I don’t know how to make this show up as a discussion across several SIGs, so I’m posting it to RA SIG and trying to tag with RM and MM SIG.
I take part in the RM SIG (which mainly covers selection and acquisitions) and to a lesser extent the MM SIG. I don’t take part in the RA SIG, but read the notes sometimes.
When it comes to the structure of location, item, and holdings data, it seems like that crosses into all 3 SIGs. I wonder if it would be useful to have an inter-SIG discussion about those topics at some point.
The one that particularly caught my eye is the location work going on in the RA SIG:
• What do we actually need to accomplish with the location hierarchy?
• How do we create a structure that leaves us open to future needs?
Digging back through some notes, it looks like location is conceived of as a very hierarchical structure, e.g. institution, campus, building, collection, shelving location. Would there be any value to flattening this out and having fewer levels? Is there value in discussing in the other SIGs? The locations will impact acquisitions (particularly if ordering/financial permissions are tied to particular locations, or if libraries are receiving shelfready materials) and metadata. Or is there a decision that RA SIG will define location structure, and the other apps of FOLIO will structure location-related work based on that design?