Our Material Type discussion is scheduled for June 3rd. Please post asynchronous comments to the wiki page: Material type: optional or required
We review our discussion from last time about the proposed links between Inventory and Agreements. Today our discussion will focus on whether or not Custom Fields in inventory can fully replace the use cases identified by Sara.
05:18
Custom Fields in Inventory
As of Poppy, only Users has Custom Fields. Custom Fields are coming to Orders soon (before Inventory).
Custom fields are defined in settings and can be customized per tenant. They appear in their own accordion. In Inventory, each record type (Instance, Holdings, Item) will have custom fields available.
Will Custom Fields be available for all Inventory records, and specifically Holdings? Yes
Will Custom Fields have their own accordion? Yes
One limitation is that Custom Fields are in their own accordion, BUT only one accordion can be used for all fields. This means that if you have additional custom fields unrelated to ERM linking, they will appear in the same accordion.
Will Custom Fields be available for Bulk Edit? This question is outstanding. We don't know yet. Laura will follow up.
Will Custom Fields be available for Data Import? This question is outstanding. We don't know yet. Laura will follow up.
Will Custom Fields be searchable? Yes.
Will Custom Fields be available in the Lists app? This was an outstanding question in the Metadata Management meeting. Laura will follow up.
(14:03) Laura asks how the proposed ERM relationship accordion would give us significantly different functionality from a holdings note with its own note type, or a holdings administrative note.
Sara says that URLs cannot be hyperlinked in notes. We verified this in snapshot. (18:24) Owen adds that a URL field has the advantage of allowing us to create clickable links in this field and validate URLs.
In addition to the URL issue, being able to label/define the target (what it is pointing at) is important.
We reiterate that the main problem with using a URL rather than identifier is that nothing further can be built upon this functionality if we use URLs rather than UUIDs.
(23:02) Sara says that notes are not satisfactory both because of the issue with unlinked/unclickable URLs, and because Bulk Edit does not handle or target notes very well. It is not easy to distinguish individual notes. (25:57) This is a particular problem for multiple institutions sharing a single tenant.
(19:04) Owen notes that custom fields look very close to fulfilling the needed functionality, but there is no URL type yet. URLs are listed on the Library of Congress requirements.
41:37
Additional Pros and Cons of each strategy
(41:37) Kristen asks how Custom Fields will be managed if they are significantly more complex? Will the complexity make management through Data Import or reporting more difficult? This is another argument for a simpler approach for key use cases.
(43:15) Laura notes that having data elements in edit screens that are not used by the institution is difficult for catalogers. It makes it difficult to find what they need. Customizable views on the edit screen would solve this problem. (47:34) This comes back to the need for personalizable views.
Maura asks if strategically sorting elements into accordions (as is done in users) would allow Inventory to hide elements from users through permissions. Owen notes that he can see how this would be implemented. The downside would be complexities in permissions management. This would not be a big job to implement technically. Personalizable settings and record templates are still preferable though.
20:19
Strategy
Laura asks: How do we prioritize work that will meet the most possible needs for the most members of the community? If custom fields satisfy the ERM/Inventory link use cases in addition to others, it would be more effective to advocate for the development of custom fields.
Laura asks: how much of this functionality has been developed for Users/Orders already (making this faster to implement)? Custom fields in Users does not support URLs. It is covered in the Library of Congress document. Does this mean that it will be developed?
Owen notes that the timeline is a factor. Owen asks: who do we approach to determine the timeline for delivery? How does this compare to the timeline for implementing a single field? What are the relative timescales of the dedicated field vs custom fields?
(31:39) Leipzig University has a small dev team and will be developing this.
Laura will reach out to Bjorn and Khalilah about the timeline for Custom Field Development.
We suspect that this will be an implementation similar to users, rather than the richer solution outlined on the Library of Congress document, which includes custom objects/multifielded implementation.
Owen notes that ERM has done similar work in Agreements to support open access. At some point, the complexity rises to the point that shifting to focus on Workflows for some uses would make more sense.
Sara says that she is currently using Electronic Access for this purpose. This has much of the functionality needed, but requires 'misusing' the field. (40:16) Development for the proposed linking field would likely be straightforward because this functionality already exists.
56:09
Next Steps
Rather than have another meeting in App Interaction SIG, we decide that Laura will talk to Felix about getting this on an MM SIG agenda. While this is ERM functionality in a sense, the primary impact--development timing, seeing the fields--would be on MM SIG attendees.
The relevant POs are Christine and Ryan. They are the most likely to be able to explain what specifically will need to happen to implement Sara and Charlotte's solution. Magda will be involved for Bulk Edit.
Action items
@Laura Daniels will follow up on whether or not Custom Fields are available to Bulk Edit, Data Import, and Lists.
@Laura Daniels will reach out to Bjorn and Khalilah about the timeline for Custom Field development so we can compare it to the timeline for developing a single URL field, and to understand better what is in the initial implementation. Laura will bring back an update.
@Laura Daniels will talk to Felix about getting this on the MM SIG Agenda. Sara, Charlotte, Christine, Ryan, and Magda will need to attend, and a notice should be sent to Cross App SIG.