Page Comparison

Announcements/Questions?

Maggie Hughes has agreed to be our co-leader!

Do we need to maintain an Annual Work plan? https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/260571148/2017-2018+Development+Prioritization+Work+Plan

Should this be updated/archived or scrapped?

• Work Plan discussion brought up by Lydia

  • Patrick doesn’t think a Work Plan is really necessary for this group

  • From a program perspective, Christine said a Work Plan might not be necessary

  • Have to be careful for the ambition of a plan not to outstretch the resources

  • Lydia suggests we leave the plan as an archived page. The group agrees

• Maggie Hughes will be a co-leader moving forwards

Bill

Bill

Bill

Julia

Julia

Julia

Patrick

Waiting on detailed spec for MARC import. Jason Loeffler (Unlicensed) had set he’d take a stab at it.

[From Lydia: Jason may not be active any longer on the project. if not, should we solicit the community for volunteer(s) to tackle this? Sue Luftshein and Cory Nimer tend to help out a lot with MARC issues, maybe they could help?

• Move to awaiting more information

• Patrick Galligan (Unlicensed) will comment on the ticket asking if Sue or Cory can mark up some suggested mapping

Patrick

Was unable to duplicate due to being a years-old issue with migrating from Archon. “Prioritization sub-team concurs other URL should map to external document sub-record since URL is easily actionable in that point.”

• Christine doesn’t think any mapping changes have been made to the Archon tool.

• Laney concurs that mapping probably hasn’t changed.

• According to Laney the work’s already been done.

• Marked as closed

Patrick

Confirmed and duplicated. Agree that this is a minor priority and should go forward as a bug.

• Moving ahead to ready for development.

Alicia

Rec: pass; implementation seems relatively simple - see JS snippet from local plugin on ticket

• Recommends passing

• Also in Laney’s list, and she thinks it should be configurable.

• Add an option in the config file to expand it or not

• Passed

Alicia

Rec: awaiting more info/support from community. No new activity or votes on the ticket since Feb. 2018. Search can be tricky to implement (right?) so need confirmation that this is a widely desired feature.

• Awaiting more information because we’re seeking more community feedback

Alicia

Rec: don’t pass. Does not seem like there is enough room for this on the side navigation pane, and physical storage info is already in the collection organization view.

• Closing because of redundancy based on current PUI

Edgar

Rec: Pass with the comments

• Recommends passing based on special characters that are well-documented

• Lydia asked if it could be configurable, and Lora suggested that would make it more challenging

• Will share on user list for more information

• Awaiting More Information

Edgar

Rec: Close; versions get added to daogrp

• Christine believes this might already be happening based on another ticket

• Edgar will go back and test thisGarcia (Unlicensed) recommends that we close this

• Ticket Closed

Edgar

Rec: Discuss and possibly ask for more information

• Awaiting More Information

• Adding a “mixed_content” label to help round up related tickets

Lora/Laney

Rec: Pass. Note: PDF generation is done differently from the staff and public UIs and I believe this is for both PDF exports.

• Laney believes that this should be passed because there’s enough information

• Pass, Ready for Implementation and there’s enough info in the ticket and comments

Lora/Laney

Rec: Pass. Steve has a solution. One question for the group - should it be configurable?

• Duplicate ticket

Terra

• Discussing even without Terra

• Will need to get community input for mapping

• Lydia Tang (Unlicensed) will share this on the list and see if others are willing to pick this up

Terra

Terra

Lydia

Definitely still an issue. SIEWG has specs on it. A member institution was going to fund/contribute code fixing this. What is that project’s status? Rec: pass?

• RFP didn’t come through with a developer for this work

• Harvard tried to pick up the container portion of this work, but doesn’t match up with the RFP

• Lydia Tang (Unlicensed) suggested that we close 567 and redirect to ticket 571

• Lydia Tang (Unlicensed) is going to open 571 and move to Ready for Implementation and close 567 as a duplicate

Lydia

SIEWG recs on this or relating to this. Rec: pass?

• Moving to Awaiting More Information for a mock-up

Lydia

I recommended that it should go to the Reports subteam to become a report. It’s unclear about how the alert should happen. Email someone? Who? Unfortunately, may need to keep it into Awaiting More Info, unless a decision to kick it to Reports is endorsed.

• Patrick and Lydia think a report makes more sense

• Staying in Awaiting More Information

Maggie

Pass: Confirmed still an issue in test (v2.5.1) and local instance

• Duplicated

• Passed to Ready for Implementation

Maggie

Some prior confusion ticket as to whether this work had been done. Can confirm in test (v2.5.1) that it has not been done i.e, Provenance field (Basic Info section) in Accession recs when spawned does not populate Custodial History note in Resource.

Rec: Pass. Think this is a logical, uncontroversial mapping, and widely used across institutions.

• May be able to close this issue as a duplicate

• Christine Di Bella found a link to a possible duplicate ticket

Maggie

Added comment and screenshots to ticket.

Rec: Pass. Agree that Agents as subjects should be clearly expressed, but add notes about how agents-linked-as-subjects do not appear in PUI at all currently.

• Patrick Galligan (Unlicensed) suggest that this is a bug and not shouldn’t be a feature request

• Lora Woodford checked during the meeting and was unable to duplicate on test installation

• We will revisit this ticket next time