Summary: | Records created through acquisitions with the ACQ framework are saved in Default | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Esther Melander <esther.melander> |
Component: | Cataloging | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | blawlor, catrina, m.de.rooy, mspinney |
Version: | 24.05 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
GIT URL: | Change sponsored?: | --- | |
Patch complexity: | --- | Documentation contact: | |
Documentation submission: | Text to go in the release notes: | ||
Version(s) released in: | Circulation function: |
Description
Esther Melander
2024-09-25 23:41:00 UTC
For us this is a feature, not a bug (I know...). Historically the ACQ framework was only used for the item form (952) and the ability to also show the bibliographic fields was added much later. It allowed to have a different, shortened form of the item form in the acquisition module with different set up defaults etc. as that would otherwise clutter the display there. (Lost, damaged, withdrawn etc. are not needed there). But when the item is received and the link to "edit item" is clicked, we want to see the full item form from the default framework, not the shortened one from ACQ. Similar for the bibliographic data: If a record is created using the form in acq, we'd want the minimal one from ACQ framework. But when we create the record by downloading it from an external source via Z39.50, we'd want it to use the default framework or it being selectable not to loose data for fields not set up in the ACQ form. I am not sure if I explained that super well... but if it was to be changed it would create issues for us. Thank you Katrin with explaining how the functionality has developed. The workflow described indicates the intent is for the framework to change to default when the record item is received? In this scenario, the framework is saved as default when the record is created. There are a few libraries that have complex acquisition/cataloging workflows. Here are a few examples: 1. The ACQ framework was setup to accommodate holding information in certain 952 fields until the item is received and sent for full cataloging where the record framework is then changed to default or something else where that data is no longer needed. 2. Another library wanted a way to search for records created with the ACQ framework through acquisitions without having to search through vendors and baskets. They wanted a way to identify those records quickly with a simple report looking at frameworks. This is perhaps a case where not everyone can be accommodated with their unique workflow. For libraries coming onboard Koha more recently, it feels like unexpected behavior. (In reply to Esther Melander from comment #3) > Thank you Katrin with explaining how the functionality has developed. The > workflow described indicates the intent is for the framework to change to > default when the record item is received? In this scenario, the framework is > saved as default when the record is created. In my opinion there are 2 major problems to solve if we were to store in ACQ framework from beginning: 1) Data loss: Any field not defined in the ACQ framework will get deleted whenever the record is edited/touched manually or by script. And the ACQ framework Koha is delivered with is very minimal in terms of fields, because so far it's only used as a way to determine how the forms in the acquisition module will look like (items and "order form new" with UseACQFrameworkForBiblioRecords enabled). 2) Item forms: We also really like the way it allows to have different forms for items when ordering and on receive. Forcing libraries to change the framework manually on receive would add a ton of extra clicks and also require cataloguing permissions where now "item edit" is enough. My goal is not to block any change, but I feel it needs some more thought to make sure we don't break existing workflows. If identifying those records is the major issue: Could we use LDR pos. 17 to indicate an incomplete record instead of the framework? Or something else? This feels like a bug to me, since it is a change from existing behavior. If the UseACQFrameworkForBiblioRecords is set to use, then I expect that those records should use the ACQ framework until I select a different one, not automatically when the record is saved or the item is received. As Esther indicated, libraries like the prior behavior of being able to identify all records created using the ACQ framework, rather than having to sort through vendors and baskets. Libraries have the option to change the framework when uploading MARC files, so the streamlined functionality already exists in other parts of Koha. Perhaps a more straightforward solution would be to simplify the steps involved in changing the framework on a record? |