[FOLIO-985] consider removing material type from item Created: 13/Dec/17  Updated: 18/Jan/19

Status: Open
Project: FOLIO
Components: None
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: None

Type: New Feature Priority: P3
Reporter: Jakub Skoczen Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Sprint:
Development Team: Core: Platform

 Description   

It's not clear what its function is. If it is being superseded by Instance resource type or if it is supplementing it.



 Comments   
Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 15/Jan/18 ]

Jakub Skoczen, this seems like an issue for Charlotte Whitt, right? Not really something for the dev backlog.

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 15/Jan/18 ]

Cate Boerema Jakub Skoczen Sure, I can take over. We need Resource type (for the Instance record), and material type for the item record (if different from the Instance record). Implementing this is part of the refined UX of Inventory (v2) - see http://ux.folio.org/prototype/en/inventory?view=full

Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 16/Jan/18 ]

Cool. I am removing this from sprint30, then. Honestly, it can probably be removed entirely since Charlotte is on top of it. I'll let Jakub Skoczen close it since he opened it.

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 18/Jan/19 ]

Hi Cate Boerema and Jakub Skoczen - this story I'd say we can close.

We need to have material type in the item record to drive the loan rules.

Resource type in the instance record follow's the RDA standard (rdacarrier terms) and material type is item specific and follow
1. a default list defined by the MM-SIG and RA-SIG - see tab Condensed list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1scRQl09jroOy-c_emITk3EQ6lkj7XPRlkupPNuL-FfM/edit#gid=1928495227 ( UIIN-152 Blocked ), or
2. library specific terms

Generated at Thu Feb 08 23:09:58 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.