Requests
(UXPROD-790)
|
|
| Status: | Blocked |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Requests |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P2 |
| Reporter: | Stephanie Buck | Assignee: | Stephanie Buck |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | consortia-ebsco, remote_storage | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Volaris | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Current situation or problem: Initial iterations of remote storage work did not include Deaccessioning In scope: Deaccessioning items (removing an item barcode from the remote storage database) for Dematic StagingDirector Use case(s): Permanently removing items from a collection is a regular part of library workflows. Moving an item to a temporary location is a regular workflow. Workflows:
Proposed solution/stories
Links to additional info |
| Comments |
| Comment by Mikhail Fokanov [ 26/Oct/22 ] |
Should we change holding or instance location, when the item location is changed to non-remote? |
| Comment by Mikhail Fokanov [ 26/Oct/22 ] |
|
Right now for accession if there is an error with accession, the Folio will just log exception to Folio logging and don't try to do it again. Should it be the same for the deaccession? |
| Comment by Mikhail Fokanov [ 26/Oct/22 ] |
|
How the "Checks that item is out of the storage before deaccession" should be performed? What should Folio check? Item status? |
| Comment by Mikhail Fokanov [ 26/Oct/22 ] |
|
"Triggered only by changing permanent item’s location from remote to non-remote." Why the permanent location and not the effective location is considered? Effective location is changed when the location of the parent holding is changed, that is why we used it for accession. Can we use the same field effective location ? |
| Comment by Stephanie Buck [ 28/Oct/22 ] |
Yes. |
| Comment by Stephanie Buck [ 28/Oct/22 ] |
This is a human action. There are warning messages in the UI designs to ask FOLIO users to ensure they've pulled the item from the shelf before deaccessioning. |
| Comment by Stephanie Buck [ 28/Oct/22 ] |
Please see
|
| Comment by Buddy Pennington Jr [ 28/Oct/22 ] |
|
Stephanie Buck - I just wanted to chime in with a couple of quick comments, based on the documentation I have from GVSU as well as our own Dematic documentation.
It appears to me that our Dematic EMS setup messaging for deaccessioning follows what GVSU has. So hopefully, there is no need for additional accommodation for UMKC for deaccessioning functionality. We'd be happy to be included in testing once you all are ready for that. Thanks!
|
| Comment by Tim Auger [ 23/Feb/23 ] |
|
We just received a notification that Dematic may be decommissioning it's Staging Director product in October of 2023. As a result, we may not be spending any development resources to this product (and may be devoting resources to a different product). |
| Comment by Buddy Pennington Jr [ 23/Feb/23 ] |
|
Ah, interesting, Tim Auger. Our situation at UMKC is a little odd regarding these FOLIO integrations in that we do not use Staging Director software. We use EMS (by Dematic) software but our connection is TCP/IP so we are relying on the Staging Director configuration for Remote Storage as that connection method is not supported by the Dematic configuration. Does this mean that deaccessioning functionality will not be developed for the Staging Director configuration? |
| Comment by Stephanie Buck [ 23/Feb/23 ] |
|
Hi Buddy Pennington Jr. We're pausing on development until we have more information. We'll make sure you're kept in the loop. |
| Comment by Buddy Pennington Jr [ 23/Feb/23 ] |
|
Stephanie Buck - Sounds good. Thanks! |