2022-03-01 Meeting notes

@saron tran

https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1339

1. Pass. But I think the idea could be flushed out more with more details of how it would work and how other similar scenarios would work.

2. Pass. It could be fixed for this specific error but this wording might be prevalent elsewhere. I took a quick look and it is not a localized term. And is probably coming from the variable name. There are over 800 instances (across 71 files) of the term in the code base but not all would cause an end-user to see it.

3. This one goes back to previous discussions and how things should work with preferences. Once that work is done I think it would clarify and suffice in this scenario too.

1. Pass

2. Pass, but for a better error message

3. Pass, change default in preferences to “on”

@Angela White

1. Lydia wants a type-ahead feature for report keywords and expandable browsing categories based on topics. She also prefers that results in the export not be one per page, as there’s lots of wasted space. The latter two of these seem like a good idea, but I’m not sure if this first is necessary if the second is implemented/

2. Nancy wants CSV downloads for Collection Management, Container Profiles, and Background Jobs. Container profiles already have a CSV download option, but she also identifies such an easy workaround for the others that it doesn’t seem necessary. Recommend closing.

3. Dan wants to see barcodes appear at the end of the title string for location records. This would be consistent with the way top container barcodes are represented. Hopefully this is an easy fix? Pass.

4. It looks like we’re waiting on a specification, so I think we should table it until there’s more detail.

1. Close, 3 already approved, 1-2 not necessary (can close ANW-1030)

2. Pass (related to ANW-1423)

3. Pass

4. Broader issue of spawning from accession records, recommend mapping to Custodial history (awaiting more info), problem is with MARC mapping, too
   
   

@Tom Steele

1. I have no experience with container profiles, the request seems reasonable. pass. minor priority.

2. Metadata Standards seems to have handled this one. Pass.

3. I can't determine what is meant by "processing status."

1. Community development, trivial

2. Pass

3. Plugin

@Althea Topek

1. pass

2. The “type” and “status” options are defined by PREMIS so I’m not opposed to this but it doesn’t look like we can change.

3. Could not reproduce.

1. Bug, pass, but need to know where they go

2. PREMIS doesn’t allow this, use “other rights basis” is an editable controlled value, as stopgap. Close.

3. Close.

@Randy Kuehn

1. I think we had a conversation about this at one time but I can’t seem to find the notes on the topic.

2. Close
   Custom reports in v3.2.0 should offer a solution

3. Pass
   Reviewed by Metadata Standards

1. Plugin

2. Close, resubmit if new reports feature doesn’t help, what do you mean by restriction (covers lots of things)

3. Pass

@Matthew Neely

1. This ticket requests that the ‘staff only’ button in the PUI to access the SUI also provides same functionality to ‘read only’ users as it currently does for users with edit SUI edit permissions. Recommend passing this.

2. This ticket is requesting that the extent calculator also creates a further extent for digital objects linked to the record. I can see a practical use for this but wonder if it would duplicate extents created in resource records for digital material? Might be useful for users know that there are X number of digital objects linked to a resource record.

3. Requesting alternative way to find required report on the reports page. Issue flags that the current layout is difficult for screen readers to navigate. Recommend for user testing or request a specification?

1. Pass.

2. See above

@Daniel Michelson

1. Metadata Standards just issue a call for feedback on extents for the MARC importer, so I suggest moving this ticket to awaiting more information.

2. Deaccession subrecord publishing is currently an all or nothing affair governed by a config setting. This ticket would like a publish checkbox added to the subrecord in order to selectively publish deaccession subrecords. I support this ticket, but I think the tooltip for the publish checkbox should note that it will only be published if the config option is also enabled.

3. This ticket is asking for four additional features for the Collection Management subrecords:

   1. Implement the download CSV feature from the browse view. Since this capability is already present in most browse views, it seems like it would be straightforward to do.

   2. Enable the Collection Management subrecord on archival objects, as well as resources, accessions, and digital objects. I think this is a great idea, it makes the subrecord much more flexible.

   3. Ability to set a Collection Management subrecord as completed or inactive. This functionality already exists in more flexible manner than suggested by using the “Processing Status” field.

   4. Add a “Supplies Used” field. I don’t see any downside to adding this.