Hi Cindy,
There is a lot that we would like to be able to do with the physical storage module. While I agree that being able to link and reuse locations makes a lot of sense, there is in fact a fair bit of work that would need to happen in the background to enable this development.
I also want to clarify the existing functionality because you have conflated two different parts of the storage management workflow slightly.
Physical storage objects in AtoM at present are very simple entities, and have only 3 editable properties:
The Physical object type is a taxonomy of controlled vocabulary terms, so it can be populated via drop-down or autocomplete as needed, since it draws from the terms in the taxonomy. Currently, name and location are free-text fields.
There is an autocomplete field for container name when searching for an existing container - this creates a link between two different entities (physical object and information object, or archival description). Location is merely a property of the Physical object entity, so it's not as easy to have an autocomplete for it, unless we first create a new Physical object location taxonomy, and draw from that when linking.
I would personally love to see this happen, but it is also not an insignificant amount of work to make this change in the underlying data model, add a new taxonomy, etc.
In any case, I will point the AtoM Maintainers to this conversation, so they are aware of this interest. We do not currently have any sponsored development work scheduled related to AtoM storage improvements, but we do try to track both client and community interest in features, to gauge our priorities. Feel free to contact Artefactual off-list if you would like to discuss partnership opportunities with your institution to lead and help sponsor this kind of development work. We also welcome pull requests if you are a developer yourself!
As an aside, there are also many other enhancements we would love to see, and it would make more sense to consider some at the same time. For example, if a storage location is made a first class entity and not just a property of a container, then we can start to consider how to properly implement physical storage management that allows for the hierarchical arrangement of containers and locations - i.e. placing a box on a shelf, nesting a shelf on a row or bay, placing that row in an aisle, then a room, etc. If we give those locations controlled dimensions, then we can also begin to look at automated calculation (e.g. if my boxes are 50cm wide, and my shelf is 1m long, and I have 3 boxes on Shelf 1 already, then AtoM should be able to tell me how many more boxes I can fit on that shelf - or if my accession is composed of 50 boxes and I know the box dimensions, then AtoM should be able to calculate an initial extent estimate for my accession record).
It would of course also be great to be able to add separate barcodes or UUIDs to boxes, to give them a description or notes field, and perhaps be able to give them a status or temporary location as well, to better support box movement tracking, loans, reference use, rehousing, and the like.
At least, those are features I would love to see someday!
Cheers,