2021-05-04 Meeting notes

@Maggie Hughes

1. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-765

2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-768

3. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-746

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. EAD3 <ref> is repeatable in all other parents, including <indexentry>. EAD2002 <ref> doesn’t explicitly say is repeatable or not. Rec: tag Metadata Standards and pass when/if they ok it.

3. Sounds like a good idea, is there a downside? Pass.

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

2. Refer to Metadata Standards

3. Close due to lack of information

@Matthew Neely

1. This ticket was first reviewed at the Dec 1 2020 Dev/Pri meeting. The requestor has now provided further information and a mock-up of the RDE templates which they would like to be made repository specifc and only users with access to the specified repository would have permissions to view and use them. I can see this being useful to institutions using multiple repositories where metadata standards may vary.

2. This ticket is requesting that the PDF generator button be deployed at all levels of a finding aid. I think this is a good idea and would be useful for users. We have implemented this at my institution and an example is here: . Yale have also implemented this: .

3. This ticket is requesting that a print button be added to the PUI which would trigger a browser’s built in print functionality, to enable users to print a cleaned version of a page. I think the PDF generator already provides a printer friendly output for the full Resource so I’m not convinced this is needed. It has been suggested in the comments that the alternative is to deploy a CSS print style sheet for the PUI.

1. Point to upcoming change to having the order be changed and seeing if it fits, and tag Angela.

2. Pass as ready for community developer and note that Oxford already has it implemented. Label needs to change to clarify that it’s printing the whole finding aid.

3. Close as duplicate of ANW-950.

@Angela White

1. This ticket asks for a user-defined vocabulary for the assessments module. I see the potential value of being able to do this, but I don’t know what it would look like in the current assessments configuration. I think we need more information before moving on this.

2. Problems loading large notes in the PUI--I’ve reached out to Mark for updates on this, but it’s an old ticket and I don’t have anything big enough to test this on my own.

3. Wants to eliminate the continuous scroll in the Collection Organization tab of the PUI. I didn’t see any obvious problems with the scrolling action in my v. 2.6, but is this something Usability should look at? Is it better to have a certain number of results per page like the Container Inventory? Why are they different?

1. Ask what the user-defined vocab is supposed to address

2. Close, can reopen if this issue still exists

3. Refer to Usability to consider whether it should be improved or eliminated

@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. Can agents be added to the Resources List Report? Should this be a new report?

3. I think this should be sorted alphabetically in the public interface - it might be less meaningful in the staff interface. In the staff interface, any linked accession or resource records don’t show IDs.

1.  Matthew will draft something for monthly e-mail seeking more feedback

2.  Close will not do, custom reports are coming or they could use SQL.

3.  Ask to break it out

@Randy Kuehn

1. Metadata Standards subcommittee approved - Recommend: move to development

2. Recommend: local plugin or community development

3. Summary: Notifications when...
   a new user profile is created and needs permissions assigned
   review a completed Assessment
   end dates for restrictions arrive
   end dates for copyright arrive
   I would also like to be able to create customizable reports
   - Where do we stand on notifications within AS?

@Daniel Michelson

1. I obviously support this ticket, the only question is whether there is enough information here to begin development.

2. This ticket has the metadata_standards_subteam label, so I suggest holding on this until they weigh in.

3. This ticket wants the contents of a note preserved when changing the note type (language in the ticket is inconsistent, but this is what they mean). I interpret this as wanting subnotes (specifically text) to remain when changing types. If this is feasible from a development perspective, I recommend passing.

1. Pass, need to get list of prepopulated controlled values

2. Wait for Metadata Standards to weigh in

3.  

@saron tran

1. does not need prioritization as ArchivesSpace can already accomplish this first part via “Download Container Labels”. They also ideally want ArchivesSpace to be integrated with the catalog which would need more details in regards to scope and specifications.

2. does not need prioritization – I could see how they plan to use something like this but not sure how useful it would be for all users of ArchivesSpace. If the consensus is this would be super useful to many then I would vote for prioritization. Miloche suggests using an outside authority control system e.g. LCNAF or SNAC for the master record and adding appropriate information in the ArchivesSpace record to ‘link’ out to these resources i.e. the Record Control Information section.

3. needs prioritized – enhancing the validator – also there might be a bug / not working as expected – see example in the Jira issue. Additional notes from Miloche: The instructions () for the container fields says: 

   the ingester will try to find an already-created Top Container in the database.

If you have defined a barcode:

If there's a match for the barcode for that resource, that Top Container will be used without further checking.Otherwise, a new Top Container will be created.

If you have not defined a barcode:

The type and indicator will be used to search the database for a Top Container that is already associated with the resource;Otherwise, a new Top Container will be created.

Which to me means if there's a Box 1 and Box 2 without a barcode in the record AND a Box 1 and Box 2 with barcodes are in the spreadsheet, new top containers should be added, i.e. the box 1 without a barcode is different from the one with a barcode.

In this scenario, you should be able to add multiple box 1's, each with different barcodes and new containers would be added for each.

So if this isn't how the importer is supposed to work, the instructions need to be updated.