[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Processing notes

[Kennedy, Nancy]

Mike –
Out of curiosity, do you have ‘internal only’ components or notes?  How would you manage the Publish All feature in the context of occasional internal only notes?

For example, in AT, we kept some notes set to “internal only.” But, that AT model doesn’t map easily onto the ArchivesSpace publish checkboxes. Publish All sounds useful for flipping large sets of components to publish, but there wouldn’t be a way to distinguish the ‘internal only’ notes. You’d have to go back and uncheck the internal notes, I suppose? Which seems error prone.

Has anyone else faced this scenario?  How did you adapt your workflows? Or perhaps, how did you adjust your data entry (maybe you limit data entry so that anything ‘internal’ is only entered into the repo processing note, coll mgmt. or user defined fields?)

Nancy


From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Rush, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 9:03 AM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Processing notes

I agree with everything Kevin and Jordan have said. I’d add one additional advantage to using the Repository Processing Note.

When the PUI is implemented, as we are currently working through, it becomes crucial to manage the workflow around published vs. unpublished notes (and components). We anticipate relying heavily on the “Publish All” button at the resource level. Using the Repository Processing Note means there is one less note that could be accidentally published with Publish All.

Mike

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Jordon Steele
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 4:40 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>>
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Processing notes

Christie,

Like Kevin, we use this note to communicate administrative information that doesn’t need to be published but ought to be conveyed to staff, especially if it’s information that doesn’t neatly align with a specific note that could be unpublished. For example, I used it to explain to staff why we decided to change the identifier of a collection from one normally reserved for manuscript collections to one that we use for university records collections. The idea is that having information like this in the Repository Processing Note ensures that it’s more likely to be seen by staff than having it buried in, say, a more specific note that’s marked “unpublished.”

Best,

Jordon

Jordon Steele
Hodson Curator of the University Archives
Special Collections
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
3400 N Charles St
Baltimore, MD 21218
410-516-5493
jsteele at jhu.edu<mailto:jsteele at jhu.edu>

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Clair
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 4:34 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>>
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Processing notes

Hi Christie,

At the University of Denver we use it in both Resource and Archival Object records as a note to other archivists indicating processing or cataloging tasks that were left unfinished for one reason or another, or other administrative things that we don’t want published in the PUI. The idea is that if the actions listed in the Repository Processing Note get taken, we remove the text that’s there.

We have a report that pulls the information from that field for review that we run periodically when setting processing priorities: https://github.com/duspeccoll/archivesspace_reports/tree/master/resources/resource_processing_notes_report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_duspeccoll_archivesspace-5Freports_tree_master_resources_resource-5Fprocessing-5Fnotes-5Freport&d=DwMGaQ&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=fWPDMLxJ1Hpw4R8oN7OV0U6P4Nt_f5o8aUkXaby3nOY&m=gMxspNQHg5oFkrzgTER6dpY45b3cCvyB6tUrmXEoENI&s=f01SKcBsrjNU9f_FAo957_JSQzctEcXpMYANZNg3H6Q&e=>

-k

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Christie Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 2:28 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group
Subject: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Processing notes

Hello,

Can anyone on this list speak to what was intended to go in the "Repository Processing Note" text field for Resources, which the tooltip tells me does not appear in any exports or reports?

Can anyone give me a use case for why they populate this field in addition to (or instead of?) an unpublished "Processing Information" note?

Thanks,

Christie Peterson
--
❄️ ❄️ ❄️ ❄️ ❄️ ❄️ ❄️ ❄️
Christie S. Peterson
Head of Technical Services for Special Collections
Smith College
Northampton, Mass.
413-585-2996
cpeterson at smith.edu<mailto:cpeterson at smith.edu>

pronouns: she/her/hers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20180103/c0a97b04/attachment.html>