Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
Essentially asking for events to function more similarly to agents and linked resources/accessions. I can see how this could be useful, but the current workflow doesn’t appear to be significantly more arduous than an adjusted one. If passed, low priority. If not passed, I would recommend changing the label “Add event” to “Create event” to better indicate the intended function.
Since this is causing validation issues, it seems good to pass. The order is well-defined, so shouldn’t be overly difficult to add to the transformation. It sounds like forcing the order in ASpace instead (i.e. not allowing a form subdivision to be added after a chrono one) would cause issues with legacy data.
Close. Elizabeth will submit new ticket for label change.
Requested clarification and a use case. update - use case added by user. Titles may be useful to differentiate events with the same record links.
Documentation seems pretty intentional that Coll. Management records should only be at the collection level. Management information for specific objects can be recorded in the collection level note - a processing plan can be entered in text or a link to local document. One an also make use of the “Repository Processing Note” in each object. The assessments module could also be used at the object level to track specific processing needs and priorities. Recommend not passing.
This change would help bring ArchivesSpace close to being in alignment with industry standards and best practices.
This is a commonly used feature that is currently implemented via a plugin. Bringing it into core code serves the best interest of the community by allowing it to be maintained in step with our releases.
Pass
Dustin will create a new ticket with more accurate scope. This ticket will be closed but linked to the new ticket.
1.This could be a useful feature. Currently, the closest way to achieve this would be through user-defined fields and a custom report, though that approach does not support easy browsing. I can see some question about implementing this. For example, do you make a classification unpublished at the classification level, or it at the resource level, or both? Would the decision to publish/unpublish at one level override a contradictory decision at a different level? It could be handy to have user scenarios to define how this would feature would operate.
2.The proposed changes may not be broadly supported by the community and could conflict with accessibility and descriptive best practices. It may be more appropriate for the requester to implement these changes in their own installation of ArchivesSpace. Additionally, “language of materials” is not required below the resource level, so that part of request can be resolved. This could be referred to Usability for further consideration.
Awaiting more information. Matt will ask for use case/user scenario.
Dev Pril will recommend closing, pending contact with Usability to see if they want to consider it.
Confirmed bug on test server. It seems like this is only happening with each search facet except for Creator. Removing the filter also reverts the search to all results, not all records using the controlled vocabulary term. Recommend passing.
The Filing Title is the only field in the Finding Aid Data module that is not included in a custom report template. I think it makes sense to include it. Recommend passing.
I’m not sure if this is exclusive to reports for Classification records. Unable to create a custom report with digital object linked records for record types like Accession and Archival Object.
Hashing the authority ID seems preferable since these should be unique values, but ID may not always be present/used. Should probably fall back on dates.
1.Pass, expanding ticket to encompass digital object linking in other reports.