Discuss Pull requests:

Discuss Issues:

  • Inconsistency with Deprecate: (see notes from last meeting, 2022-09-12 Meeting: Continue to Review Document).
    • Continued discussion:
      • Still ok with this? Would rely on general change type activities, and require consumers to understand implicit merges/splits/deprecates.
    • Do we want a Succession activity type (when an authority was replaced vs. a changed name where the old name is still valid in some context)
      • Important to be able to understand the history of changes bc not everyone makes changes quickly.
    • Can do the processing either way, but 
    • Relying on different types of changes, one can act or ignore certain types of changes. Having the merge, split, succession, etc. upfront supports this. A simple change type doesn't.
      • TODO: Steven to redo the examples in the comments for Issue 68, later form no longer seen as a succession type because often bibs using older heading do not require a change. Also, show what a simple change type (not using succession type, requiring processing of the entity description instead) would look like.
  • Date properties:

Meeting Materials



Vitus Tang

Kevin Ford

Nancy Falgren

Dave Eichmann

Steven Folsom

  • No labels