2020-09-21 Resource Access Meeting Notes

Time	Item	Who	Description	Goals/Info
5min	Administrivia	Jana Freytag		Notetaker - Joanne Leary
30Min	Location uniqueness	Cate Boerema (Deactivated)	We have some challenges and confusion around location uniqueness requirements. Let's discuss the issue and possible solutions. This deck has some ideas to get us started: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rbCeElBw0u-JRIne0pnyE-nYKt7yO_d1gdK2mPDy_Lo/edit#slide=id.p Goal is to align around a near-term solution
5Min	UM SIG Questions	Andrea Loigman Jana Freytag	the UM SIG asked to create a few user stories for UXPROD-35 and UXPROD-37

Meeting Outcomes

Functional Area	Product Owner	Planned Release (if known)	Decision Reached	Link to supporting materials
e.g. loans, fees/fines	Name	e.g. Q4 2018, Q1 2019	Clearly stated decision	e.g. mock-up, JIRA issue
Locations	Cate Boerema (Deactivated)	N/A	While folks seemed to agree that the location model is confusing and could be improved, we talked about looking into some smaller changes that might mitigate the challenges without doing major refactoring of the data model. For example: Fixing the bug in circ rules (should be doable without changing uniquess requirements) UI changes in location CRUD that would help protect against duplicates without changing backend validation UI changes in circ rules that would make the user interface better accommodate the data we have now Some SMEs were firmly in favor of changing the data model as proposed in the deck. Cate to review the existing UXPRODs and revise as needed We also saw the location and circ rules setups from MSU and Chicago. Both institutions were able to make the existing setup work Both institutions created a hierarchical code in the location record (Chicago uses the full hierarchy, while MSU uses a couple letters to indicate the library) Both institutions like that the hierarchy allows them to quickly limit the item assignment menu in Inventory Chicago displays the code as the FOLIO location name, as well (the librarians understand and prefer this) which would mean even more duplication in the circ rules if they hooked rules to shelving location (they don't) MSU doesn't use location in circ rules at all (their rules are primarily based on loan type and patron group) Chicago has circ rules tied to the library level, but not all the way down at the shelving location Given the location model is still functional (assuming we can fix the circ rules bug), we will rely on implementers' feature rankings to determine the priority of this change. Cate will update the UXPRODs and bring the topic back to the SIG in the coming weeks

Notes

Creating Locations for uniqueness – Cate

Locations are now a component of circ rules, and therefore must be unique
Location codes are hierarchically constructed from Institution, Campus and Library, each of which must also be unique
In creating a location code, do we want the code to be auto-generated, based on concatenation the hierarchical parts? A: Auto-generation through concatenation would probably be OK, and we could likely do without displaying the components, but the result must be editable.
In creating a circ rule, do we want just the code to display, or the code plus the name? Andrea: code plus the name
Currently, there is a circ rule bug that ignores the hierarchical components, if the location code is not unique – this needs to be fixed
We need to update the UXPRODs that concern locations to include this new information; then RA members need to re-rank the issues
If you create a location code that is not unique, what needs to happen? – is a pop-up warning enough or does it need back-end coding to prevent duplicates? Andrea: a pop-up warning is the thin-thread solution but not the permanent solution

Jana asked us to revisit two old UXPRODs that address the question of user record attachments, and limiting the scope of permissions for users (UXPRODs 35 and 37). We need to include user stories before the developers can move forward with these.

What are some examples of needing to upload files to user records? Donna and Brooks offered several examples: user agreements for services or permissions, terms of use for laptops and equipment, borrowing privileges as a proxy, etc. Please write up some examples in these issues.
Should we have the ability to limit what users permissions are applicable based on service point? That is, a given user may be authorized to work at service points A and B, but have different sets of permissions based on the service point of operation. Andrea will write up something for this.