OregonDigital
Ordering of works within a collection, supporting structure of archival material
Descriptive summary
Per a discussion with Chris Petersen, that there is a need to be able to order works within a collection. There are some collections that are a list of letters that are in a chronological order. This has just been brought up and we havent nailed down the specifics. But this will be discussed more at a future date.
Along these lines, I'd like to find a way to separate or tag Features from Functionality. It's a fine line but Features are "What" and Functionality is the "How" of the "What." At least as a label to the left here so UX qualities can be hammered out.
Search results list to mirror a container list (chronological perhaps but open to curator's discretion).
We will probably want to support more than just Box and Folder levels. Look at Rock and Roll Hall of Fame results display showing archival material levels and brief EAD display: http://catalog.rockhall.com/catalog/ARC-0155/ref45 Also look at ArcLight display. See if anyone else is tackling this.
A bit more clarification based on what would be useful to my colleagues in SCARC, based on conversations in recent days:
What we could use is the ability to sort a collection of content by unique identifier number. So, for example, if this entire photo collection were digitized, we would have a facet option that would let us display the content in order from P308:01 to P308:049. Likewise for a Record Group (or manuscript collection) that was mass digitized and described on the folder level within OD, we might be able to sort (for example) along the lines of RG007:1.1 to RG007:2.4 to display the first series of this collection in the same order as its presentation in a finding aid.
To add to @petersec comment: Rather than having IDs as a facet, it might be useful to have them added as a "sort by" function. If it's possible, it would be great to have items automatically sort by ID after selecting a Local Collection Name or Collection facet. It seems the default is to sort by relevance, which isn't actually useful when you're viewing an entire set with no other search parameters.
POSM determined this is not MVP and will be discussed further during upcoming compound object meeting.
