Inventory
(UXPROD-785)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | Lotus (R1 2022) | Parent: | Inventory |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Charlotte Whitt | Assignee: | Charlotte Whitt |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 2 |
| Labels: | back-end, front-end | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | Large < 10 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimator: | Michal Kuklis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | Large < 10 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Marc Johnson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Prokopovych | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kiwi Planning Points (DO NOT CHANGE): | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Ranking Note: | CW: PO Rank added based on reviewed by MM-SIG 2/11/2021. More institutions will add their rankings. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): | R3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Current situation or problem: Libraries need to enter notes that describe decisions, why they were made, variations from standard procedures, etc. The Inventory Instance notes are often controlled by the underlying MARC record, and they relate to the bibliographic description. This note field would live in the administrative section of the record and would not be controlled by any underlying source record. It may be useful to include in Instances, Holdings, and Items. By far, the highest priority is Instances, followed by Holdings, followed by Items. This could be a thin thread option in advance of (or in addition to)
In scope
Out of scope
Use case(s):
Proposed solution/stories: Adding a new data element to the Instance, Holdings and Item record, labelled Administrative note. The data element is to be implemented as a repeatable, not required data element. In the UI the data element will be implemented as a text area data element. Links to additional info MM Productivity Stats Vision (this is "medium term solution" proposed there) Questions [only if relevant] |
| Comments |
| Comment by lew235 [ 08/Feb/21 ] |
|
Charlotte Whitt Ann-Marie created this feature as a draft. Could you let me know what it still needs to move it beyond draft status? |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 08/Feb/21 ] |
|
Hi lew235 - there would need to be added some UX mock ups, and then then 3 UIIN-stories (Instance, Holdings, Item). Sounds pretty straight forward work. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 08/Feb/21 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt I added you in the "Assigned' field (since it's Inventory) - will you take care of the mockups and stories? Thank you! |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 08/Feb/21 ] |
|
Sure, np. lew235 we would also neet to get the feature ranked by the libraries. |
| Comment by lew235 [ 08/Feb/21 ] |
|
Charlotte Whitt let me know if I can help with the mockups/stories! |
| Comment by Lisa McColl [ 11/Mar/21 ] |
|
At the item level Lehigh would use an administrative note for retention decisions. For example we are about to become part of "Project ReShare". We have identified at the item level, as well as the instance level, which copies/titles we've agreed to retain. Like many libraries, we often have to make space and have retention decisions that need to be made. Having a note that the copy is designated for Project Reshare and therefore should not be withdrawn, at the item level, would be more helpful than the item notes fields, which are somewhat buried. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 17/Sep/21 ] |
|
Reminder for Ann-Marie Breaux Create stories for adding this field to the Instance/Holdings/Item field mapping profiles and link to a Lotus or Morning glory feature. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 21/Dec/21 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt and Marc Johnson I see that work is moving along for this Lotus feature. Question: Once these admin fields are visible and useable in the UI, will there be problems if it is not accounted for in the Data Import create/update actions? I'm hoping no, since it's a optional field. I'm a little nervous that it might be yes, since it's an update to the overall schema for the 3 Inventory record types. I don't think these fields will be included in default mappings from MARC Bib to Inventory Instance, or from MARC Holdings to Inventory Holdings, so not really any worries about those parts. Probably should be some coordinated testing though, to ensure no breakage of:
Then for Morning Glory, I'll add a feature to update the Data Import field mapping UI to account for these new fields and BE to account for sending the data for creating/updating these new fields. And I imagine Magda Zacharska will need to do something similar for export. cc: Khalilah Gambrell Magda Zacharska Kateryna Senchenko Ivan Kryzhanovskyi |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 21/Dec/21 ] |
I think that depends upon how data import works. My understanding that it can either create and update records under some circumstances. I think creation will be ok, as the absence of a mapping merely means there won't be any of these fields present. If records can be updated, then I think it depends upon how the updates are done. It could be possible that these fields are removed during the update e.g. FOLIO typically uses a PUT request that requires the whole of the record, fields that aren't present are effectively removed. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 21/Dec/21 ] |
|
Hi Marc Johnson I think it will be OK. Since these fields will not be controlled by the underlying MARC record, they will act like Instance status or Statistical codes. In theory, data could be mapped into these fields via Data Import field mapping profiles, but there's no requirement to map them. And since the admin note field will not appear on the Data Import field mapping profiles until Folijet does the work to add it (which won't be until Morning Glory at the soonest), then I think it will all be OK. I do still feel like it's worth some basic tests to ensure nothing unexpected happens once these new admin fields appear in the various Inventory records. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 21/Dec/21 ] |
Thanks. I didn't know that fields not included in mappings were automatically mapped across from the starting version of the record to the new one.
Agreed. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 22/Dec/21 ] |
|
Hi Marc Johnson Correct - if the import is updating an existing Instance, Holdings or Item, then the fields not controlled by the underlying MARC stay as-is unless there is specific mapping in the update profile that changes data in the field. For repeating fields (like statistical code), the library has the option to add to existing values; remove all existing values; remove existing values and add the new one specified in the field mapping profile, or remove the particular one specified in the field mapping profile. |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 22/Dec/21 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux Thank you for helping me understand that |