Page Comparison

...

• option 1: there is an advantage in solving immediate requirements directly in ERM

  • e.g. being able to add a URL to a decicated field

  • Owen Stephens to write up story

• • when this can be addressed is open

  • Sara votes against option, rather than needing to add URLs to many AGLs link from Inv side

  • Owen: would like to talk with ERM SIG about this

• option 2: more specific: we should have a way of linking to specific titles, instances, holdings, items

  • no huge technical barriers in storing

  • but it would be hard to keep in sync

  • this would be a little less general

  • parallel to what we do with orders already

• option 3: registry: allow definition of some more dynamic process 

  • more than just URL to set of results

  • technically more difficult

  • registry already exists, but would need work

  • registry is existing piece of software aimed to understand applications sharing information with other applications on how things work

  • only registry needs to be kept up to date

  • each app is responsible to keep up to date

  • we do not have software to validate whether links still work

  • Sara in chat: As an ERM only thing (knowing that it is work and an issue of capacity), can it be considered to have Supp documents at the AGL level as well? As a broader solution than just the Inventory thing.

  • Owen in chat: Yes that’s what I’d see as the easiest implementation. And that’s what I think is the easiest thing to do that meets some of the requirements we’ve discussed. I just don’t know when it could be done by

• option 4: 

  • we could do the survey that we thought about in our meeting on March 11th: 2024-03-11 Meeting notes: Agreements + Inventory interaction

    • question: do we have a general question that we would ask?

• it might make sense to do all 3 options

• prioritization
  

  • option 1: store URL in dedicated field in ERM

    • 5 votes

  • option 2: link instance, holding, item from Agreements app (like we do with orders)

    • votes

  • option 3: folow follow up on registry

    • 2 votes

  • option 4: do a survey to learn about Community requirements (questions tbd)
    

    • 4 votes

  • option 5: store link from Inventory records to Agreements resources

    • 2 votes

• Charlotte in chat: Would it be help ful with UX mock up on what it is we are entering, and how the search options will look like - for each of the options. That could also be part of the input on the survey, for the community to better follow what we have been discussing, and what we try to achieve. 

  • Maura agrees

• Charlotte will sit together with Sara to do some mock-ups

• we will reconvene in next meeting

...

•  Charlotte will create some mock-ups - Sara will give support by demoing whta is needed

• we will reconvene on 17 Apr 2024 

Chat

00:00:28 Martina Schildt: Agenda for today: 2024-04-08 Meeting notes: Agreements + Inventory interaction
00:01:54 Charlotte Whitt: Reacted to "Agenda for today: ht..." with 👍🏻
00:16:00 Maura Byrne: 2024-03-11 Meeting notes: Agreements + Inventory interaction
00:24:40 Sara Colglazier: As an ERM only thing (knowing that it is work and an issue of capacity), can it be considered to have Supp documents at the AGL level as well? As a broader solution than just the Inventory thing.
00:27:02 Owen Stephens: Replying to "As an ERM only thing..."

Yes that’s what I’d see as the easiest implementation
00:27:16 Sara Colglazier: Replying to "As an ERM only thing..."

Great! Thnks!
00:27:30 Owen Stephens: Replying to "As an ERM only thing..."

And that’s what I think is the easiest thing to do that meets some of the requirements we’ve discussed. I just don’t know when it could be done by
00:43:37 Martina Schildt: option 1: store URL in dedicated field in ERM
00:43:44 Martina Schildt: option 2: link instance, holding, item from AGL (like we do with orders)
00:43:50 Martina Schildt: option 3: follow up on registry
00:43:55 Martina Schildt: option 4: do a survey to learn about Community requirements (questions tbd)
00:45:07 Kristin Martin: Reacted to "option 1: store URL ..." with 👍
00:45:10 Dung-Lan Chen: Reacted to "option 1: store URL ..." with 👍
00:45:15 Heather McMillan (TAMU): Reacted to "option 1: store URL ..." with 👍
00:45:25 Kristin Martin: Reacted to "option 4: do a surve..." with 👍
00:45:33 Charlotte Whitt: option 2 was it not from inventory to Agreements?
00:45:43 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "option 3: follow up ..." with 👍
00:45:45 Heather McMillan (TAMU): Reacted to "option 4: do a surve..." with 👍
00:45:48 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "option 4: do a surve..." with 👍
00:45:53 Kristin Martin: Reacted to "option 3: follow up ..." with 👍
00:46:02 Sara Colglazier: Reacted to "option 1: store URL ..." with 👍
00:46:07 Sara Colglazier: Reacted to "option 4: do a surve..." with 👍
00:46:19 Charlotte Whitt: Reacted to "option 1: store URL ..." with 👍
00:48:35 Martina Schildt: Option 5: link from Inventory records to AGLS
00:51:18 Charlotte Whitt: Would it be help ful with UX mock up on what it is we are entering, and how the search options will look like - for each of the options
00:52:13 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "Would it be help ful..." with 👍
00:52:14 Dung-Lan Chen: Replying to "Would it be help ful..."

Yes, definitely.
00:52:14 Charlotte Whitt: That could also be part of the input on the survey, for the community to better follow what we have been discussing, and what we try to achieve
00:53:08 Charlotte Whitt: Reacted to "Option 5: link from ..." with 👍🏻
00:53:29 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "That could also be p..." with 👍
00:54:03 Sara Colglazier: Reacted to "Option 5: link from ..." with 👍🏻
00:55:08 Martina Schildt: option 5: store link from Inventory records to Agreements resources
00:59:38 Dung-Lan Chen: Instead of having UX mock up which takes work/time to do perhaps we can reconvene again with screen share while talking to help with visualization/understanding?!
01:00:04 Charlotte Whitt: Reacted to "Instead of having UX..." with 👍🏻
01:02:21 Owen Stephens: Thanks all

Attendees

...