Our primary work will continue to be reviewing and prioritizing tickets for development. What else? A few possibilities below (with a focus on collaboration/community feedback in line with the overall council goals):
Publicize meeting agendas within TAC/UAC (or further?) and invite people to join if interested
Present at 2023 ArchivesSpace online forum about the work of the group
Select a few “Awaiting More Information” tickets of particular value and seek additional community feedback
Agreed.
Potential
Potential
Look at process of establishing the link between subteams when tickets passed on.
Confirmed: improperly formatted archival object title tag can lead to title not displaying in folder tree (v3.2.0)
Recommend waiting on implementation of
@Brian Hoffman will test.
Pass
Wait for implemenation of ANW-859
@Matt Strauss
Making this change would make the hyperlinked nature of classification terms more apparent.
Currently only the main classification term will display in search results. Making this change would enable classification sub-terms to also appear in search results. If the main terms are already part of the search results, it seems logical and useful for the sub-terms to also behave this way.
Ticket requests the ability to limit searches within classifications. Ticket originally submitted in 2019; at that time, it was decided to solicit feedback from the community regarding the usefulness of the proposed change. I would like to learn more about that process and how to determine what (if any) feedback was received. Feature could be useful. Potential workaround would be to include a unique classification identifier in search.
Pass
Pass
Awaiting more information
@Althea Topek
pass
who owns the accession import template?
is Anne’s comment from July enough of a specification?
Comment - ask Lora if the solution is a wrap around
Pass
Pass
Pass
Usability to recommend best practice
@Brian Hoffman
Awaiting more information.
@Tom Steele
no comment really, it is labeled awaiting further information. What information do we need?
I believe this one is asking for EAC-CPF to be an export option. Pass.
This indeed is a problem. I did test out of curiosity if merging records can also duplicate subjects/agents (merging two agents attached to a resource did not create two identical links). Merits further discussion about the application of the uniqueness constraint.
Refer to Metadata standards
Close. They are plugins that can do this.
@Keli Schmid
@Daniel Michelson
At a recent meeting, we’d decided to close this ticket as being resolved by ANW-1095, but Kevin Schlottmann pointed out that ANW-1095 does not address the MARC compatibility issue. I recommend passing this ticket as allowing the agent link for creators to be designated as primary to support MARC import/export. Also, as either part of this ticket or as a separate ticket, the EAD export should be changed to have all creators included in the origination field in line with ANW-1095.
This ticket wants agents and subjects alphabetized in the PUI and in exports. This seems helpful, but it is necessary to implement ANW-504 first to avoid breaking MARC compatibility.
This ticket wants to limit the ability to share certain information between repositories designated repositories to support multi-institution installations. In this (now outdated) example, an installation with five repositories would have three of the repositories sharing certain portions of agent records (such as contacts), but the others would not share that information (except under certain unclear circumstances). The complexities of attempting such work seem quite daunting and the original authors of the request (Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Hampshire Colleges) are no longer planning a multi-institution installation, so I recommend closing the ticket.
@Matthew Neely
Ticket requesting functionality for admin user to be able to suppress fields in the SUI not included in an institution’s metadata schema. This ticket was previously discussed at Dev Pri in 2020. I think there is merit in this but I recall that discussions at the time suggested that this could be addressed by training and metadata documentation. I do think there would be usability benefits in being able to customise fields to only those required by an institution.
This ticket is seeking a report to be generated on all imported record types (EAD, MARC etc). The report would indicate which elements, with their values, have been imported. Ticket was created by Metadata Standards who have also offered to provide further examples and input. Suggest asking Metadata Standards for a specification?
Ticket requesting ability for the Digital Object template to have multiple agents/subujects imported with a DO. Currently only does 1. Comments have suggested other paths for importing DOs with multiple subjects. Suggest community development?