Inventory (UXPROD-785)

[UXPROD-2855] FE: Display Bound with in the UI (Instance, holdings, item) Created: 18/Dec/20  Updated: 25/Jul/22  Resolved: 17/Sep/21

Status: Closed
Project: UX Product
Components: None
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: Kiwi (R3 2021)
Parent: Inventory

Type: New Feature Priority: P3
Reporter: Charlotte Whitt Assignee: Charlotte Whitt
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: inventory, metadatamanagement, po-mvp, round_iv
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Attachments: PNG File Bound-with alongside other setups (March 2021) (1).png     PNG File Bound-with_ single item model (June 2020) (1).png     PNG File Screenshot from 2021-05-30 12-46-56.png    
Issue links:
Blocks
blocks UXPROD-3080 Edit - first iteration. Analytical re... Closed
blocks UXPROD-3640 Edit and delete - second iteration. A... Closed
is blocked by UXPROD-1241 BE: Analytical records; bound with - ... Closed
Defines
is defined by MODINVSTOR-757 Add sample data for bound-with Closed
is defined by UIIN-1518 Item. Bound with. Display text bound ... Closed
is defined by UIIN-1521 Item. Bound with. Add accordion at bo... Closed
is defined by UIIN-1522 Item. Bound with. Display bound with ... Closed
is defined by UIIN-1523 Item. Bound with. Top heading with In... Closed
is defined by UIIN-1524 Result list. Bound with. Instance in ... Closed
is defined by UIIN-1533 Holdings accordion. Item detail list.... Closed
Gantt End to Start
has to be done before MODDATAIMP-530 Update a bound-with instance, holding... Open
has to be done before MODDATAIMP-529 Check schema updates for Inventory ho... Closed
Relates
relates to UX-172 UX. Representation of analytics and b... Closed
relates to UXPROD-135 Analytical records; bound width - lin... Closed
relates to UIIN-327 Representation of analytics and bound... Closed
relates to UIREQ-23 Requests: Search and Select Item on R... Open
relates to UXPROD-3174 Analyze Folijet support work for Inve... Blocked
Epic Link: Inventory
Analysis Estimate: Very Small (VS) < 1day
Analysis Estimator: Charlotte Whitt
Front End Estimate: Large < 10 days
Front-End Confidence factor: Low
Development Team: Prokopovych
Kiwi Planning Points (DO NOT CHANGE): 61
PO Rank: 131
PO Ranking Note: Aligned PO rank with Calculated Total rank.
Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): R4
Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): R1
Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): R1
Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): R1
Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): R1
Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): R1
Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): R1
Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): R1
Rank: hbz (TBD): R1
Rank: Hungary (MVP End 2020): R1
Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): R1
Rank: Leipzig (Full TBD): R1
Rank: Mainz (Full TBD): R1
Rank: MI State-Lib of MI (Sum 2021): R2
Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): R2
Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): R1
Rank: Trinity College (Jun 2021): R1
Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): R1

 Description   

CW - 12/18/2020 + 5/24/2021: I have split the original feature UXPROD-1241 Closed into three:

  1. UXPROD-1241 Closed will cover the Backend work done by development team Thor in R1 2021, funded by GBV.
  2. UXPROD-2855 Closed covers the front end work - display in the UI. This work can begin when UXPROD-1241 Closed is done
  3. Edit of bound with records
    • UXPROD-3080 Closed Covers work the Sif development team (funded by GBV) will do. Scope: Nolana
    • UXPROD-3640 Closed Covers work the Sif development team (funded by GBV) will do. Scope: Orchid

The libraries ranking are kept in sync for all three features.

Goal/Problem: Need to link multiple instance records to the same item.
Need to identify (clarify) which elements will be displayed in instance detail record for circulation screens.

Cataloguing format of
1) Analytical records (= analyzed separate bibliographic records for a work published as a collection) and
2) bound with records (= bound-with monographs are instances of two or more independent works)

Use cases: If one title in a bound-with is checked-out; all other titles bound-with need to be shown as checked out.
As a user I need to see accurate availability at the title level
As circulation staff I need to be able to see what materials are checked out and to what user
Cataloging staff need to see which titles are bound together; if looking at one title, need to know which other titles are bound with it

Analytic record needs to reflect circulation status of analyzed title

Data elements needed? [feedback needed from RA]

Related features:

  1. UXPROD-1241 Closed Back End work - BE: Analytical records; bound with - part 2: link multiple bibs to the same item
  2. UXPROD-3080 Closed Prokopovych. Edit. Analytical records; bound with - part 2: link multiple bibs to the same item
  3. UXPROD-3640 Closed Sif. Edit. Analytical records; bound with - part 2: link multiple bibs to the same item

MM-SIG working groups specifications: Slide deck - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CXD7K_b6sN6f9ZdKW0qRIYA7PLcsjucPMbRtJun2mCU/edit#slide=id.p

Old documents:
Source: https://discuss.folio.org/t/multipart-monographs/1347



 Comments   
Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 07/Jun/21 ]

Hi Charlotte Whitt Will this work definitely be done in R3/Kiwi? We will need to think through the impact on Data Import's Creation/Update of Instances and Item records, as well as Data Export's output of the same.

cc: Oleksii Kuzminov Kateryna Senchenko Magda Zacharska Khalilah Gambrell

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 07/Jun/21 ]

Yes, this is work the Prokopovych team will pick up for R3 2021. Please let me know what features for Data Import, Data Export and qucikMARC I should link to, so we reflect the 'theme' of updates.

CC: Holly Mistlebauer Kirstin Kemner-Heek

Comment by Magda Zacharska [ 07/Jun/21 ]

Charlotte Whitt - do I interpret this feature correctly that it will introduce new properties on the Instance record level but will not modify existing ones. Is this correct?

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 08/Jun/21 ]

Hi Magda Zacharska - what is implemented is a data model which provide the option for an item to link to multiple holdings – so this is not about introducing new properties on the instance record

Comment by Marc Johnson [ 06/Jul/21 ]

Charlotte Whitt Is this still in draft, given that there are open issues ready for development by the Prokopovych team?

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 06/Jul/21 ]

Marc Johnson No you are right, this is very much Work in progress. Not sure if it's me or someone else who has put it as Draft - anyways now it's fixed

Comment by Marc Johnson [ 06/Jul/21 ]

Charlotte Whitt Thank you

Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 07/Jul/21 ]

Charlotte Whitt Marc Johnson Magda Zacharska Dennis BridgesIt seems to me like we should talk through the implications of this for Data Import, Data Export, and Orders/Receiving. It will not affect quickMARC, since item records are outside the purview of QM.

Examples:

  • If data import is creating an item record from an incoming MARC Bib, would it be expected to somehow link that item record to multiple instances?
  • If data import is updating an item record from an incoming MARC Bib, I think it'll be OK, since the match would most likely be on Item HRID, UUID, or Barcode number
  • Is there any change to the Instance or Item record schema to add/modify a field to indicate an Item record belongs to multiple instances? If so, we may need to update the Item or Instance field mapping screen
  • If data export is outputting Instance + Item data, would it need to take into account a new data element
  • If orders are creating items, and/or receiving is updating items, would it somehow need to take into account that an item record is linked to multiple instances?

Please let me know if we should arrange a quick meeting to discuss. I'm concerned about this Inventory work moving forward without a clear understanding of its impact on related apps.

cc: Jakub Skoczen Hkaplanian Khalilah Gambrell

Comment by Marc Johnson [ 07/Jul/21 ]

Ann-Marie Breaux

It seems to me like we should talk through the implications of this for Data Import, Data Export, and Orders/Receiving. It will not affect quickMARC, since item records are outside the purview of QM.

I think that is a good idea. I'm happy to be involved. I can share my thoughts here on those specific questions if folks want. I think it's worth keeping in mind, the chosen design does not introduce a new element on the item record, it introduces a new record type that associates items and holdings together.

The Thor team already implemented bound-with items in the back-end (only the front-end is being picked up by a project team), meaning it might be useful for Niels Erik Nielsen to also be involved in these conversations as he is most familiar with the model.

Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 07/Jul/21 ]

Ann-Marie Breaux I would like to be a part of this discussion as well. If nothing is being added to the Item record then it shouldn't cause us any immediate problems. However, I imagine once the bound with is more exposed there will undoubtedly be functionality/expectations from users regarding how it relates to acquisitions information. The more we know at the outset the easier that will be to navigate. thx!

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 07/Jul/21 ]

Ann-Marie Breaux Dennis Bridges Magda Zacharska - yes let's arrange a meeting for us to define eventually implications for Data Import, Data Export, and Orders. I'll send out a doodle poll.

CC: Niels Erik Nielsen Kirstin Kemner-Heek lew235

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 07/Jul/21 ]

Ann-Marie Breaux - we might have more examples to go over, but to the ones you listed above then:

  • If data import is creating an item record from an incoming MARC Bib, would it be expected to somehow link that item record to multiple instances? Answer: NOT Relevant
  • If data import is updating an item record from an incoming MARC Bib, I think it'll be OK, since the match would most likely be on Item HRID, UUID, or Barcode number Answer: YES - all good
  • Is there any change to the Instance or Item record schema to add/modify a field to indicate an Item record belongs to multiple instances? If so, we may need to update the Item or Instance field mapping screen Answer: No, there are no changes to the Item, HoldingsRecord or Instance schema in Inventory storage. The Item is related to multiple holdings records (and thus by extension to multiple Instances) through a new data structure in Inventory storage.
  • If data export is outputting Instance + Item data, would it need to take into account a new data element Answer: No, as per above comment
  • If orders are creating items, and/or receiving is updating items, would it somehow need to take into account that an item record is linked to multiple instances? Answer: If Orders is creating an Item, it will not (yet) be connected to multiple instances (unless Orders makes it so at this point). If receiving is updating an Item, that is a bound-with, it can do so as before.

And more details from Niels Erik Nielsen:
If, down the line, data import/export or Orders need to register a new Item as a bound-with or need to retrieve it with it’s bound-with parts, then these modules must know how to persist and retrieve that information in Inventory storage using the new bound-with-part API for example: https://s3.amazonaws.com/foliodocs/api/mod-inventory-storage/bound-with-part.html

For completeness: There are schema changes for bound-with in the business logic module, mod-inventory. In both the Instance and the Item schema there is a new derived, read-only field `isBoundWith`, indicating that records are bound-with, to assist the UI in displaying that fact. And when retrieving a Item by ID, the Item will contain a list (read-only so far) of the titles that are bound within it, again for the benefit of the UI.

Comment by Magda Zacharska [ 08/Jul/21 ]

Charlotte Whitt since isBoundWith is a new property for Instance and Item records, it will not be listed on the transformation form of the custom mapping profile  - that means that data will not be exported.  Is this a desired behavior?

Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 08/Jul/21 ]

And sounds like we'll need to update the Create messages for Instances and Items to take into account that new field. Not sure about the updates messages. Definitely need to meet and talk it through. cc: Kateryna Senchenko

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:27:24 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.