Oftentimes a change to years-old behaviors like this can open up a can of worms among users that count on it for whatever reason or have implemented some part of their workflows around it. The assertion in the issue certainly sounds rational, but nevertheless I’d recommend leaving it as is unless there is some specific problem caused by this behavior or a large portion of users have complaints.
Previously discussed and specification drawn up and attached to ticket. Recommend pass.
Search capability requested can be achieved via a plugin. Comments also recommend that user-defined fields (which would need to searched via a plugin) be included in Solr indexed fields as a configuration option for core ASpace code.
Ticket requesting display of ARKs in records. Cited as best practice to have ARKS displayed and currently not in ASpace. Agree and user-defined fields might be an option but would require every institution to configure this. Recommend drawing up a specification for this.
Agreed that if possible, text wrapping would be the best solution. Pass - low-med priority
Merging agents is not something I am familiar with (even after poking around with our agents), but it does seem that a true merge should include all related information from both agents. Pass - medium priority
Agreed. I’m not sure why the linked records field exists if it is not going to populate, and if it doesn’t populate, I’m not sure the CSV is of much use. Pass - medium priority
Confirmed that the issues raised in this request are still present in the test site. The solutions proposed would be an improvement. Recommend passing.
2. The labeling on the Browse Top Containers table suggests it has certain capabilities that it actually does not, such the ability to be sorted by columns and to select multiple rows at once. As Christine notes in the comments, it seems the labeling might have been carried over from the Manage Top Containers table, which does have the described capabilities. Does this functionality need to be included for the Browse Top Containers table, which has a narrower use than the Manage Top Containers table? If not, the labeling just needs to be revised.
Recommend that the requestor look into making this change in the PUI by customizing their config file.
It sounds as if we need more community feedback on this request. How many subjects do they need? Would the rapid data entry just create subjects or could it pull it from a drop down? or could you add them by fileid? Why not just use the spreadsheet import? Needs discussion before passing.
Classification sounds useful for browsing, especially in archives when items usually can't be shelved by classification. An online browse would allow for similar subjects to be together. Not sure what the use is for barcodes. Pass.
Select and attach can be tedious if multiple records need to be attached. Pass if possible.
You can’t merge the controlled values for subject sources if doing so will create duplicate subjects (because the subject source is part of the check for duplicates). I’m not sure that’s really a bug, since it makes sense to me that it works that way. I’m not sure how it might be improved other than doing something like having the source merge trigger merging of conflicting subject records (which sounds like a really bad idea).
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.