2024-12-11 ERM SIG meeting

 Meeting information

Date: Dec 11, 2024

Meeting Time:  8am ET | 1pm UK | 2pm CET

Meeting URL: https://openlibraryfoundation.zoom.us/j/88673361033 - password needed: please see link

Housekeeping

 Homework

 Discussion topics

  1. Development progress update

  2. eUsage App: Future development plans

  3. Implementers' topic: URLs in Agreements and LIcenses documents

Minutes

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

10min

Development progress update

@Owen Stephens

  • Mainly working on issues arising from Bugfest testing

  • Fixed as many as possible, those fixes will be part of Ramsons

  • All Agreements and Licenses test cases are done

  • Major issue in Licenses module: uploading documents does not work; issue is existing since Poppy; will be fixed for Poppy and Quesnelia as CSPs

  • Currently developing external Push KB service; will be tested in GBV first, but is available for everyone

15min

eUsage App - future development plans

@Stefan Dombek

  • Stefan Dombek is Product Owner for eUsage app for 5 months now

  • App is now in phase where there is more management needed than new development done

  • Stefan can always be contacted directly via Slack

  • Some additional requirements are already identified for further discussion

  • Stefan presents plans for 2025

    • COUNTER 5.1 Support

    • Improving the integration of aggregators

    • Improvement of error handling

    • Obtain feedback from the community and check and, if necessary, implement further requirements

  • eUsage is already in use by some institutions internationallly; others are testing it

    • Zorian: EBSCO hosted libraries are not using it

  • Question: Are you also going to work on the eUsage plugin that connects Agreements and eUsage? > this will be discussed next year

35min

URLs in Agreements and LIcenses documents

@Owen Stephens

With the Q release, the validation of URL fields in Agreements and Licenses has changed. The URLs to wikis and Jiras, which only resolve internally, are no longer validated. Same happens to file paths. As a result, libraries can no longer save the records where they have entered respective information in the URL field.

Wish: add another field for URLs that don’t fit the validation criteria.

Alternative: allow flexibility in validation

  • 2048 characters is the field limit (which is the longest URL browsers accept)

  • Felix in chat: If you have a really long URL and the webserver would accept it, but FOLIO's URL field would reject it because of the length, one could always use a link shortener and use this short link in FOLIO. That is no ideal situation, though, because such shorteners often track how often a link has been clicked and other metrics. At ZBW we host our own service.

  • Validation is checking on the form of the URL

  • Possible: we could allow file URIs and “file” as a protocol

  • Margaret Youngberg in chat: Network file path would be very, very helpful -- I'm currently using physical location for these URIs

    • Gisela and Heiko agree

  • Felix in chat: The issue with the file path is that it is not possible to create it without third party tools in Windows. You can only copy a path that looks like: "M:\hmm\foo\2024-12-09_ol_ebc_lzm.txt"

  • Possible: we could add a separate field

  • Sara in chat: Maybe we could rename the Physical Location to just Location for things like the c-drive example

    • Daniel agrees

  • Felix in chat: Also, it has to be as simple as possible for the end users. That is a lesson we've learned in the last few years with Folio ERM.

    • Margaret agrees

  • Stefan in chat: File paths can be stored as a link in the UI. This would require the security settings to be adjusted. Links to file paths are blocked by the browser by default.

  • Question: are libraries using the field “Physical location” currently?

    • yes, some libraries do use the field already

      • Benjamin in chat: We have some records with file  URI left but switched to webdav

  • Question: would libraries pobject to renaming the field “Physical location” to e.g. “Other location”?

    • No one in the call objects

  • Agreement: “Physical location” will be renamed

  • Maybe addtional work as discussed above will be done

Chat

 

 Action items

 Decisions