2019-11-14 Meeting Notes

Date and Time

Thursday 11/14/19, 3pm Eastern

Zoom URL

https://lyrasis.zoom.us/j/897871318

Participants

• @Kevin Schlottmann

• @James Griffin (Unlicensed) (Note taker)

• @Daniel Michelson

• @Maggie Hughes

• @Bria Lynn Parker (Unlicensed)

• @Jared Campbell

• @Dallas Pillen

• @Wiedeman, Gregory

Goals

• Work Plan

Discussion topics

Action items

Notes

Christine has indicated to me that they shall not be available to attend the meeting scheduled today, as they are attending the ArchivesSpace Southeast Regional Forum.

Introductions

Reviewing Metadata Tickets

• Most of these are namespacing issues, we don’t need to weight in on these

• Unless the developers need us to provide specific information

• AMW943: Export accession record as MARC record

  • This seems like use case we should support

  • Accessioning then creating a catalog record, seems like a reasonable proposal

  • Any thoughts?

    • Specific point on the provenance data is a separate discussion

    • EAD has two potential fields…and that wouldn’t directly map to a single field

    • MARC might also suffer from this problem

    • Converting accession records to MARC records might be blocked by this, given how the accession records currently work within the system

      • Columbia Libraries accessions everything and then export the MARC using the resource record rather than the accession record

    • We looked at this, and let it go through Developer Prioritization (Dev. Pri.)

Questions Regarding the Review Process

• New usability sub-team and advisory council will have a similar role to what we are looking to fulfill

  • Dev. Pri. will find usability issues which require some weighing in on

  • We should peek around the meeting minutes for the Usability Sub-Team to evaluate what they are doing

  • Dev. Pri. is tagging issues with the “metadata” label which may or may not require our input

  • We should leave a comment for cases where the issue looks like it requires input

• ANW320

  • On 10/08, Dan left a note, sub-team found that there was insufficient information

    • Many times there will be tickets which do not outline the entire solution

    • Program team does not want any tickets which reach them which do not outline an explicit path to be taken for a solution

    • Dev. Pri. does not feel as if this is their role either

      • They do feel as if they have some freedom in order to provide some guidance for a solution

  • This ticket is missing a recommendation for the best option forward, and metadata standards should inform this

  • Dan confirmed that the case was that the tag “metadata” was applied in response to this

  • Dev. Pri. might also want to be in the position where a separate label “metadata-standards” is applied, as there might be tickets where “metadata” is applied but where the input from this sub-team is not required

  • Dev. Pri. will try to be more explicit regarding what is needed in terms of when input is needed in order to proceed with making a ticket actionable

  • Evaluate the volume of the tickets, and perhaps we might need a separate meeting for triaging these tickets

December TAC Meeting

• We have been charged with leading a discussion for the December TAC Meeting

Topic Proposals

• Report out the tiers of metadata standards

• Introduce our sample records in GitHub and exploring how we can use our repository to provide other services which are useful for the community

• We can take on a documentation statement (which would be proposed before the agenda is finalized for the meeting)

• This is a new sub-team, and we can use this is a time where we can request feedback or guidance from other members of the TAC

• “This is what we are thinking, we would like TAC to kick this around…”

• If there are needs for this sub-team, please note that it is appropriate to share these questions and concerns with the rest of TAC

• Sharing path forward for exports, GitHub repos, what we have achieved thus far, and requesting feedback

• We will have one more sub-team call scheduled before that meeting takes place

• We should draft and finalize a paragraph outlining what we are going to address for the TAC meeting

• All concurred with this

GitHub

• Two presences on GitHub, a dedicated organization and a repository

  • https://github.com/ASpace-Metadata-Standards

  • https://github.com/archivesspace/metadata-standards

• James proposed that the GitHub Organization be used in order to develop the structure for the repositories

• Once in a finalized state, these can be transferred to the ArchivesSpace Organization

• Please freely contact James for access privileges on either the Organization or the repository

• James needs to add Jared as an owner for the Organization

API access to the Sandbox

• API access is provided for the sandbox ArchivesSpace installation (http://sandbox.archivesspace.org/)

• James needs to provide documentation on working with authentication for the Sandbox (this should be located on https://github.com/ASpace-Metadata-Standards)

Workplan Review

• Call for participating for the DACS tooltip review (Dan has volunteered to undertake this)

• Test Processes for Importing Records

  • Testing and updating records using the import features

  • Proposal to take the import Excel, and place this into the Google Sheet where we can collectively comment and edit

• We begin confirming the behavior using our records

• Any thoughts on using a Google Sheet to begin testing import mappings?

  • All agree, Kevin will set up the Google Sheets

• With this we are ready to begin the testing process

• Explicit about which version we are testing

• 2.7.2 had some new language updates, and we should note which test instances we are using

  • Kevin will distribute a Google Doc outlining this process to the community

• Dan volunteered the DACS tooltip review

  • Scoped out and ready by the next meeting

  • Most of the work is just scoping for right now, just outlining the steps

• Testing Strategy

  • Focusing on import initially

  • Leave export testing for the second half of the year

Additional Items

(No other additional items were proposed)

Meeting adjourned at 15:40EST