Media Object Categorization

[BOster]

Is there any way to categorize media objects not by content type but by user defined categories?

We use the Sales Order Header media attachments for a couple of different things:
1. delivery instructions
2. missed delivery notes (we also put order on MD hold)
3. general notes
4. ... etc.

Different reports may need to display different notes. For example delivery tickets may need to display delivery instructions but NOT missed delivery notes. Another report may need to display all the missed delivery notes but nothing else.

What we do today is VERY dependent on the user following instructions correctly. First text attachment is for delivery instructions, Missed Delivery instructions are after the first attachment and are named "MD1", "MD2", etc.

We could obviously create new custom GT structures for the different categories and then heavily modify SOE for user edits and to manage all this but this has obvious downsides.

What we really need is to simply use the GT4201A struct for all notes but have a more structured, validated way to categorize them. The ordinal position and naming convention thing I mentioned will work (i.e. have a prefix name for the attachment that categorizes it) but not optimal IMO.

Any ideas?

 

[johndanter]

Well there is a field GDMOSEQN
It's a number that increments for each GDTXKY
So I guess that's implying you could have more than attachment per SO key

If you control the order they get added by prompting the user to add it (I have the code somewhere), then that number should also be controlled?

To ensure a user added text I checked the F00165 table for a match, if found I'd end, else they'd be stuck in the MO prompting loop until they added text

 

[craig_welton]

Brian,

You may want to look at Media Object Characterization. I have not worked with it, but from what I understand you assign a set of category codes to a F00165 record. The codes are stored in F00166 and the "defintion" is in F00167. (Use P00167 to set up)

Let us know if you have any luck with it.

Craig

 

[BOster]

Thanks for pointing out the app to use to configure it, maybe I can put something in and determine how its used.
I clicked around on that icon in the MO editor but nothing is configured on our system for it and I couldn't really tell what characterization is even used for or what purpose it served.

 

[BOster]

You're right Craig, I think MO Characterization is exactly what I was looking for. I showed it to the BA and discussed it with him. There were two main problems that we saw with it, one I think could probably be addressed relatively easily.

1. There is not any characterization information displayed on the main page of the media objects editor. So if you have a list of attachments you have to drill in to each one to see the category and other meta data about the attachment. I am wondering if a later tools release does show this information or if the ADF version of the control shows this (we are using the ActiveX version of the control).

2. There is not any validation on the categories - it is free form data entry. However I think this could easily be fixed with a simple mod since the characterization data appears to be edited in a standard APPL so making a mod to have a search and select and data validation on category one when editing a GT4201A MO would be pretty easy.


We talked about possibly creating a custom MO editor for sales order entry that would quickly allow the user to edit the various categories of attachments for sales order with a friendly user interface that would then fill in the characterization data for them, etc. but again, this would require SOE mods and I was looking for a quick solution w/o any mods. Characterization appears to definitely be what I need to do that, just need to address a few issues.

 

[BOster]

Oh, one other word of caution. Before any of you start playing around with Characterization constants (like I did) using P00167. Be aware that F00167 appears to be mapped as a system table in a standard E1 install which may mean that changes you make in DV or TS may also affect PD (like it did for me... ooops).

 

[DBohner-(db)]

Would it make sense to place the characterization into a tag file?

Note to self, they are called enhancements, not modifications... as I heard at Collaborate.