00:41:13.000 that it must be… that it should be… 00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:15.000 part of the functionality. 00:41:15.000 --> 00:41:19.000 Um… the… 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:21.000 And I guess that I wonder… 00:41:21.000 --> 00:41:27.000 Maybe a starting point for this 00:41:27.000 --> 00:41:31.000 for me, it's like, well, like, there is, you know, that work that I pointed to, that… 00:41:31.000 --> 00:41:33.000 And as Christy, you said as well, 00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:37.000 like, there have been implemented, 00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:45.000 in places the work that's necessary, and that document that, uh, that Jennifer and I linked to, that says how we should do it. 00:41:45.000 --> 00:41:47.000 But if you delete something, 00:41:47.000 --> 00:41:50.000 You publish a Kafka message to say, 00:41:50.000 --> 00:41:56.000 It's been deleted, and then any other module that's interested in that can consume that Kafka message. 00:41:56.000 --> 00:42:00.000 And know that deletion has happened. 00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:02.000 And that's how… 00:42:02.000 --> 00:42:04.000 that previous discussion said, 00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:06.000 it should be done, and that's what the Tech Council 00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:09.000 signed off on. Is… 00:42:09.000 --> 00:42:12.000 like… 00:42:12.000 --> 00:42:15.000 So I guess the question is, like, what… what is… 00:42:15.000 --> 00:42:18.000 What are the things that's stopping 00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:21.000 deletion of any kind, with or without that messaging. 00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:25.000 happening, because you can delete things in Polio, right? It's… 00:42:25.000 --> 00:42:28.000 It's a decision to not allow deletion of things. 00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:31.000 Um… 00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:35.000 And if… yeah, I mean… 00:42:35.000 --> 00:42:37.000 if you… if it doesn't… 00:42:37.000 --> 00:42:40.000 especially if you… if you want to be… 00:42:40.000 --> 00:42:42.000 very… 00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:45.000 Um, decide to take a… 00:42:45.000 --> 00:42:47.000 what's the word? 00:42:47.000 --> 00:42:49.000 I, um… 00:42:49.000 --> 00:42:55.000 reasonably relaxed view of whether it's going to cause you any problems to delete something. 00:42:55.000 --> 00:43:00.000 from the system. But certainly, there are things all overflow that you can delete, right? So, 00:43:00.000 --> 00:43:02.000 I guess maybe the question here is, like, 00:43:02.000 --> 00:43:06.000 what's stopping that happening in this case, and… 00:43:06.000 --> 00:43:10.000 what needs… like, who is it that needs to be able to… 00:43:10.000 --> 00:43:12.000 action that. 00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:13.000 Which, yeah. 00:43:13.000 --> 00:43:23.000 Uh, Laura? 00:43:23.000 --> 00:43:31.000 Yeah, and those are really interesting comments, because I think, you know, we can delete invoices, we can delete 00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:35.000 POLs, um, invoice lines, 00:43:35.000 --> 00:43:38.000 I think we can delete agreements, I think… 00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:42.000 Uh, even individual users you can delete. So I think 00:43:42.000 --> 00:43:45.000 Each app, you can pretty much… 00:43:45.000 --> 00:43:49.000 delete one by one… 00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:52.000 um, either a combination of the records that are… 00:43:52.000 --> 00:43:55.000 there, or all of them. 00:43:55.000 --> 00:43:58.000 Um, for inventory… 00:43:58.000 --> 00:44:03.000 Um, we can already delete holdings and items, and I just looked at the bulk edit. 00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:08.000 high-level roadmap. So, for batch, this is scheduled for 00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:10.000 Post-Umbrella leave. 00:44:10.000 --> 00:44:16.000 Um, I think, um, when you get to instances, 00:44:16.000 --> 00:44:19.000 I think there was just… 00:44:19.000 --> 00:44:22.000 Yeah, I mean, there was, like, 00:44:22.000 --> 00:44:24.000 Well, one, there were two concerns that I saw from the… 00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:30.000 discussion here and in data import is that we need more than one way than just bulk edit. 00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:36.000 Um, so there was an express interest in having data import do that. 00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:39.000 Um, do the deletion. 00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:44.000 And then there was also, like, you know, how do we account for the dependencies? 00:44:44.000 --> 00:44:48.000 I mean, it's one of the reasons why I like the tombstone idea. 00:44:48.000 --> 00:44:51.000 Because the tombstone can say, hey, at one time I existed, 00:44:51.000 --> 00:44:56.000 You know, and then, if that has… if that's encoded in a certain way… 00:44:56.000 --> 00:45:01.000 you know, that can be communicated off to all the dependencies. 00:45:01.000 --> 00:45:05.000 And if a new dependency tries to go to that record, 00:45:05.000 --> 00:45:09.000 you know, there can be this flag and say, oh, wait, you know, 00:45:09.000 --> 00:45:14.000 I'm… I'm… I'm… I've been deleted, so you can't do this, or something like that. 00:45:14.000 --> 00:45:17.000 But you're right, maybe… 00:45:17.000 --> 00:45:19.000 Maybe we should go back… I, you know… 00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:21.000 At this point, I'm not sure… 00:45:21.000 --> 00:45:25.000 Because we all want deletion in some way, and there's… 00:45:25.000 --> 00:45:29.000 multiple use cases, you know, for… 00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:35.000 you know, preserving some of the dependencies, but also just getting rid of junk data. 00:45:35.000 --> 00:45:38.000 So maybe we need to go back to… 00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:43.000 The technical council. Another idea that I had was that 00:45:43.000 --> 00:45:47.000 Um, the Product Council is looking for ideas from the SIGS. 00:45:47.000 --> 00:45:50.000 on, you know, questions… 00:45:50.000 --> 00:45:54.000 For, uh, folio in general on how to implement stuff. 00:45:54.000 --> 00:45:56.000 So I thought of maybe bringing this up. 00:45:56.000 --> 00:45:59.000 in that conversation? 00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:02.000 Um… 00:46:02.000 --> 00:46:07.000 And then, Owen, I'm reading your… 00:46:07.000 --> 00:46:10.000 your, um, chat. 00:46:10.000 --> 00:46:14.000 Um, does anyone else have any? 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:29.000 Any thoughts to share? 00:46:29.000 --> 00:46:35.000 And I noticed, Owen, you mentioned prioritization, and Tara, you mentioned that as well. 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:39.000 I was wondering if you could expand on that idea. 00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:45.000 of prioritization, rather than being… not being possible. 00:46:45.000 --> 00:46:49.000 Well, I mean, it's just, like, who's gonna do the work? Like, who's… 00:46:49.000 --> 00:46:55.000 I mean, I say who's… where does the… where… where does the resource come from to get the work done? 00:46:55.000 --> 00:46:57.000 is maybe the best way of… 00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:00.000 saying this, um… 00:47:00.000 --> 00:47:03.000 In cereals, that work has been… 00:47:03.000 --> 00:47:08.000 pay was paid for by a combination of GBP and… 00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:10.000 Um… 00:47:10.000 --> 00:47:12.000 Duke, originally. 00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:14.000 If they had said, 00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:18.000 And we have to have… 00:47:18.000 --> 00:47:21.000 batch deletion in serials. 00:47:21.000 --> 00:47:25.000 And this is how it should work, then that would have been done. 00:47:25.000 --> 00:47:28.000 I mean, given there was… 00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:33.000 resource available to do it, and it was the most important thing to be done at that time. 00:47:33.000 --> 00:47:37.000 And… 00:47:37.000 --> 00:47:42.000 Obviously, different modules have different methods of prioritizing what gets done next, 00:47:42.000 --> 00:47:47.000 But, um… generally, at the heart of it, in my view, 00:47:47.000 --> 00:47:52.000 somebody's having to pay for that to happen. So… 00:47:52.000 --> 00:47:57.000 it gets prioritized when 00:47:57.000 --> 00:48:01.000 there is resource available to do it. 00:48:01.000 --> 00:48:07.000 And if you pay for it, then you are providing the resource available to do it, so therefore you 00:48:07.000 --> 00:48:11.000 you can prioritize it. Um… 00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:14.000 that's not to say there aren't other mechanisms for prioritizing things. 00:48:14.000 --> 00:48:18.000 like, the SIGs prioritize things, and they're often… 00:48:18.000 --> 00:48:20.000 added to the list of things to get done. 00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:22.000 And they do get done. 00:48:22.000 --> 00:48:27.000 Um, but it… that's a slightly less direct route than… 00:48:27.000 --> 00:48:29.000 money on the table, um… 00:48:29.000 --> 00:48:34.000 Certainly, in my experience, and certainly for the modules that I'm responsible for, 00:48:34.000 --> 00:48:36.000 Um… 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:40.000 the… 00:48:40.000 --> 00:48:42.000 Yeah. Um… 00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:50.000 So… 00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:58.000 Yeah, no, I mean, I can see that prioritization and money is a big part of this, and. 00:48:58.000 --> 00:49:21.000 I guess, you know, my question is… Is it the sense of this group that… Um, prioritization is the blocker for this, or… Is it that there isn't, like, consensus and a holistic plan for how individual modules should handle? 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:33.000 deletes. Um, like, do we need principles that are shared across folio for deletion and, you know. 00:49:33.000 --> 00:49:56.000 interdependency between modules. So that, you know, if the prioritization is happening and the individual sigs and, you know, the modules that they have stewardship for that they can feel empowered to move forward with that. 00:49:56.000 --> 00:50:03.000 I think a part of this is like the lack of a process. 00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:20.000 And… uh, like, how do we get this to move forward? Because, you know, we are prioritizing things. But I guess in the data import SIG, we don't feel like we are empowered to prioritize this, that there's a lot of. 00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:39.000 unknowns, and a lot of, um… you know, engagement and decisions that need to be made outside of the data import SIG before we can actually prioritize this work. And maybe that's not the case. 00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:45.000 And that, yeah, as you were saying that, Christy and Owen posted in chat, 00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:50.000 Uh, you know, that was the discussion of, you know, that… one of those original documents. 00:50:50.000 --> 00:50:53.000 was consistency across the ops. 00:50:53.000 --> 00:50:57.000 Um, you know, um, because there's… 00:50:57.000 --> 00:51:00.000 delete. There's consistency issues. 00:51:00.000 --> 00:51:07.000 more than with delete, but if that document lays it out, maybe that's a good starting point. 00:51:07.000 --> 00:51:09.000 And… 00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:16.000 Sorry, give me a second. 00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:21.000 Sorry, my voice just went. Um, so maybe we could use that document 00:51:21.000 --> 00:51:26.000 as a starting point, and maybe we should go back to… 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:30.000 Um, both the technical council as well as the product council, 00:51:30.000 --> 00:51:33.000 to see if this is something… 00:51:33.000 --> 00:51:35.000 that we can now get started on, 00:51:35.000 --> 00:51:40.000 And then, you know, discuss how we prioritize that. 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:44.000 Or, you know, how do we ensure consistency 00:51:44.000 --> 00:51:47.000 of, you know, the development teams that are… 00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:48.000 that are working on delete Owen? 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:52.000 Yeah, I see Christy somewhere. 00:51:52.000 --> 00:51:56.000 Yeah, so that… that previous discussion in the document I keep mentioning, 00:51:56.000 --> 00:51:58.000 That said… 00:51:58.000 --> 00:52:04.000 how a delete should be handled. I, like… 00:52:04.000 --> 00:52:06.000 that when you deleted something, 00:52:06.000 --> 00:52:10.000 you could publish a message saying, 00:52:10.000 --> 00:52:13.000 It had been deleted, and that was… 00:52:13.000 --> 00:52:15.000 Um… 00:52:15.000 --> 00:52:17.000 the… 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:21.000 Um… 00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:25.000 So that does not include the… that… that… 00:52:25.000 --> 00:52:33.000 proposal, or that… that… well, I say proposal, it was a proposal that I worked on, but it was accepted by the Technical Council, so it's an accepted recommendation. 00:52:33.000 --> 00:52:35.000 Um, the, um… 00:52:35.000 --> 00:52:39.000 doesn't, uh, take into consideration the block 00:52:39.000 --> 00:52:42.000 um, action. So… 00:52:42.000 --> 00:52:45.000 which I think this… this discussion has said, kind of, doesn 00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:54.000 you know, isn't what we're aiming at, but that question about actually not allowing a delete because other things rely on it is not handled by the 00:52:54.000 --> 00:52:57.000 by that recommendation. That recommendation says delete it, 00:52:57.000 --> 00:52:59.000 And then tell everybody you've deleted it. 00:52:59.000 --> 00:53:03.000 not, um… and this is how you should do that. 00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:06.000 Um… 00:53:06.000 --> 00:53:12.000 In terms of, like, whether there should be other things, I think, like, there is… 00:53:12.000 --> 00:53:13.000 you know, there could be other 00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:17.000 things that we could agree on as a community, things like the two, you know, 00:53:17.000 --> 00:53:24.000 what tombstoming looks like, what soft delete looks like, you know, those are things that we could agree, but I don't think they're necessary for… 00:53:24.000 --> 00:53:35.000 deletion to exist in the system. 00:53:35.000 --> 00:53:54.000 Yeah, I'm just listening and I might be misunderstanding, um, but if I'm hearing sort of what you were saying, Jennifer, and thinking about what Christy was saying, um… when we've tried to look at delete in, like, a holistic way. 00:53:54.000 --> 00:54:02.000 It's gotten really bogged down. Um, but we have a use case for just data that gets created in error. 00:54:02.000 --> 00:54:18.000 Um, and so, is one of the suggestions that's kind of out here is, like, providing… an option that libraries could limit to very few people to sort of do a delete without guardrails, just for that particular use case, and maybe that could be addressed. 00:54:18.000 --> 00:54:27.000 Well, some of these more holistic, like, data should be handled in the same way type of situation could be worked on, because it seems like. 00:54:27.000 --> 00:54:30.000 One of the reasons why we can't clean up. 00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:40.000 data created. an error is because it's getting lumped in with this other type of use case for wanting to delete. 00:54:40.000 --> 00:54:41.000 And maybe that's something that could be kind of separated out. 00:54:41.000 --> 00:54:49.000 Uh, Kristen? 00:54:49.000 --> 00:54:53.000 Uh, yeah, exactly. I think it was Christy early on, 00:54:53.000 --> 00:54:56.000 Who said, or maybe it was Laura, I forget, sorry. 00:54:56.000 --> 00:54:59.000 Um, so there's… there's not just one way 00:54:59.000 --> 00:55:03.000 Uh, we should approach this. I mean, and the discrete methods 00:55:03.000 --> 00:55:06.000 are already here in many of the apps. 00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:10.000 Um, so… and there is… 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:12.000 work, you know, at least in bulk at it, to… 00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:15.000 address the, uh, batch delete of 00:55:15.000 --> 00:55:21.000 Holdings and items post-umbrella leave. 00:55:21.000 --> 00:55:26.000 So, I think the issue that I would see with… with that 00:55:26.000 --> 00:55:34.000 idea that we don't need to worry about it if it's this scenario, is that I don't know how you isolate that it's this scenario, so… 00:55:34.000 --> 00:55:36.000 I mean, I do think that 00:55:36.000 --> 00:55:43.000 If you are adding the ability to batch delete things, you are adding the ability to batch delete things, unless… 00:55:43.000 --> 00:55:49.000 You are connecting that explicitly to a function that says, 00:55:49.000 --> 00:55:53.000 I'm creating all of this stuff, I'm tracking everything that I'm creating, 00:55:53.000 --> 00:55:57.000 or updating, and then… 00:55:57.000 --> 00:55:59.000 I'm going to… 00:55:59.000 --> 00:56:03.000 keep that in memory, you know, keep a record of that so I can undo it. 00:56:03.000 --> 00:56:06.000 And put everything back to how it was before. 00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:13.000 that I can see as a… I think I put something of that nature in the chat, like, that as a function of a data import, 00:56:13.000 --> 00:56:18.000 that tracks what it's doing, and then has the ability to therefore undo all of that. 00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:21.000 I can understand. Um… 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:25.000 adding support for deleting things. 00:56:25.000 --> 00:56:27.000 en masse? 00:56:27.000 --> 00:56:33.000 like, you can't… I don't know how you would then restrict that to, oh, but only if 00:56:33.000 --> 00:56:36.000 you know, it's when I've made a mistake, because 00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:39.000 For the system, it's all just data, right? 00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:41.000 there's no way to know that. 00:56:41.000 --> 00:56:47.000 Yeah, I wasn't saying the system would know that, I was saying, like, that would be sort of the caveat emptor of the library. 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:48.000 Well, sure, yeah. 00:56:48.000 --> 00:56:56.000 Owen? 00:56:56.000 --> 00:57:19.000 Actually, I was just going to say what… what Kristen said, and what Mara is saying in chat. It's a permission. It's a permissions issue, and you know it is definitely, you know, a riskier situation, and not everybody should be able to do that or to decide that that is the approach. 00:57:19.000 --> 00:57:28.000 Um, that should be taken, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the power to do that when we need to, when we absolutely need to. 00:57:28.000 --> 00:57:29.000 And we just need to be aware of the risks, you know, in doing so. 00:57:29.000 --> 00:57:37.000 Uh, Christy? 00:57:37.000 --> 00:57:41.000 Well, we're about 5 minutes until the end of time, and this has been a really great discussion. 00:57:41.000 --> 00:57:45.000 Um, I think we have a lot to take back to… 00:57:45.000 --> 00:57:54.000 and data import, but I think also, I'm on PC, and I think I might bring this up to PC as well. 00:57:54.000 --> 00:58:02.000 In terms of, um, you know, this discussion, and where we are, and, you know, that document that was an accepted recommendation. 00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:09.000 Um, by technical counsel, and see if this is something that maybe we can… 00:58:09.000 --> 00:58:14.000 revive, um, and see how we can prioritize it. 00:58:14.000 --> 00:58:27.000 As well. Um, are there any last comments? 00:58:27.000 --> 00:58:34.000 If I could make a remark about permissions. Just that. 00:58:34.000 --> 00:58:46.000 So far, in my experience. and it's only been 28 years, but it's. 00:58:46.000 --> 00:58:55.000 When it comes to permissions, um… There is… there's very little malice. This is all going to be whoopsie. 00:58:55.000 --> 00:59:04.000 You know, the things you guard against mischief, malice, and whoopsie. And that's the sort of thing that can be. 00:59:04.000 --> 00:59:09.000 that can be addressed, you know, by permissions and training. 00:59:09.000 --> 00:59:10.000 And, you know… So I think that that worrying about permissions is not not an issue. 00:59:10.000 --> 00:59:22.000 to the discussion. 00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:36.000 Oh, we're getting so close, and I don't want to hold people. Um, but yeah, I… just… it's interesting to me in this conversation, like, I tried to ask this in chat, and now I'm really wondering about it. It feels like if someone commissioned this functionality, like, specific functionality to be developed, 00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:42.000 then, like, the answer would be, like, that we need to figure out all of these sort of outstanding questions. 00:59:42.000 --> 00:59:47.000 And when things go through the prioritization process in the community, it feels like… it feels like 00:59:47.000 --> 00:59:52.000 the road has to be, like, completely smooth before things can move forward. 00:59:52.000 --> 00:59:58.000 And I don't know if other SIGs feel like that, you know? Like, so it almost feels backwards, depending on which way this gets approached. 00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:00.000 Um… 01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:01.000 Yeah. So, uh, I don't know that not knowing everything at the start necessarily means that it can't move forward. 01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:12.000 Tara. 01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:17.000 And yeah, and that's a great point. I think things have been moving forward anyway. 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:19.000 Um, you know, we have… 01:00:19.000 --> 01:00:23.000 are any the set for delete, which, you know, 01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:25.000 Um, responds to certain use cases. 01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:30.000 Um, Bulk Edit is working on the batch, even though this is post-Umbrella. 01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:35.000 And we've, you know, we're MARC authorities has just put in 01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:38.000 And this is for umbrella leave, a deletion 01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:41.000 of Merck authorities in batch. 01:00:41.000 --> 01:00:44.000 Um, and so data import is looking at… 01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:52.000 just the deletion of holdings and items through data import. So, I think a lot of the discrete work is happening, 01:00:52.000 --> 01:01:00.000 And being prioritized. I think it's kind of at, um, maybe a larger level, or with different record types. 01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:02.000 Um, it's still… 01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:09.000 it's still being discussed, maybe. 01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:16.000 Oh, that's awesome, but we are at the end of the hour. 01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:19.000 So, I guess I will say thanks very much to everyone who came. 01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:20.000 Um, and I hope to hear more about this. 01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:23.000 Is my feeling. 01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:28.000 In the coming days, that was a really interesting discussion, so everyone have a great Wednesday, and I'll talk to you later. 01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:29.000 Bye. 01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:30.000 Owen, I see you're next. 01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:31.000 Thanks, everyone. 01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:37.000 Bye!