Dev Pri requested community feedback on this ticket following our August 1, 2023 meeting.
Based on feedback, the ticket will be passed, but only what is outlined in the first part. As for the second part, there is currently a workaround (exporting and reimporting EAD). After the first part of the request is implemented, the second park could be considered.
Feature request calls for a loosening of controls on embedding EAD XML in note fields. Doing so could speed data entry for advanced users, but the application might be unable to validate the XML due to the differences in in-line encoding practice between EAD 2002 and EAD3. This may also present challenges for users unfamiliar with EAD tagging. Recommend gathering more information about alternative approaches, such as importing XML snippets or CSV files into the various list subrecords in Resource record notes.
While I was unable to reproduce this issue on the test server, it is behavior that I have seen at my own institution in the past. The steps outlined in the ticket of forcing a reindex were reported as successful in both cases.
Awaiting more Information. Cory will gather more information from the requester about other methods available to them for accomplishing this. Matthew will check with one of his colleagues about their workflow for this and add a comment to the ticket. Ticket could be brought back for consideration.
Was able to reproduce in 3.3.1. While this behavior is not confusing, some of this information can be exported by enabling the Created and Modified fields.
This is not about search results generally, but specifically about the Top Containers module. Is this an easy lift for developers?
1)From October Meeting: Please see the below draft of an email out to the the ArchivesSpace community about the potential for this update. Please see the below blurb draft to be sent out to the community:
”With the new ability to spawn digital objects from the base record, what are some additional fields/information that would be helpful to users. Currently, this increased functionality has the ability to capture basic information like title, date, and some notes, but what other information would be helpful for users? Options that have been discussed by the council have included agents and subjects linked to the spawned archival object. However, we are also would also like to better understand if there are fields/information that may be present only at the collection/series level that folks would like brought over for the digital object. Examples of this may include agents, subjects, scope and content notes, citations, access, etc.). Please contact us with your thoughts or considerations about this functionality.”
Add specific ticket to add comments to and send after January
2) I was able to replicate this issue and agree that the system should be able to switch between 1 digital object and 2+ digital objects; however, I’m not sure this is a huge issue so much as an aesthetic one. Alternative is to change language to digital object(s).
3) This ticket threw me for a little bit of a loop and I’m not entirely sure what they’re referring to. The jist is that they would like date expression to be smart enough to change depending on where in the world a user is but date expression is not a required field and the DACs recommendation would be YYYY-MM-DD which would theoretically be understood by any individual regardless of location?
1.Mattie will send this message to the listserv in January.
2.Pass – change to “object(s)” so text can apply for single and multiple items.
Close – will not do. However, making ArchivesSpace more compatible for the international community is on the roadmap and requests like this could be incorporated into that work.
Ticket is asking for thumbnails to display for different file versions of a digital object. The use case involves providing thumbnails (or icons) to an MP3 and WAV versions of a sound recording. This ticket was passed in 2022 but tabled because it conflicted with a related ticket (ANW-1209: As an archivist, I would like greater visibility of thumbnail images of digital objects and in linked recordsClosed-Complete ), which limits thumbnails/icons to one version. That feature request has now been implemented and may conflict with what is being specifically asked for here, but I do think there is utility in the ability to provide access to different file versions (either via thumbnails/icons, the Additional File Versions section, or some other manner) and to have the user documentation clearly spell out how to do that.
Confirmed this bug report. As a side note, the user documentation of the Xlink fields in the digital object record could be expanded upon.
Awaiting more information. There are some different ways multiple file versions of digital objects could be made accessible via the PUI. Will send this out for community input via the listserv.
User points out that the earlier/later relationship is not a dated one because it’s always an earlier or later heading, so the date entry should be removed from this section. Pass.
This is definitely a confusing way to display dates. Pass.
This ticket is proposing a audit trail functionality to track user changes in the system. Potential dashboard schema was drafted with wireframes by Staff Interface Enhancement Working Group was drafted in 2018. Suggestion was more community feedback was needed. Ticket was reviewd by Dev Pri in June 2020 and placed in awaiting more info status. Much wider changes are proposed for staff permissions in attached documentation. I think there is potentially a great deal of interest in the audit functionality proposed and recommend that we circulate this to wider community for new feedback or close this ticket and rationalise in a new ticket to just focus on audit trail functionality.
Manager User Access sort not working. Replicated in test instance and own institution’s instance and recommend passing.
I think this user is wanting to download agent information from the Browse → Agents page. There is a “Download CSV” option, but it downloads all agents. The checkboxes to the left of the Agent Type on the page seem to have no effect…I can’t tell what they are for.
It seems this user is first viewing all items of a singular value from System → Manage Controlled Value Lists → List Name. From there, “Filter by text” creates a new search that is not limited to the extent type previously viewed. I don’t think this is a bug; I think this is a case of the user not going about the search in the right way. Instead of first searching through the controlled value list and then filtering by text, they could perform a text search that includes their keyword and their extent type. i.e. “minidisc arto” would bring up the results they are looking for
I don’t think I’m seeing the behavior the reporter mentioned, but I am also unfamiliar with the Calculate Extent feature. However, when I create or edit an extent subrecord through the Calculate Extent window, suddenly all of the modules have expanded. Christine reported this, so she can probably explain what she reported better than I’m understanding it.