2017-10-05 Resource Access Meeting Notes
Date
Oct 5, 2017
Attendees
@Cate Boerema (Deactivated)
@Mark Canney
@Joanne Leary
@David Bottorff
@Rameka Barnes
@Marc Keepper
@Sharon Wiles-Young
@Tania Hewes
@William Weare
@Maria Grzeschniok
@Peter Murray
@David Larsen
@Andrea Loigman
@Cheryl Malmborg
Goals
Users app discussion
Requests, time permitting
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
5 min | Housekeeping | @Andrea Loigman |
|
| Users App | @Cate Boerema (Deactivated) |
|
Meeting Notes (David Bottorff)
Andrea
Should we have a subgroup to deal with institutional calendars? Yes. Andrea will send an email asking for interest We need enough info for Quilto to get started
Cate
Had hoped to deal with requests, hopefully next week
but first, concerns about users app, very close to releasing it, want to push it over the finish line
Users
Patron Group vs Affiliation - need for one patron group but multiple affiliations
Tania: consoritia may need multiple, different privileges at different institutions within the consortium Fenway Libraries
Affiliation is different than statistical group
You can belong to multiple affiliations, then logic determines the patron group
LDAP trees/branches: a single user may belong to multiple branches to one tree or multiple branches on different trees (consortia)
so patron group is one to one in this context
statistical group and affiliation are missing
feeds and whether we need to prevent them from trumping the feed, plan for user import option if silent on given data option, then leave it alone
what does Chicago do with the affiliation data?
This feels like a bigger issue that needs further discussion
Cate added placeholder items to the User Metadata spreadsheet for Affiliation and Statistical Group. Will pick up in a later discussion inluding the UM SIG.
email, phone, mobile phone do they need to be repeatable with a primary indicator or as is, only one for each
we do have repeatable address field, difficult for the feed to determine whether to add or override
Cate suggests putting this in the parking lot and available for prioritization
we need different phone types-home, office, etc. separate from mobile phone
phone and mobile phone are insufficient
could treat phone similar to address
simplest option would be to add some additional phone fields like home, office, mobile, etc. or one phone number per phone type based on address model, multiple phones and emails of different types, which you can define locally
do we need expiration dates for address, phone, email, etc. Students having a different address over the summer, etc.
Cate added placeholder items to the User Metadata spreadsheet
users should be able to select more than one contact method
now we have one preferred contact method-between mail, email, text, phone, mobile phone
can we put this in the backlog? prioritize after UAT?
yes, but remove phone and mobile phone from even the single preferred method
Cate added user story for this work to the backlog: UIU-261
metadata will need to come back to this
tabling notes field discussion
data organization
where should various data display, placing them into separate sections, expand collapse, that's easy
permissions around a section would only work for a given UI, not for access to fields based on any possible UI
user data is all or nothing view at this point
not everything they have checked out, which is separate
flag different data elements as restricted, only one was certain address types
username is needed at many institutions, would also want expiration date and barcode, other data like date enrolled, etc. could be moved to other sections