Organization

Total

Individuals

5C – University of Massachusetts

1

Scott Strangroom

5C - Mount Holyoke College 

3

Janet Ewing, Nancy Pelis, Sara Colglazier, Kathleen Norton

Amherst College

1

Nancy Finn 

Cornell University

4

Ann Crowley, Jackie Magagnosc, Jean Pajerek,Masayo Uchiyama

Duke University

3

Adam Hudnut-Beumler, Bethany Blankemeyer, Julie Brannon

Ebsco

2

Dennis Bridges (EBSCO, Product Owner),  Ann-Marie Breaux (Ebsco, Co-Product Owner)

GBV

2

Peter Sbrzesny, Martina Schlidt 

Holy Cross

0

Java developer.

1

Kim Wiljanen

Marmot Library Network

0

Middle Tennessee State University

2

Susan Martin (Convener) , Suzanne Mangrum 

Missouri State

2

Dwayne Swigert, Mark Arnold 

Skidmore College

1

Dung-Lan Chen 

Smith College Libraries

1

Lucinda Williams

Stanford University

2

Alissa Hafele, Suzette Caneda

Texas A&M University

9

Heather McMillan (Co-Convener), Frances Dotson, Kimberly Pamplin, Michael Phillips, Okay Okonkwo, Shannon Burke, Winter White, Sarah Dennis, Victoria Anderson

University Library Frankfurt

1

Tatjana Clemens

University Library Regensburg (Germany)

0

University of Alabama

1

Alice Daugherty,  

University of Chicago

3

Julie Stauffer, Kristin Martin, Scott Perry

University of Colorado

1

Steve Selleck

Unknown

1

spmclaug

2 minutes after

Housekeeping

Susan Martin

• Looking at schedule for the rest of December.

• Next Tues,, Dec. 14 as last meeting until we return in January.

9 minutes after

Display a history of edits for the order record

Dennis Bridges

• Keep track of all changes being made (by users and those that are system-triggered)

• Workflow from user's perspective

  • In actions menu access to see "change log"

  • Clicking would take you to a full screen view of changes

  • Come from PO, land in change log, looks like a standard search and filter layout

    • Ability to search by keyword, etc.

    • Details captured: field, updated, source, old value, new value, note

    • Notes could be recorded regarding changes made

    • If you select a search result, rather than getting a full screen view of details you would see the notes field

    • User must go into change log to enter note.

    • Could be changing a number of things / collection of fields. e.g. Product ID, Qualifier, Product ID type - may be updating some or all

• A couple of different approaches:

  • Possible that we consider edits you are making as a version.

  • Might be easier to follow what is going on if these are grouped as versions. 

  • You might make your note on the version

  • Either you can select the version and see all changes in 3rd pane or take an approach with hierarchical lists (version is top line of the table in results list and could be expanded to see all of the changes that were made for that version).

  • Does this area need to be more of a quick reference? 

  • Sara: Quick browse is definitely necessary. In current system can browse changes as they occur. Somewhat vague but give an idea of who did what when. Like the idea of a note. Having that option when necessary for more detailed information seems cool. If I clicked on something and then saw specific information in a third pane that would be nice. 

  • In hierarchical search, if your search hits on something in the accordion it would display expanded. Maybe also a toggle to open.

  • Browsability of second version is much higher than where you only have third pane.

  • From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone 12:24 PM
    To elaborate on Sara's comments - in Aleph the order log keeps track of defined categories of transactions such as a change to order status, order created, note added so we can filter by type of change made.  Not sure if that helps.

And the log includes actions that were taken by the system - it would be helpful to have an entry when the system makes changes to an order based on business logic.  For example, the order payment status changes or the order is closed due to activity on a related invoice.

Open

56 minutes after

EDIFACT Export

Dennis Bridges

• Driving a default that basically says export this order or do not export this order with acquisition method

• Requirement originally was that you all can specify based on acquisition method which orders should be exporting and which should not

  • e.g. with "Purchase" might have checked. With "Purchase at vendor system" might be unchecked because vendor already has purchase in their system

  • Yes/no to "Automate Export." 

• Configuring the acquisition method / export relationship per organization.

  • Is it important to have this be different for each organization?

  • If there are multiple export methods (two versions of EDI with a particular vendor); is it always consistent for the vendor or would it be valuable to have this be different based on the actual export configuration?

  • Do acquisition methods need to behave uniquely for each export method / integration method? Or just for each organization as a whole?

  • Or should it just be even more simply and be a global list? 

  • Dung-Lan: Need to have different ways of ordering through an organization.

• Will start with this on Friday.