...
Christine has indicated to me that they shall not be available to attend the meeting scheduled today, as they are attending the ArchivesSpace Southeast Regional Forum.
Introductions
Review the Reviewing Metadata Tickets
Most of these are namespacing issues, we don’t need to weight in on these
Unless the developers need us to provide specific information
AMW943: Export accession record as MARC record
This seems like use case we should support
Accessioning then creating a catalog record, seems like a reasonable proposal
Any thoughts?
Specific point on the provenance data is a separate discussion
EAD has two potential fields…and that wouldn’t directly map to a single field
MARC might also suffer from this problem
...
Converting accession records to MARC records might be blocked by this, given how the accession records currently work within the system
Columbia Libraries accessions everything and then export the MARC using the resource record rather than the accession record
We looked at this, and let it go through
...
All concur, no comments on this issue
...
Developer Prioritization (Dev. Pri.)
Questions Regarding the Review Process
New usability sub-team and advisory council will have a similar role
...
to what we are looking to fulfill
Dev. Pri. will find usability issues which require some weighing in on
...
We should peek around the meeting minutes for the Usability Sub-Team to evaluate what they are doing
Dev. Pri. is tagging
...
issues with the “metadata” label which may or may not require our input
We should leave a comment for cases where the issue looks like it requires input
ANW320
On 10/08, Dan left a note, sub-team found that there was insufficient information
Many times there will be tickets which do not outline the entire solution
Program team does not want any tickets which reach them which do not outline an explicit path to be taken for a solution
Dev. Pri. does not feel as if this is their role either
...
They do feel as if they have some freedom in order to provide some guidance for a solution
This ticket is missing a recommendation for the best option forward, and metadata standards should inform this
Dan confirmed that the case was that the tag “metadata” was applied in response to this
Dev. Pri. might also want to be in the position where a separate label “metadata-standards” is applied, as there might be tickets where “metadata” is applied but where the input from this sub-team is not required
Dev. Pri. will try to be more explicit regarding what is needed in terms of when input is needed in order to proceed with making a ticket actionable
Evaluate the volume of the tickets, and perhaps we might need a separate meeting for triaging these tickets
December TAC Meeting
We have been charged with leading a discussion for the December TAC Meeting
Topic Proposals:
Report out the tiers of metadata standards
Introduce our sample records in GitHub and exploring how we can use our repository to provide other services which are useful for the community
We can take on a documentation statement (which would be proposed before the agenda is finalized for the meeting)
This is a new sub-team, and we can use this is a time where we can request feedback or guidance from other members of TAC
“This is what we are thinking, we would like TAC to kick this around…”
If there are needs for this sub-team, please note that it is appropriate to share these questions and concerns with the rest of TAC
Sharing path forward for exports, GitHub repos, what we have achieved thus far, and requesting feedback
We will have one more sub-team call scheduled before that meeting takes place
We should draft and finalize a paragraph outlining what we are going to address for the TAC meeting
All
...
concurred with this
GitHub
Two presences on GitHub, a dedicated organization and a repository
...