Please add questions and topics here. Topics or questions posted in slack will be added here as well.
|#||Topic||Description/ use case||Date added|
Has been discussed in meeting:
Link to agenda/ minutes
|1||Auto-generate Agreements via import|
As an electronic resource librarian with a lot of agreements, I like to set up at least the initial agreement details AND attach resources to it.
|2020-12-03||Khalilah Gambrell||2/12 Meeting minutes|
|2||ERM apps ' ref data updates/additions||How best to manage/be notified of updates/additions.||2020-01-14||Khalilah Gambrell||2/12 Meeting minutes|
|3||What data will be migrated to FOLIO||How far back go people with their agreements in FOLIO||2020-01-29||MS based on a comment by Sara Colglazier in the ERM implementers meeting|
|4||eholdings + Agreements integration||What Agreement features/functionality is not readily available to a customer using the eholdings app?||2020-02-07||Khalilah Gambrell||2/26 Meeting minutes|
|5||Tags/descriptive data at e-resource level||Ability to attach fine-grained information to any given agreement line / e-resource line to answer questions like: core title vs. non-core title, add statistical codes or subject codes. Collection of use cases.||2020-02-11||Felix Hemme, ZBW|
Benjamin Ahlborn SuUB
|6||Multi-value pick-lists in license terms||Ability to record multiple values for pick-list license terms, e.g.: Authorized user groups: staff, students, walk-ins.|
This is go-live relevant for Leipzig.
|2020-02-12||Annika Schröer, UB Leipzig|
|7||Alternate Names/Titles for Agreements|
Ability to assign multiple names to an agreement record AND search on those names. (Example: Directory of Open Access Journals agreement should also have a field to record "DOAJ" as a searchable title.) We see this as being similar to what has already been done in Organizations.
Edit Annika: Being able to search for alternate agreement names seems crucial to us, especially since there is no standard/normalized way of naming agreements. In our experience with our old system, there are alternative names for the majority of agreements and many of the colleagues use different forms actively.
Jack Mulvaney (UMass + Five Colleges)
+1 Annika Schröer, UB Leipzig
+1 Felix Hemme, ZBW
|8||Agreement Lines – expanding information contained in/displayed and able to be recorded under||When an Agreement is not specific to one title or package but is of a (suggested) organizing type for any number of titles/resources each with their own Agreement Lines/POLs etc. then for each the information displayed/provided is currently rather limited. For example, there is no way currently to record Notes at the Agreement Line level, or, to indicate Concurrent User # or Unlimited User information, etc. The inability to record information like this at the Agreement Line level could force us to have to create more Agreements overall to be able to manage resources licensed or purchased at the title or mini-bundle level.||2020-02-18||Sara Colglazier. MHC/Five Colleges|
|9||What additional eholdings + Agreement app integration capabilities do you expect?||2020-02-26||Khalilah Gambrell|
|10||Additional Relationship types needed to optimally make use of the Related Agreements section||In Agreements in the Related Agreements section more different types need to be added and then offered in the dropdown for "Linked agreement's relationship to the agreement being edited". The functionality (automatic bi-way linking) is super cool! but so far the relationship type options are too limited. In the example test-type agreements I talked about in the RM SIG on 2020-02-28, I would have liked to have been able to select 'backfile to'/'backfile of' or 'AAF to'/'Buy In Purchase of' or some such wording etc. I am sure there are other needed relationship types ...||2020-02-28||Sara Colglazier. MHC/Five Colleges|
|11||Make agreement lines independent from connected resources||At the moment, agreement lines can only be created by linking a resource from either eHoldings or the internal KB. It would be very useful for several use cases to be able to create an agreement line without a connected e-resource. |
a. the person creating the agreement and linking the POL is not the one responsible for the content (different team, ...), b. the resource cannot be found at the moment and will be linked later on, c. link costs like service charges to the agreement, d. eHoldings users can then create the agreement and link POLs in one step without having to switch apps twice in the process...
|2020-03-04||Annika Schröer, UB Leipzig|