Page Comparison

Historical Data survey: It seems to be problematic to process the survey for an entire SIG, since the SIG participants work with different systems. Even libraries with the same system may have different ideas about which historical data is important and should therefore be migrated.

Perhaps we should ask the SIGs that all participants respond individually?

During the meeting we discussed whether or not collecting data migration requirements is in or out of scope for this group. We discussed deferring collecting this information but wanted to wait to get Sharon's perspective.

Vendors Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MuC87SgE5XHYzu9ZtaRk0atQJhWIU2q7B73WUw8CQA4/edit#gid=1552332173

• data model (e.g. language field)
• gaps

Ann-Marie and Dennis attended to answer questions.

Vendor data model questions discussed during the meeting:

Why is 'language' a choice in multiple places within vendor? (e.g. URL, Contact)

> The language can be set for the vendor as a whole. The selected language will trickle down into all of the other potential places to select a language throughout the vendor record. This option allows for the selection of language for a contact within a vendor or language selection for a URL to indicate the language of a website.

First name should not be required within a contact:

> It won't be a problem to not require the first name. fyi - you can have a vendor without a contact (contact is NOT required)

It will be difficult to migrate a single phone number value into multiple phone number fields (e.g. country code). Vendor phone numbers vary quite a bit.

> They were hoping to have a 'contacts' module which the vendor module would reference for contacts. This won't happen in v1...but that is where they would like to go. The only required piece of the phone number is the main part of the number (e.g. area code is not required)...so when the data is migrated we could put just one string in the phone number field. Dennis will take this request back. He will discuss with other POs to see where else this might be an issue for the sake of consistency.

Claiming interval - there is no ONE interval for a vendor. It is based on material type.

> Claiming is not part of the Q3 or Q4 release so claiming analysis is on hold. This can be discussed when they circle back around to claiming.

Tax % also cannot be set to a single value for a vendor. It is based on material type.

> The tax percentage is pre-populated for orders (based on the set rate set) but can be edited. It was intended to help speed up the order process. They have received feedback on this field...suggestions for including multiple tax fields with an option to select tax type. They'll likely address this in a future version.

There are more vendor questions to discuss so Ann-Marie and Dennis will attend this meeting again next week.