The goal of this wishlist/discussion item is to support locally-defined format (book, cd, dvd, etc) specifiers for acquisitions lineitems. The main purpose of these formats will be for internal tracking and for delivery of format information for print POs. For now, anyway, EDI is not a concern, mainly because format information is conveyed though other means (e.g. ISBN) with EDI.
The feature will require a) a place to configure the set of formats and b) a way to link formats to lineitems. For configuring the set of formats, I'll propose a new configuration table (config.acq_lineitem_format) with code, label, and owning lib.
For linking the format to the lineitem, I'd propose a new "format" column on acq.lineitem. It's tempting to leverage lineitem attributes for this. I believe the only attribute type that would fit the bill is acq.lineitem_local_attr_definition. My hesitation in using this, though, is that baking this into Evergreen proper (with a config table) means it's not a "local" attribute... it's just part of Evergreen at that point. (Similarly, "estimated_price" used to be a local_attribute, but was promoted to a real column). I'm only moderately opposed to using lineitem_attrs, though..
The final component will be display and selection in the lineitem table UIs (picklist / PO). This could be a new drop-down or an editable (via popup dialog) data point along the bottom row of each lineitem (to the right of "catalog", "worksheet", etc.).
Oh, and add the format to the default print PO template.
... and as an option in the brief record UI.
Questions/comments appreciated.
In general , a +1 to this idea. However, I'm wondering if there is a way we can extend this idea. If I'm understanding your proposal correctly, the locally-defined format would mostly be used to help with staff workflow issues, which is a definite plus. But we also see a potential issue for records added through the brief record UI where the public can't really see what the format of the item is.
Unlike the New MARC Record form, there is no MARC coding that can be added through a template to correctly identify the item's format. Therefore, acq records added this way do not display the format icons in the public catalog and do not appear in the results of format-limited searches. Since acquisitions orders can happen far in advance of a record overlay process, those records may be sitting in the database and collecting holds for quite some time before the public can get this format information. Is there a way we could extend these locally-defined formats to display the correct format icons in the catalog? And maybe even use them to get these records to display in the results of formatted-limited searches?
Thanks for bringing up this idea for discussion Bill!