Agreements

Ability to sort AGLs by columns

At the moment the AGL in the Agreement are sorted alphabetically by name/description.  It would be very useful to be able to sort by the other columns as well.

Use Case: We would like to see the newest / oldest AGLs (sorted by “active-to” dates).

Ability to search/filter AGLs and display AGLs in the widget

Use Cases:

We use tags on AGL and we would like to see all AGLs with a special tag, e.g. because we need to do sth with this AGL (e.g. catalog, check access, pay invoice, etc.).

We would like to see all AGL with a special access-from/access-to date etc.

Agreement

The Agreements App lets you connect the same holding package to the same agreement multiple times, without any blocker nor warning that this connection was already made, and then the agreement lists the same package multiple times in multiple rows .So can we add a new functionality to show warning when you link the agreement line twice to the same package?

Note: This is requested by Unica.

See also Jira ticket ERM-2902 

April 27,

2023

re-discuss open aspects - concurrent users

what Notes?

03/17/2021 meeting minutes

2021-03-24 - ERM Subgroup meeting minutes

After discovering that inadvertently an extra AGL had been added to an Agreement from eHoldings causing an unwanted dupe entry in the Agreement–but which is NOT obvious or in any way noticeable once it has been done from eHoldings and very difficult to detect in the Agreement since the entries do not show following each other and the Agreement has many many lines (+100)–I wondered whether this should even be possible (slack posting: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603474359024000)

In response, Owen countered that one may want multiple AGLs for the same title entity when needing to link them to separate POLs over time (since AGLs may be date limited); but also suggested thinking about:

• How we can reduce the likelihood of this happening by accident (e.g. warning that there is already an AL for this resource)

• How we can make it more obvious to the user in eHoldings that there are multiple Agreement Lines (within a single agreement)
• Making it more obvious to the user in Agreements that there are multiple Agreement Lines for the same resource within a single Agreement

(see Owen's initial and following responses to Sara's slack query: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603710981024800?thread_ts=1603474359.024000&cid=C9ER2HCRY)

Question for discussion: to be able to dupe add or not? And if, to be able, then how to address making it obvious

“Replacing” linked resource forming an AGL (eHoldings Perspective)

I link the package “Banking Information Database” from ProQuest as an agreement line and add an AGL note, notes-helper app notes, and link a POL. ProQuest repackages the resource to become the “Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection.” EBSCO creates a new package under that name in HLM, and deletes the BID package because the content provider says it is no longer a resource they sell – therefore the data from my linked resource for my AGL disappears and I need to create a new AGL and move all the data over to that AGL.

It would be nice to be able to simply replace the title/package being linked from eHoldings to form the AGL similar to how you can replace the linked organization without having the edit roles or notes. When the KB management team deletes information it is not always communicated ahead of time – but if I knew that BID was being deleted tomorrow I would replace it with the AT&C package and move on – it isn’t a “new” resource, nothing changes with our POL, licenses, or ordering method, and we retain no perpetual access to the old version of the resource. I would expect that it does not overwrite the note I left on the AGL or remove the POL or notes-helper app notes, it’s just a swap out for a new asset from eHoldings.

We are interested to hear how other institutions are managing this situation:

A license covers all libraries at an institution and is signed by library A (the main library). Later, an amendment to that license is signed by library B (such as a medical center library or law library).  We're not sure how to represent that in FOLIO in a way that is searchable by library since the differentiation is at the amendment level and there aren't data elements on the amendment that we can use to make a library distinction.

Virginia Martin and Julie Brannon, Duke

Agreements

Licenses

discussion starts: 02/03/2021 meeting minutes

02/07/2021 meeting minutes

Agreements

Licenses

04/14/2021 meeting minutes

2022-03-23 - ERM meeting

• Talk to KG about link on  eHoldings screen - suggest link to Agreement Line rather than agreement? (or both). Esp. applies to eHoldings screen for title (vs package)
• Investigate options for better display on eResource screen "Agreements for this resource" where AL is for package - need more specific information - preferred approach to have link to the relevant PCI
• Investigate options to display information on dropped/future PCIs within a package in an AL better - making clear to user that it isn't part of the agreement currently

2021-10-20: OS/GO investigate if we can add the "Add PO Line" button into the PO Line accordion header on the Agreement Line screen

OS restart work to look at how we handle multiple POLs within a single package scenario - particularly eBooks and Streaming videos. Maybe not even package, but individual items (streaming video) - and depending on the agreement then possibly not separate POLs?

Agreements

Licenses

Revisit the decision to display the agreements when entering the app instead of needing to search first

MS: Related: which filters should be selected if any: reduce to only "active"?

In the Dashboard app > ERM Agreements widget definition: A filter on agreement name does not include alternative names and there is no filter for agreement alternative names. Would it be possible to add such a filter? 

My use case:

• A widget that displays "Active agreements without agreement lines (excluding PCA and LAS:eR agreements)". I can exclude the PCA agreements by a filter on
  • <agreement name> <does not include> <abbestellte Titel mit dauerhaftem Zugriff>
• To filter out the agreements from LAS:eR I'd need to filter on
  • <agreement alternative name> <does not include> <LAS:eR>

Given:

• a GOKb package maintained by a foreign library, e.g a package with e-resources on an aggregator platform or an evidence based selection package
• a library that has chosen to buy selected e-resources from within that package with post cancellation access terms and
• these e-resources are linked to an agreement as single agreement lines (one per ebook)

If at any point in time the package curatory group changes the content of the package and removes one of the e-resources the library has post cancellation access to, e.g. by setting an access end date, GOKb data will update data in the local KB. The e-resource will now display as "dropped", even if this statement is not true for the library.

It seems necessary to have an option to indicate on field level that certain updates from the external KB should not update the local KB data. Or an option to cut the connection between the local e-resource and the external source completely.

OS: Write up a story to allow for local copy of a remote KB package (i.e. the "complete separation" scenario) [This may not be required though as could be done via GOKb]. For discussion with ERM users once written

OS: Discuss with developers possibility of protecting specific fields or TIPPs to avoid unwanted updates

With the current implementation in the internal KB it is not possible to find a resource by ISBN if query/data have differing entries around hyphens. A search for 9783428569625 won't find a resource with ISBN 978-3-428-56962-5 and vice versa.

We can create the hyphens as a workaround with this web tool, but it would be better if Agreements would support search on ISBN without the need to worry about the hyphens: https://www.otzberg.net/isbn/

OS: write story to store ISBNs in consistent way and to support searching with or with hyphens

Note that Inventory implemented a solution for this previously

The Internal note and Public note fields on a license term can only be filled if content is present in the Value field. Otherwise the system displays a warning message: "A value must be set in order to save a note".

We have a use case where the value of a term shall be delivered to a third party system. Multiple license terms on ILL are going to create a code in the holdings records in our union catalog. If ILL is forbidden we reflect it in one license term – the other two then don't apply. We want to indicate that situation by adding a note to the two terms without setting a value, because the linked reference list only provided "yes/no" and none of those values applies.

Could we talk about extending the license terms so that a note can be captured even without setting a value?

Currently, for institutions using FOLIO with eHoldings, when one goes to add an Agreement Line from within an existing Agreement, they are presented with the eHoldings search box where they can only select one resource/package/title at a time. To add another, they have to click "Save and Close", reselect the Agreement, and restart the process.

This can be a bit tedious for libraries either when they are initially implementing ERM and connecting their eHoldings to Agreements, or for an existing library when they acquire certain e-resources in bundles corresponding to one Agreement (like JSTOR packages or ebook subject packages).

Currently, this functionality exists for Local KB configurations, with the "basket" option. Can their be a discussion about implementing this in the UI for eHoldings users as well?