We're wondering why records display in the Receiving app for orders that are created with a Receipt status = "Receipt not required"? We're not seeing anything in the receiving app record to indicate that the order is a "Receipt not required" order, so they wouldn't know from the Receiving app that this order was set to "Receipt not required."
Either give queue or not giving that receiving type. Should not be a receiving title.Â
From Kristin Martin to Everyone 08:12 AM Agreed! I've also found this weird.
If just searching for title directly, would get a much longer list. Ends up being extraneous information that people have to sift through
From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 08:12 AM But for Package POLs Package Titles, then it is important to be able to search for them in Receiving Even though they are not received
From Buddy Pennington to Everyone 08:13 AM Is it a language issue? Would changing it to "Not received" be clearer? We are JUST starting to use Receiving so we haven't experienced this.
When a POL has a receipt status of "Receipt not required" the Receiving title should be hidden from the result list.Â
Note: currently this is the only place you can see package POL titles.Â
Are package POLs marked receipt not required?Â
No, because a package POL that you want to add stuff too, you have to have create Instance, Holdings, Items, etc.Â
Would it be logical to add a filter for POL receipt status?
We could default it to not show those.Â
From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 08:25 AM Regarding packages, Mich State has asked for the linked POLS to display within the package. Â We don't create inventory records for most electronic resources.
From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone 08:26 AM Our Package POLs are what we use for Print Approval plans and others in the 5C are for Gifts …. so not just for electronic resources
From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 08:27 AM We also use packages for some print "packages," but in those cases we do link the inventory records to the package.
Dennis: We will need to create a page and come back to this, it's a broader discussion.
Orders: Configure whether material type is required
Orders: We'd like to make material type required for electronic order types so that users don't accidentally skip that field and it's important for tracking/reporting. Could that be configured by each institution in Settings > Orders so that institutions can decide whether to require material type based on order format (physical, electronic, P/E mix, other)?
Dennis: We have discussed having an Acquisitions material type.Â
Kristin: I wouldn't want to make it required for everyone to use material type. We are already having to put 'unspecified' everywhere.Â
Dennis: If you're create inventory includes item materials, then material type is required.Â
Dennis: So for different formats, you would be able to choose if material type is required?
Would a work around like this, being able to set if it's required or not, make things better enough?
Julie, would rather see that development effort go towards 2455. Would rather have 2 separate vocabularies. One that is maintained on that order that reflects the material type for acquisitions, and a separate one that interacts with inventory.Â
From Paivi Rentz to Everyone 08:35 AM We would like the option of being able to use an order record material type. Our Purchasing Department requires the material type as part of the order reporting
From Buddy Pennington to Everyone 08:38 AM Would allowing for custom values in Order Format be an option?
From Julie Stauffer to Everyone 08:39 AM My only suggestion is that if there is a separate material type for orders, could we consider a slightly different label so that it is not confused with the item inventory material type
Dennis: So how to resolve this? Your only bringing this up because the other functionality hasn't been finished yet so I don't think we should create more stories. Dennis would like people to comment on the 2455 so it might move it up in priority.Â
From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 08:45 AM Julie, do you use expense classes for some of these reporting values?
From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone 08:45 AM No, we don't use expense classes
From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 08:45 AM We do for fees, services, print, electronic/leased, etc.
From Paivi Rentz to Everyone 08:46 AM We also have formats such as "access fee" and "digital archive" and "captions"
From Kristin Martin to Everyone 08:46 AM We use expense classes too, although not at the level of granularity of Duke.
From Scott Perry (UChicago) to Everyone 08:50 AM Not me, but a good idea.
We'd like to explore what other providers we could set up API's for - specifically, Kanopy and Amazon.
Dennis:Â It would be helpful to have a list of desired interactions. Maybe having a wiki page to show what groups are using and what type of integration they would like.Â
Lisa Smith: Creating orders is what I am most interested in.Â
Dennis: It would be good to systematically start detailing what those ideal integrations look like. There is a lot of detail to do before I create a story. We need to create a list of desired integrations with more details.Â
From Kristin Martin to Everyone 08:54 AM We've had conversations with Harrassowitz about their ability to use the GOBI API to allow for API orders from them. Since we haven't yet implemented the GOBI API for GOBI, we haven't pursued it recently, but I think it would be great to add this to the list.
From Owen Stephens to Everyone 08:55 AM OASIS and SAP are mentioned on the page I linked
From Scott Perry (UChicago) to Everyone 08:55 AM They were very engaged several years ago--very early in the project.
From Lisa Smith, Mich State to Everyone 08:55 AM Harrassowitz worked with us on EDI invoices. Â We would like API from them as well.
From Owen Stephens to Everyone 08:55 AM Although SAP is finance right? But OASIS acquisitions I think
From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone 08:56 AM Yes, having OASIS available would be desired.