This ticket is requesting a spreadsheet import or RDE function to create container profiles. Agree this would be very helpful and save a great deal of time. Suggest this needs a specification and then community development? Ticket is also requesting this for locations but batch location creation functionality already exists in the SUI and CSV import available from ASpace 3.0 onwards.
This ticket is requesting a CSV import function to bulk update top containers and locations across multiple resources. Agree this would be highly useful. Suggest requesting a specification.
This ticket is requesting an update to the Top Container CSV import template so that locations can also be imported and associated with resource and accession records. Recommend this is useful functionality and pass this.
Awaiting more information. Add link to ANW-1562 and ANW-1622.
Awaiting more information. Add link to ANW-1496 and ANW-1622.
Awaiting more information. Add link to ANW-1496 and ANW-1622.
This should move forward with… medium? priority. It is not critical to the functionality of ASpace, but would make a world of difference and would be extremely beneficial
Absolutely. This is not just a staff issue and is not limited to identifier searches. Even when the sort by relevancy option is selected, the most relevant search results are often far down on the results page. Again, not a critical fix, but would produce a “works as expected” result
Agreed - location search results do not appear according to relevancy, but rather are in alpha/numerical order. Sometimes the desired location does not appear at all. Adding a [space] after the search term narrows down the search results, but they are still displayed in alpha/numerical order. It seems the majority of users expect their search results to display according to relevance
1.Ticket previously discussed at September meeting. Requester has subsequently provided more details about their use case. They are using classifications for different collecting areas (i.e. college archives, Quaker collections, etc.) and would like users to be able to limit their search within a classification. Repositories can be searched in this manner. This feature ability could also be useful to other organizations using classifications in this way. I’d recommend passing, but with perhaps low priority.
2. Requester would like an email to be automatically sent to the staff member identified in the “who needs to review” field in an assessment record. Seems like a very specific use case. Simplest option would be for the user’s organization to outline this workflow in their local documentation. Assuming there aren’t a ton of other users interested in a feature like this, I’d recommend looking into a plug-in or community development if possible.
3. Requestor would like the ability to schedule reports and have the results emailed to specified address. This is a feature that one can sometimes find in Integrated Library Systems. Could be a nice feature, but shouldn’t take a away from critical development needs. One could also just set up reminders for themselves to run these reports. I'd recommend community development for this.
Pass
Close - would be a large scale project that would need significant demand to be considered viable for development resources. Recommend a plugin if functionality required.
This request makes sense to me. Pass, minor priority.
This one seems to be a mess to me. I can import the 3 headings in the ticket, no problem. However, the import puts the qualifiers in the primary part of the name. The location field is empty. If i fill out the location field, it displays as Daly's Theatre (London, England) (London, England). if i remove it from the primary part of the name, it does say it's a duplicate heading. it doesn't check location for a duplicate heading. However since London, England is a qualifier it's more appropriate to put it in the qualifier field, but once again, the location field will also show which is redundant. So it's best for display purposes to put the location in the qualifier or primary part of name. Of course, this is probably due to MARC mapping, which location is actually a 110 $c. While the qualifer in this instance is part of the 110 $a. It seems their work around could be the proper way to enter. Perhaps the location field should be changed to location of meeting to avoid confusion, since in this case the location is a qualifer and not a $c. I know this is MARC terms but cataloging rules only ask for a location to display for a corporate heading if it's a qualifer, or location of meeting, which are two separate things I think.
I don't know EAD, and the ticket doesn't make clear WHY they want this change. Should we ask why before we pass?
Pass
Pass. Location should be checked before marked as duplicate.
This ticket wants the collection organization sidebar to include “container information (i.e. box & folder number; accession number, etc.).” Since the purpose of the sidebar is for navigation, it is intentionally sparse in what it displays. Further, it’s not clear what is meant by “container information”, since accession number is not part of the data model for top containers. In sum, this is a request for something that is specific to as single implementation and I suggest closing it and recommending they pursue a plugin if this feature is desirable.
The bulk import spreadsheet does not require an exact match of top container information, which can result in incorrect matches under certain circumstances. I recommend passing for development to have the import only match with a top container if the container type and container indicator field in the spreadsheet is an exact match.
Ampersands aren’t escaped during EAD export if it is within content with embedded <p> tags. This was clearly done intentionally based on the comments in the linked code, but I’m not clear on why that would be the case.