I think I would generally agree with what you are suggesting. For one, I don't think repeating the code description does anything and I personally would find it an enormous help to have more meaningful descriptions. I also think it would be very helpful to have the required for language in there and in the appropriate sections of the documentation. In working on our system, I have had to do a bit of sleuth work to identify what permissions are need for a given function and I'm still very uncertain if I'm understanding some of these correctly. Therefore, proceeding as you suggest would be a big help.
Tim Spindler Manager of Library Applications C/W MARS On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Soulliere, Robert < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > One of the most challenging aspects of Evergreen is working with the > complex permissions matrix. In order to alleviate some of the challenges > associated with giving the appropriate permissions for groups/users to carry > out various tasks. I was thinking about 2 strategies for improving > documentation in this area: > > 1) Update the descriptions located in the permission.prm_list table in the > Evergreen database . Then, create a script to generate a docbook table with > the updated descriptions. I would really like some feedback for the best > approach for this in regards to the wording of the descriptions. Currently, > some of the descriptions repeat the code field (e.g."DELETE_BIB_LEVEL") and > in other cases they have descriptions with. "Allow a user to..." or "Enables > the user to..." etc... I wonder if it would be useful for these permission > descriptions to include "required for ..." with a list of functions actions > where the permission is required. Does that sound like a plausible or useful > bit on info in the descriptions themselves or would it create a complex > situation as permissions are added and the permission structure is adjusted > in the future? > > 2) At the DIG meeting in Decatur someone mentioned creating a list of > required permissions fat the beginning of various procedures/sections in the > documentation. I thought this was an excellent idea and I think someone > might have suggested that they have begun work on a permission matrix. Would > anyone be able to share with this DIG list any permission matrix/mapping > work they have started or is anyone able to provide some permission > information for specific procedures in the documentation? > > > Thanks, > Robert > > > > Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS > Systems Librarian > Mohawk College Library > [email protected] > Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936 > Fax: 905 575 2011 > > This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended > only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible > to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication > is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please > notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy > the original message. > _______________________________________________ > OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation > -- Tim Spindler [email protected] *P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary.*
_______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
