This ticket wants the ability to include additional descriptive metadata elements to the bulk digital object importer. We’d previously been unwilling to make changes to the abilities to add descriptive metadata to digital objects, due to the question of whether such data should even be part of the digital object schema. With the recent community meeting on digital objects, are we at the point where we can make a decision?
This ticket is a little confusing. I think it’s basically just asking for the ability to bulk edit the File URI field in the file version subrecord in digital objects. I’ve asked the submitter to clarify on the ticket.
This ticket wants the ability to generate bulk dates via the date calculator “by determining the first and last date within one standard deviation of the average date and providing these as the bulk date range.” This is a very interesting idea, but raises the question of whether this is something that would reliably create accurate bulk dates, given that the number of date subrecords does not necessarily correspond with the extent of material.
Pass
Awaiting more information
Close. Suggest looking at plugin to achieve this.
@Randy Kuehn
Pass - OAI error response should be in the proper format - example in ticket (submitted by LYRASIS)
Unable to reproduce - Requires LDAP authentication setup - source.inspect appears in authentication_manager.rb (Log.error("Error communicating with authentication source #{source.inspect}: #{$!}")) - Recommend Pass to Development to check current version / redact password
Pass - Confirmed :frontend_branding_img logo does not resize automagically on staff-side - Recommend responsive design
Pass
Pass (unclear if stil an issue in later versions)
Pass
@Matthew Neely
Had difficulty replicating but the ticket is saying that browsing and then filtering from the Controlled Value list - processing status, is not working correctly. Followed the route in the ticket and went from 7 results to 181 results using the same filter. Suggest passing as appears to be a bug.
Identified in testing of ANW-901. Agent contact details are being indexed and impacting on search results. They should not be indexed. Recommend passing.
This ticket also relates to ANW-1206 and is seeking a way for digitized materials to be surfaced in search results and visually in the PUI. Agree that this would be beneficial to researchers but issue of digitized items and resources records having different titles could addressed through metadata workflows. I think this would be good functionality but needs a full specification and discussion with community around use of digital objects.
Pass
Pass
Close. Part of ticket moved to ANW-1206.
@Keli Schmid
@Matt Strauss
Pass. I could see this being a frequently used feature. The tickets states that this is already a feature in the PUI (though I haven’t been able to independently confirm this).
Discussed previously at the Feb. 2022 Dev/Pri meeting along with ANW-1295. A spec was requested after that meeting, but it doesn’t look like one has been provided. At a recent Digital Objects Member Discussion, poll results were shared that suggests that the ability to bulk edit digital objects would be widely used. I suggest reiterating the need for a spec so that this can move forward.
Discussed previously along with ANW-1293, at which point more information was requested. I think this request would result in taking a two-click operation down to one. In terms of development around digital objects, it might make more sense to devote resources towards adding functionality rather making exiting functionality slightly more streamlined.
Pass
Awaiting more information. Specification needed.
Close.
@Tom Steele
This problem is one I have noticed but assumed it was working as intended. The problem is these subjects get their type from the Occupation field. I personally have been merging them with subjects with the same name with type Topic because I feel it is more helpful to have just one entry for Presidents (or whatever the occupation is) instead of 2. Do we need more feedback on this or should Occupation be changed in the LCNAF to Topic to avoid duplicate subject headings? The user assumes it's lack of identifiers but from my experience I'm also positive it's the Occupation type that is making the plugin not see it as a duplicate.
We discussed this before but it's now more clear what the user wants. my question is should it be an exact match of the parallel name or should a keyword search for "Free church" then come up with "search under (display name)"?
I was able to duplicate the problem. recommend pass.