| Table of Contents | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
...
| Panel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
Please add questions and topics here. Topics or questions posted in slack will be added here as well. Status
|
App
Topic
Description/ use case
App | Topic | Description/ use case | Date added | Provided by | Discussed in meeting: link | Actions / JIRA ticket | Status | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Agreements | Numeration of Agreement lines | It would be helpful to have a number for Agreement lines to refer to Discussion on requirements and possible approaches (serial management pattern number via the number generator / POL approach) |
| From ERM SIG discussion 2024-02-07 - ERM meeting |
| ||||||||
| 2 | Licenses | Term field values resetting upon changing term types. | When working on a term, if you put content into either the internal or public notes, or set visibility from internal to public, then changing the term type will also reset all of those fields. It makes sense that the term’s value(s) field would reset, since those can be different for every term, but it’s harder to understand why this is the case for the other fields, and it seems like it could lead to lost work. |
| Clara Marino - Amherst College / Five Colleges |
| ||||||||
| 3 | Dashboard | Filter for agreements that have no “Renewal priority” set | Description: a user wants to create a Dashboard widget that shows all agreements where the renewal priority is NOT ‘Cancel’. To do this, the user selects the ‘Renewal Priority’ filter and sets it to ‘is not definitely_cancel’ Current behaviour: All agreements are displayed that have a value for the renewal priority that is not ‘Cancel’. However, all agreements that have no value at all for renewal priority are left out. Wish:
|
| Martina Schildt on behalf of GBV library |
| ||||||||
| 4 | Licenses | Adding tags for License Amendments | Our Licensing Librarian would like to track metadata for each document signed (e.g., signatory, fiscal year, type of purchase, etc.). He wants to record this information at both the license and the license amendment levels. Tags would be ideal for this purpose, but they are currently only available at the license level. Would it be possible to make tags available at the amendment level as well, similarly to how they are available at the Order and Order Line levels, the Agreement and Agreement Line levels? | September 21, 2024 | Irina Trapido (Stanford) |
| ||||||||
| 5 | Agreements, Licenses | URL validation | With the Q release, the validation of URL fields in Agreements and Licenses has changed. The URLs to wikis and Jiras, which only resolve internally, are no longer validated. Same happens to file paths. As a result, libraries can no longer save the records where they have entered respective information in the URL field. Wish: add another field for URLs that don’t fit the validation criteria. Alternative: allow flexibility in validation | Martina Schildt for GBV libraries |
OPEN ERM implementation topics, questions or issues
| Panel | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
Status
|
|
OPEN ERM implementation topics, questions or issues
| Panel | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
Status
|
App | Topic | Description/ use case | Date added | Provided by | Discussed in meeting: link | Actions / JIRA ticket | Status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Agreements | Agreement Lines – expanding information contained in/displayed and able to be recorded under | When an Agreement is not specific to one title or package but is of a (suggested) organizing type for any number of titles/resources each with their own Agreement Lines/POLs etc. then for each the information displayed/provided is currently rather limited. For example, there is no way currently to record Notes at the Agreement Line level, or, to indicate Concurrent User # or Unlimited User information, etc. The inability to record information like this at the Agreement Line level could force us to have to create more Agreements overall to be able to manage resources licensed or purchased at the title or mini-bundle level. | 2020-02-18 | Sara Colglazier. MHC/Five Colleges | work in progress |
what Notes? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Agreements | More robust options for Supplemental Properties in Agreements–INCLUDING the same Sup Prop being added more than once | The supplemental properties fields could be expanded to include multi-value pick lists (when ready), editor functions similar to the Notes Helper app (specifically hyperlinking) and the ability to use the same property multiple times (potentially a config. option in settings.) In addition it could be expanded so that multiple values with associated notes could be added (with similar functionality to the add alternative name feature) to capture information like a Platform Name and Resource URL in a single supp. prop. ... Also it is also needed that the same Sup Prop be able to be added more than once. For example, if I have an Agreement with more than one AGL and I want to record that they each have a certain Sup Prop for which the value is different (and the notes with it) then currently I cannot do so. | 2020-09-30 | Jack M. (UMass / Five Colleges) |
hyperlinking exists as separate line/ticket - check different properties for individual AGLs storing html in text fields requested multiple times markdown as discussed here: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C20V5L40P/p1664908741551179 decide on prio | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Agreements | Should it be possible to have multiple AGLs for the same resource (title/package|platform combo entity linked from eHoldings) in the same/single Agreement | After discovering that inadvertently an extra AGL had been added to an Agreement from eHoldings causing an unwanted dupe entry in the Agreement–but which is NOT obvious or in any way noticeable once it has been done from eHoldings and very difficult to detect in the Agreement since the entries do not show following each other and the Agreement has many many lines (+100)–I wondered whether this should even be possible (slack posting: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603474359024000) In response, Owen countered that one may want multiple AGLs for the same title entity when needing to link them to separate POLs over time (since AGLs may be date limited); but also suggested thinking about:
(see Owen's initial and following responses to Sara's slack query: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603710981024800?thread_ts=1603474359.024000&cid=C9ER2HCRY) Question for discussion: to be able to dupe add or not? And if, to be able, then how to address making it obvious | 2020-10-26 | Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) |
yes, it should be possible improve display decide on prio | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Agreements | CSV export in Agreements | Like the CSV export in Licenses it would be nice to have a CSV export in Agreements as well. |
|
|
decide on prio on the line between reporting and app functionality alternative use reporting tool | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | eHoldings | “Replacing” linked resource forming an AGL (eHoldings Perspective) | I link the package “Banking Information Database” from ProQuest as an agreement line and add an AGL note, notes-helper app notes, and link a POL. ProQuest repackages the resource to become the “Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection.” EBSCO creates a new package under that name in HLM, and deletes the BID package because the content provider says it is no longer a resource they sell – therefore the data from my linked resource for my AGL disappears and I need to create a new AGL and move all the data over to that AGL. It would be nice to be able to simply replace the title/package being linked from eHoldings to form the AGL similar to how you can replace the linked organization without having the edit roles or notes. When the KB management team deletes information it is not always communicated ahead of time – but if I knew that BID was being deleted tomorrow I would replace it with the AT&C package and move on – it isn’t a “new” resource, nothing changes with our POL, licenses, or ordering method, and we retain no perpetual access to the old version of the resource. I would expect that it does not overwrite the note I left on the AGL or remove the POL or notes-helper app notes, it’s just a swap out for a new asset from eHoldings. |
|
Solution: Create a new AGL Ability to copy AGLs Owen will create stories | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Licenses | Licenses: How to manage amendments signed by a library other than the signatory of the original license | We are interested to hear how other institutions are managing this situation: A license covers all libraries at an institution and is signed by library A (the main library). Later, an amendment to that license is signed by library B (such as a medical center library or law library). We're not sure how to represent that in FOLIO in a way that is searchable by library since the differentiation is at the amendment level and there aren't data elements on the amendment that we can use to make a library distinction. | 2020-12-08 | Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke |
currently agreement type is used Solution: have own institutions as organizations in organization app could be used | livense applies to Owen will work with Gill to find a way | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Agreements | Agreements: Add new value to "Is perpetual" reference list | Sometimes there is a mix between perpetual and non-perpetual access for resources that are part of an agreement. In these cases we'll leave the field blank and capture the mix in a license term note. We'd like to propose a new third value in addition to "yes" / "no": "mix". This would capture the conditions more accurate. | 2021-01-15 | Julie Brannon (Duke), Felix Hemme (ZBW) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | Agreements Licenses | Agreements/Licenses: How to manage streaming videos with licenses that expire 1 to 3 years after purchase | Not sure if this a licensing or Agreements question. We purchase streaming videos on request (e.g., Kanopy, Alexander Street) that come with 1 to 3 year licenses. We are currently tracking with when the license to access ends within a 9XX field in FOLIO. This mechanism is not ideal for FOLIO. We are interested in exploring how to track expiring access using Agreements/Licenses as an option to track when these expire. The PO could be another option. | 2021-01-20 | Kristin Martin and Jessica Harris (Chicago) | discussion starts: 02/03/2021 meeting minutes |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | Agreements Licenses | Agreements/Licenses: Allow sort options for documents | A library is using core/supplementary docs to attach invoices (they are not using any acq FOLIO functionality), licenses, and other docs related to licenses agreements. They asked if there are sort options around these documents. Presently, they seem to display in the order in which they were attached. But it would be desirable if there were sort options (e.g. alphabetical, date added, document category). Can we revisit ERM-214? | 2021-03-09 | Molly Driscoll (EBSCO) on behalf of Chapman University |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | Agreements | Agreements: provide Filter for Supplementary Documents | It would very useful to be able to find via Filter those Agreements for which I have intentionally added Supplementary Documents (or, have not). Preferably based on the Categories set–as well as None (no Supp Docs). | 2021-03-24 | Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | Agreements | Improvements to display of resources that are subscribed through an agreement | Given: An active agreement with an agreement line for the package "JSTOR Arts & Sciences I : hbz : 2017-10-09"
If the e-resource is not linked directly as agreement line, but rather the package that contains the e-resource, the information displayed could be enhanced or the link back to the agreement could be made more seamlessly. Some questions that our staff wants to answer are:
Given: An active agreement with an agreement line for the package "Sage: E-Journals"
There is no way to tell from this page that this journal is no longer accessible via the agreement. It has the active end date "2020-12-31". The user has to open the agreement, switch to the tab with dropped resources and perform a search with the browsers search tools (CTRL + F) for the name of the journal. |
| 2021-10-27: OS Action:
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 | Agreements | Agreements/agreement lines: Adjust placement of 'Add PO line' button on agreements edit screen | Enhancement proposed by Michigan State University: They have created an agreement for each of their eBook packages (e.g. EBSCO purchased eBooks, ProQuest purchased eBooks, etc.). Each agreement has a single agreement line, representing the package. However, they are linking multiple POL to the single agreement line to represent the orders for each of the titles. The 'Add PO line' button appears at the bottom of the attached POLs, so, each time they go to add a new POL, they need to scroll all the way to the bottom to click the button. This becomes quite arduous in cases where they have dozens (or more) POL attached to the agreement line.They asked if the 'Add POL' button could be moved to the top of the POL section on the agreement line so that they could add multiple POL without the need to scroll to the bottom each time. |
| 2021-10-20: OS/GO investigate if we can add the "Add PO Line" button into the PO Line accordion header on the Agreement Line screen OS restart work to look at how we handle multiple POLs within a single package scenario - particularly eBooks and Streaming videos. Maybe not even package, but individual items (streaming video) - and depending on the agreement then possibly not separate POLs? |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 | ERM Comparisons | ERM comparisons: Sort by | Make it possible to sort by column "Overlap". This would enable the users to see at one glance all titles with overlapp, non-overlapp, partial overlap. |
| 2021-10-27 OS: Investigate what is possible and report back to group with options |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | Agreements | Agreements: Add ability to search over all indexed fields with one search | In Agreements, the search box in the first pane can search on agreement name, alternive name(s), and description. However, the search does not act as keyword search over all fields at a time. Given the following agreement:  A search on (name contains "emerald" AND "las:er") OR (description contains "emerald" AND "las:er") OR (alt name contains "emerald" AND "las:er") The user expectation of my colleagues is that with one search all indexed fields are searched with boolean AND at the same time. See also implementer topic no. 35: "Agreements: Search needs to be refine-able (i.e., have a drop down menu like in other Apps for other more narrow, defined, specific fields)" Im not completely sure how to achive this, but an option could be to copy the contents from the 3 fields into an indexfield and then search over it, e.g.: indexfield = name && altName && description (indexfield contains "emerald" AND "las:er") If we are going to discuss this topic in the ERM SIG, I'd like to propose to talk about other kinds of search enhancements as well, e.g. advanced search or boolean search. |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 | Agreements Licenses | Preset filters when opening the app | Revisit the decision to display the agreements when entering the app instead of needing to search first MS: Related: which filters should be selected if any: reduce to only "active"? |
| Martina Schildt based on a comment by Felix Hemme |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | Agreements | Move agreement lines between agreements | An easy way to transfer an agreement line from one agreement to another so we can preserve note/PO lines/other info without having to recreate it all. We are planning to create agreements partially based on the purchase status, so the ability to move an agreement line from the "EBSCO-subscribed" agreement to "EBSCO-perpetual" agreement, for example, will be a workflow we need to plan for. Comment by Owen Stephens in Slack: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1666631660586599 Unfortunately there isn't an option to move an agreement line between agreements via the UI at the moment. We did originally propose, and did discuss in the ERM SIG, that there should be some functionality like this, and especially in some particular situations - including exactly the one you mention here (moving content from subscribed to perpetual). My initial thoughts on this were to have a process where:
|
| Martina Schildt on behalf of Steven Brown |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | Dashboard | Filter on agreements alternative names | In the Dashboard app > ERM Agreements widget definition: A filter on agreement name does not include alternative names and there is no filter for agreement alternative names. Would it be possible to add such a filter? My use case:
|
| Felix Hemme (ZBW) |
OS: investigate adding supplementary properties to the filters / license terms to the license widget |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 | Agreements > local KB | Ability to intentionally disconnect link between e-resource from external KB and e-resource in local KB or block fields from being updated | Given:
If at any point in time the package curatory group changes the content of the package and removes one of the e-resources the library has post cancellation access to, e.g. by setting an It seems necessary to have an option to indicate on field level that certain updates from the external KB should not update the local KB data. Or an option to cut the connection between the local e-resource and the external source completely. |
| Felix Hemme (ZBW) | OS: Write up a story to allow for local copy of a remote KB package (i.e. the "complete separation" scenario) [This may not be required though as could be done via GOKb]. For discussion with ERM users once written OS: Discuss with developers possibility of protecting specific fields or TIPPs to avoid unwanted updates |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 | Agreements > local KB | Support e-resource search on ISBN regardless of presence of hypens in the query and the data | With the current implementation in the internal KB it is not possible to find a resource by ISBN if query/data have differing entries around hyphens. A search for 9783428569625 won't find a resource with ISBN 978-3-428-56962-5 and vice versa. We can create the hyphens as a workaround with this web tool, but it would be better if Agreements would support search on ISBN without the need to worry about the hyphens: https://www.otzberg.net/isbn/ |
| OS: write story to store ISBNs in consistent way and to support searching with or with hyphens Note that Inventory implemented a solution for this previously |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 | Licenses | Allow license term note without a set term value | The We have a use case where the value of a term shall be delivered to a third party system. Multiple license terms on ILL are going to create a code in the holdings records in our union catalog. If ILL is forbidden we reflect it in one license term – the other two then don't apply. We want to indicate that situation by adding a note to the two terms without setting a value, because the linked reference list only provided "yes/no" and none of those values applies. Could we talk about extending the license terms so that a note can be captured even without setting a value? |
| Felix Hemme (ZBW) | OS/MT/MS: Put this on future ERM SIG Agenda for broader discussion |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 | Agreements/Agreement Lines selected from eHoldings | When adding an Agreement Line to an Agreement from within Agreement app, allow multi-select of packages/titles from eHoldings searchbox | Currently, for institutions using FOLIO with eHoldings, when one goes to add an Agreement Line from within an existing Agreement, they are presented with the eHoldings search box where they can only select one resource/package/title at a time. To add another, they have to click "Save and Close", reselect the Agreement, and restart the process.
Currently, this functionality exists for Local KB configurations, with the "basket" option. Can their be a discussion about implementing this in the UI for eHoldings users as well? | 1 December 2022 | Zorian Sasyk (EBSCO) | Current workaround: "Save and create another"; SIG agrees that is a good feature |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 | Licenses | Make amendments searchable | Raised on Slack https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1682531357114909?thread_ts=1613414239.019400&cid=C9ER2HCRY the lack of searching in amendments caused the need for a work around for a situation where an amendment might have been used | 27 April 2023 | Beverly Geckle (MTSU) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | Licenses | Ability to apply amendments or terms at a resource level | Raised on Slack https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1682531357114909?thread_ts=1613414239.019400&cid=C9ER2HCRY often amendments or special terms apply to a single resource within an agreement rather than to the agreement as a whole. Currently there is no way to reflect this except through a note | 27 April 2023 | Beverly Geckle (MTSU) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 | Dashboard | Ability to search/filter AGLs and display AGLs in the widget | Use Cases: We use tags on AGL and we would like to see all AGLs with a special tag, e.g. because we need to do sth with this AGL (e.g. catalog, check access, pay invoice, etc.). We would like to see all AGL with a special access-from/access-to date etc. | 11 April 2023 | Sabrina Bayer (TP-ERM/BVB) |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 | Licenses | Ability to open a PDF document in a separate browser window, rather than downloading it | Our Licensing Librarian finds it problematic that the Licenses App forces users to always download PDF documents instead of opening them in a separate browser window. | April 18, 2023 | Irina Trapido (Stanford) | OS to write story to implement |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 | Dashboard | Filter for "link to app " | In dashborad app, added widget offers "link to app" for jumping to the app. Can this link have same filtering condition as widget setting?" | 21 March 2023 | Ann Joy (Deactivated) | Actions / JIRA |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 | Agreements | Ability to sort AGLs by columns | At the moment the AGL in the Agreement are sorted alphabetically by name/description. It would be very useful to be able to sort by the other columns as well. Use Case: We would like to see the newest / oldest AGLs (sorted by “active-to” dates). | 11 April 2023 | Sabrina Bayer (TP-ERM/BVB) | OS to create Jira to implement sorts by columns in display except Note |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 | eHoldings | Overview of results in the titles search in eHoldings | It is hard to navigate to the right record when searching for a title in eHoldings. It would improve findability if more information can be seen in the results, for example indication of selection status and year published. | April 21, 2023 | Martina Karlsson (Chalmers) | Minutes | link | Hey Martina Karlsson for the Poppy release, we have implemented a Packages facet on the Title search. We still need to tweak the requirements so that when clicking the title it takes you directly to the title+package record. We can also look into adding title to the results list and a way to show package selected and not selected counts. cc: Zorian Sasyk |
on in ERM SIG meeting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 |
Agreement | Add a new functionality like to show warning incase where you link the same agreement line twice, to the same package | The Agreements App lets you connect the same holding package to the same agreement multiple times, without any blocker nor warning that this connection was already made, and then the agreement lists the same package multiple times in multiple rows .So can we add a new functionality to show warning when you link the agreement line twice to the same package? Note: This is requested by Unica. See also Jira ticket ERM-2902 | April 27, 2023 | Specifically when adding from eHoldings there is no feedback showing you've added multiple times. Look at POL functionality where you are told "did you know there is already an order for this" | OS to discuss eHoldings behaviour with Khalilah OS/GO to look at POL functionality and look to see if we can do something similar in Agreements |
on in ERM SIG meeting | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 | Agreements / Licenses | Adding a specific Organization contact for each Agreement / License | Currently there are fields have the fields to add who is the internal contact (i.e. contact in the library/institution) for an Agreement/License and also the ability to link an external Organization to an Agreement/License. However when you link an Organization to an Agreement/License, no contact info related to that Organization is passed into the Agreement/Licenses (only the platform info are shown in the Agreement/License). It is also not possible to detail who is the contact at the Organization for the Agreement/License. The only current option to add this info in the Agreement/License record is by using the Note field of the linked Organization | June 22, 2023 | Jhanani Munuswamy (EBSCO) | Minutes | link |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 | Dashboard | Ability to search/filter eRessources from the local KB in the Dashboard and display them in the widget | We use the GOKb as external KB and would like to use the eRessource data in the local KB for tracking/monitoring eRessources via the Dashboard. Use Case 1: To see which ebooks (e.g. from a frontlist) have been published e.g. in the last month(s), we would like to have a widget in the Dashboard where we can filter by publication date (to check access, catalog them, etc.). Use Case 2: If the access doesn't work and we contacted the organisation, we would like to tag the eRessource in the local KB to indicate this and therefore would like to have a filter for tags on eRessource level in the Dashboard to monitor these eRessources. | June 22, 2023 | Sabrina Bayer (TP-ERM/BVB) | OS review use cases here and in widget spreadsheet and report back will be continued in ERM SIG meeting on |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 | Local KB admin (GOKb2FOLIO) | Import only local packages for my institution/curator group in the Local KB | We would like to import only local packages that are created by our institution/curator group in the GOKb, because we do not need the local packages from other institutions. | 2023-09-27 | Sabrina Bayer (TP-ERM/BVB) | Agreements Local KB Subgroup: 2024-05-15 Meeting notes | Actions / JIRA |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 | Agreements / Local KB | Show the e-resources with their tags in the accordion element „E-Resources in package“ on package level | Besides having a dashboard widget for tags on e-resource-level (see Implementation Topics List), it would be very helpful, if the tags of the e-resources are also shown on package level e.g. as a an extra column for tags in the accordion element „e-resources in package“. Use Case 1: To see at one glance the e.g. cataloguing-status of resources in this package Use Case 2: To see at one glance if there are e-resources with problems in this package Plus: It would be very helpful, if we could add tags through this new tag column for the e-resources. | 2023-09-27 | Sabrina Bayer (TP-ERM/BVB) | Agreements Local KB Subgroup: 2024-06-12 Meeting notes | Actions / JIRA |
| 34 | Agreements/ Licenses | When duplicating an agreement/ or a license: additional fields should be duplicated | User duplicates an existing agreement and in modal selects "Select all" Current result: not all data is duplicated. The following fields could be added (TBD) Agreements
In addition, the start date in the agreement period is set to the current day, which is surprising. Users often want to create a new agreement per year and if the start date was copied 1:1, the user could simply replace the year. Currently, the user has change the whole date. Licenses
|
| Martina Schildt on behalf of GBV libraries | Owen to come up with a proposal for new duplicating agreements behaviour create a Jira ticket include different options how start dates should behave break down list of checkboxes etc  resources with problems in this package Plus: It would be very helpful, if we could add tags through this new tag column for the e-resources. | 2023-09-27 | Sabrina Bayer (TP-ERM/BVB) | Agreements Local KB Subgroup: 2024-06-12 Meeting notes | Actions / JIRA |
| |||||||||||||
| 34 | Agreements/ Licenses | When duplicating an agreement/ or a license: additional fields should be duplicated | User duplicates an existing agreement and in modal selects "Select all" Current result: not all data is duplicated. The following fields could be added (TBD) Agreements
In addition, the start date in the agreement period is set to the current day, which is surprising. Users often want to create a new agreement per year and if the start date was copied 1:1, the user could simply replace the year. Currently, the user has change the whole date. Licenses
|
| Martina Schildt on behalf of GBV libraries | Owen to come up with a proposal for new duplicating agreements behaviour
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 | Agreements / Licenses | Re-think the order of the filters in Agreements and Licenses | Discuss how the filter order is determined within the ERM apps. For example, the content filters are awesome and (IMO) would be used fairly often, so I would expect those to appear higher in the filter list. Has this been discussed before? Thanks in advance for your thoughts! |
| Martina Schildt from Slack #erm-team on behalf of Molly Driscoll | Owen to create a survey to rank filters across ERM apps and discuss in a future meeting |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3536 | Agreements / , LicensesRe-think the order of the filters | URL validation | With the Q release, the validation of URL fields in Agreements and Licenses | Discuss how the filter order is determined within the ERM apps. For example, the content filters are awesome and (IMO) would be used fairly often, so I would expect those to appear higher in the filter list. Has this been discussed before? Thanks in advance for your thoughts! |
| Martina Schildt from Slack #erm-team on behalf of Molly Driscoll has changed. The URLs to wikis and Jiras, which only resolve internally, are no longer validated. Same happens to file paths. As a result, libraries can no longer save the records where they have entered respective information in the URL field. Wish: add another field for URLs that don’t fit the validation criteria. Alternative: allow flexibility in validation | Martina Schildt for GBV libraries | https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQDBHgOwen to create a survey to rank filters across ERM apps and discuss in a future meetingUgCFJ | Field “Physical location” will be renamed |
|
Difficult to answer: In the "Agreements for this e-resource" accordion, no coverage data is displayed if the package is linked as agreement line. The "Options for acquiring e-resource" accordion may display a large number of lines + there is no indication about the actual package title that is managed in the agreement. The only way to answer that question is to navigate to the agreement, open the "Agreement lines" accordion and perform a search with the browsers search tools (CTRL + F). Depending on how many e-resources are displayed by default, the user has to click the "load more" button multiple times. This is not usable.