We’d rejected a similar request in a previous ticket, but this one has much clearer reasoning. Keep open.
I don’t see anything in this ticket that requires review by the Metadata Standards team. It’s a straightforward request for a new feature. Since it’s in reference to a plugin, recommend assigning to community developer.
Same as previous, except that I’m not sure there’s enough information for sending to community developer. Change to either ready for community developer or awaiting more information.
Same as 3
Same as 3
Not sure about this ticket, there’s no real information in it. What would we be asking Metadata Standards to weigh in on?
This should be sent to Metadata Standards to determine whether VRA Core export for digital objects is an appropriate goal (I suspect the answer is no, but I’m not familiar with VRA).
Keep open and circle back. Add link to ANW-775 and say work on ANW-504 is dependent on ANW-775.
2-5. All valid vocabularies and the question is whether they should be prioritized. Pass all and put in Awaiting Prioritization. Leave comments that we recommend community work to put together a spec.
6. Could be a Master ticket in need of sub-task tickets. Add a comment that this is a Master ticket to corral the topic. Create an EAD3 import map ticket and link as a sub-task ticket. Link other existing EAD3-related tickets as sub-tasks tickets to ANW-472.
7. Move to Metadata Standards swim lane for comment.
Unanimously positive responses about this ticket after sharing it on the list. However, it would be a lot of work. Maybe put it on the community developer list?
Usability looked at this and thinks it looks good with Ed’s final comments. Pass?
very old, mostly fixed. close?
Pass?
Pass
close - too niche and old
close - too niche and old
Pass and move to Community Developer. Change priority to Minor.
Pass. Change priority to Minor. Leave comment to check what’s Harvard’s doing.
skip
Close. [Lydia: didn’t we agree to pass this?]
Pass. Community Developer queue. Trivial priority.
No activity since 2016- last comment suggests issue may be resolved. Close?
2. This hasn’t been updated in several years, though issue may still be relevant. Needs more information.
3. Request is clarified in comments, but the ticket has not been updated since 2015. Close?
4. This seems to fit into the larger set of recommendations regarding the user interface. Recommend closing this specific ticket.
5. Further info/mapping was supplied by Cory Nimer a couple of months ago, in response to DevPri request- pass on?
6. Have not been able to replicate issue but would be curious if others have had it- agree with 2018 DevPri recommendation to solicit input from users.
7. While not as immediate as having location information directly within a resource/ accession, the top container management functionality does do what this request is asking (show all locations associated with a resource/accession). Recommend closing.
8. This ticket and associated tickets have not been worked on for several years. Close?
Close.
Close. Leave comment that if still interested please comment with new info and we’ll re-open.
Pass. Minor priority.
Close with comment that this is superseded by other recommendations.
Pass.
Close. Leave comment that closing because it doesn’t seem like it’s an issue. Please submit a new ticket if the issue occurs.
Close because ticket is out of date.
Leave comment that keeping it open as pointer to other things. Keep in Awaiting in More Info.
This is an interesting idea but I don’t know what is involved in implementation. Would need to expose a resolvable URL for the XML. You can already harvest EAD through OAI. Needs more info?
This was discussed in a Dev. Pri. meeting back in 2018. Not clear what the result was - 2018-01-11 Development Prioritization Sub-team Meeting. There have been a few comments on the ticket since then supporting the development of this feature. Seems doable but not sure about a community developer - resource-accession relationships are stored in the spawned_rlshp table (even if the resource wasn’t spawned from the accession) so would need to update that + the archival object views + possibly more that I am not aware of?
Pass.
Comment on needing more information on what would be needed (what goes in <recordid>? etc). Add link to EAD3 master ticket (ANW-???). Put in Awaiting More Info.
Pass. Add link to ANW-616 and comment on both that they’ll be easier if worked on together. Add to Community Developer.
Still relevant, several review and revise tickets exist that should be done. Keep as is. Give to Metadata Standards?
Usability team wants this feature. More info is still needed due to infinite scroll issue.
Usability closed this ticket. So keep closed.
Recommend closing this. Not only is is from 2014 but Dev. Pri. already agreed once that the current default behavior is wanted. A plugin could resolve a particular Institution’s custom desires. Close this.
I have had issues with adding users while having ldap active. You blindly have to add the user with a random password. I would like for this issue to be passed.
This is still relevant and would work well with ANW-523 so maybe link both of them. Both would require assistance from an institution with ldap.
This seems a duplicate of ANW-523 so we might want to merge them and close one. Again, the idea is sound and should be passed once there is enough info.
Close.
Close.
Keep as is.
Close.
Close and leave comment.
Duplicate with ANW-544. Mark as duplicate and close (make sure to pull relevant info over to 544). Link ANW-544 and ANW-458.
Tested in v2.7.0 and is no longer an issue. Rec: close.
Confirmed that EAD tags for bold text are still not working in PUI. Not sure what the preferred tag is/does it matter – the ticket uses span. <span> is html, <emph> and <title> are EAD. Doesn’t display in PUI:<span class="bold emph">, <emph render="bold">, or just <emph>. <title render="italic">does work, but changing the attribute value to “bold” doesn’t change it. Rec: pass.
Confirmed issue in v2.7.0. Also noticed in MARCXML export that some relator terms export as translated and some as code. Rec: pass.
Grouping/Parent Ticket: ANW-638 2017 post suggested revised mapping - waiting on comments
Lacking activity
More of overall tasks, then specific issues. Do any these tickets need to keep hanging? Probably not. Eventually, the Metadata Standards might suggest which mappings we need or need to be revisited.
tickets 2-7: CLOSE
[Note #7 has a spec - can this be acted on? Should the ticket remain open?]
Master ticket grouping wrap-in tag work. Put this on future agenda, to evaluate all open 5 sub-task tickets. Comment on ANW-392 that this is a master ticket and shouldn’t be touched as its grouping similar work.