Page Comparison

2 mins

Intro

15 minutes

MARC importer documentation and progress

Elizabeth Roke Next and final steps?

Minutes: Elizabeth Roke proposed a compromise to the compromise: Pull all the 2xx’s out that do not meet core guidelines except the 5xx’s; for the 5xx’s, everything that is a core field gets mapped, but everything that is a 5xx just gets a mapping to a local note, like a 590. We know this a relatively big change, maybe put this in the roadmap, so that it doesn’t happen quietly . Elizabeth volunteers to write that spec, including the justification. You get a list of what was imported.

10 minutes

Data Model idea

Please help us define this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-4E1BYAGT-GCAWLZaWwtsPgeGJqnt6y04e6r82EYxCY/edit?usp=sharing

10 minutes

ANW-547

Regine Heberlein

Folder for spec documents here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1G4ACVJ9r3FUfStsnyZkDJWbyU-bErZzl

10 minutes

Updated EAD Mapping

I have asked Jared Campbell to work with some sample EAD mappings between now and the end of term.

• Key here is to to prepare for the work of next term. Some thoughts:
  The makeup of this team is always a mix of those comfortable with Ruby (to a point) versus those who are not. Suggestion: keep tasks for the EAD importer split between those a traditional archivist will feel comfortable with (verdicts on whether something should be included, DACS mapping) versus people more comfortable in code (does this import?)

• What to focus on next might not be so much what to actually do in the spreadsheet as designing the next phase of work for a team with various comfort levels.

New/Ongoing ticket review

Check for new tickets.

Review Work Plan Items

2021-2022 Metadata Sub-team Work Plan

Retrospective

Notes on being upstream:

• This is a good example of where things that the metadata group should weigh in on are buried in specification documents and tickets.  Note that the specification includes a request to amend the EAD and EAD3 exports

• Some of this feeling was generated after all the changes that came with 3.0, but we’ve moved forward on that concern forgatting that we were invited to participate and declined. So this is about aligning both our own expectations about our work and being included further upstream in changes.

• Communicate it to Christine, the developers, but also TAC and Dev Pri.

• It would help us if the name of the pull request had the ticket number; could you take us through this so that we know what's going on here?
  https://github.com/archivesspace/archivesspace/commit/988cf5f9588ee1434949d4bd4f9530aac0cbc882#diff-a505b89c3337a0bf83915fe1bd2a869567b674acfee9fd96852a0075c091fe71

• More about a heads up than an approval process; fundamental to needing to track changes to documentation. Even if it becomes the primary job of this group to actively document and track those changes.

RiC review

• Essentially we know we absolutely must render a verdict on this, but we decline to do so on a draft. We have doubts about the stated aspirations (transmission standard, descriptive standard, one ring to rule them all). We want to be included in the decision of how ASpace reacts, and not just the recipients of said decision.

5 min

Next steps/homework