2021-04-06 Meeting notes

@Angela White

1. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1131

2.  https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1115

3. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1133

1.  This should be pretty easy to do, but do we want to do it? Mine are organized in priority order in our instance, but I only have a handful.

2. We passed this one last meeting, so yes! It seems like a good idea.

3. This seems like a good way to make data cleanup easier--in addition to imports, most of the errors my students make is related to mis-categorizing subjects and agents.

1. Pass - sorting options in preferences (alphabetical, create date) - trivial

2. Already passed

3. Needs spec - needs more info

@Althea Topek

1. I think this happens because the DO unique identifier doesn’t export in the xml so duplicate DOs can be created when importing.

2. Is there enough information in this ticket to move forward?

3. I didn’t have this experience while running other reports but there is a considerable amount of white space. Can this be cut down?

1.  Hold - discuss with Matthew

2.  Pass - project

3.  Pass - project

@Randy Kuehn

1. Recommend: pass

2. Recommend: pass
   (similar to #3)
   Add ability to create MARC record from accession record to retain accession record details (provenance) and avoid duplicate work

3. Recommend: pass
   (similar to #2)
   Question: Are there any other accession export options that would be helpful?

1. Pass

2.  Needs spec - pass to Metadata Standards for input

3. Close - dupe

@Daniel Michelson

1. This was approved for implementation at a minor priority one year ago, with the agreement that the priority should be increased once SAA Council approved the new required element. This has now happened, so I recommend increasing this to critical.

2. We reviewed this ticket in October and decided that it needed a specification. This has now been written. The customization aspects are clearly scoped and make sense, but I’m not convinced there’s a reason to change the default order. I recommend passing as a major priority, possibly with the changes to the default order removed.

3. This ticket wants to make have agents and subjects inherit upwards, so that an agent linked at an archival object record would appear in the resource record. I strongly oppose this idea, as it would result in bloated and unhelpful collection level records and promote poor metadata practice.

4. This ticket is looking to have different options for controlled value lists for individual repositories. While it is important for controlled values to be shared among all repositories, having the ability to customize by repository which values actually appear in drop downs seems useful.

1. Dan will investigate (critical issue)

2. Pass - major

3. Close - Will not do - too repository specific

4. Pass - other supression work needs to be accomplished beforehand

@saron tran

1. Recommend: pass – should it display in the PUI only if the config.rb is set? Miloche suggested it should be in the finding aid section.

2. Recommend: pass – Marcella and Miloche agreed that “Search Collection” box in the PUI should include results from the Index Note.

3. Recommend: pass – The mockup provided is a good example. This functionality exists in Primo. And the added enhancement of batching would be nice too.

1. Need more info - tag Andrew Morrison

2. Pass - dependent on #3

3. Pass

@Maggie Hughes

1. Would need a final specification. Suggest review by Usability sub-team. What work is going on PUI right now (anything related to Yale’s PUI)? Is there a comprehensive review of PUI going on or planned? Yale’s does not repeat the hierarchy on the right side (https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/5/resources/351/collection_organization) while the out-of-the-box ASpace PUI does (http://sandbox.archivesspace.org/public/repositories/2/resources/1/collection_organization).

2.  

3.  

1. Waiting more info - pui will be changing - need to evaluate put

2.  

3.  

@Matthew Neely