[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Questions about Locations

[Dan Scott]

2008/5/30 Frances Dean McNamara <fdmcnama at uchicago.edu>:
> Jason,
>
> I find the very helpful.  I think you should wiki it.  I will share with the folks in my group who will be trying to understand this and I'll pass on any comments.  It seems to me this is more flexible than what we have had, for instance we can't prevent holds on Reserve items at the moment.
>
> One question this does raise for me is the ability to suppress some bib records from the OPAC.  But as I recall that can be done at the bib level, too, as well as at the copy/item level.
>
> We are unusually centralized and we tend to not want to limit searching or even editing of records by Libraries, as they all use the same bib and auth records.  Transiting to the Circ Library at checkin is good, we would want to do that.
>
> Volume is a bit odd to us because we mostly own a single copy of things.  At that interim level between bib and item we are used to having a copy where needed.  This would be for the Law library copy of a journal, where they have v.1-25, as opposed to the Main copy of a journal where they have v.2-200.  We're used to looking at it that way as opposed to, ok for v. 1 only Law has an item, for v.2 Law and Main have copies, etc.  It's just a different way of looking at it.
>
> What we really need, of course, is a place to put summary holdings statements, the fun descriptions like:
>
> For one copy of the New Yorker:
>
> Library has:  v.1:no.7-51(1925:Apr4-1926:Feb6)
>    lacks no.9,12,16-17,21,41,44,52
> v.2:no.1-45(1926:Feb20-Dec25)
>    lacks no.32
> v.3:no.2-3,5-13(1927:Feb27-Mar6,Mar20-May15)
>    unbound
> v.3:no.47-53(1928:Jan7-Feb18)
> v.4(1928:Feb25-Apr7)
> v.4(1928:Apr21-1929:Feb16)
> v.5(1929/1930)
>    lacks no.17-18,20,27,34,44
> v.6-40(1930/1931-1964/1965)
>    lacks v.13:no.1, v.19:no.36, 1961:Apr1
> v.41-74(1965/1966-1998/1999)
>    v.43(1967/1968) lacks no.20-26(Jul1-Aug19)
> v.75(1999:Feb22-Jul,Oct-2000:Feb14)
> v.76(2000:Feb21-2001:Feb5)
> v.77(2001:Jan7-Nov5,Nov19-Dec)
> v.78(2002:Feb-Dec)
>    supplements bound with corresponding months
> v.79(2003:Jan-Jun2,Jun30,Jul14-28-Dec1,Dec15-29)
>    supplements bound with corresponding months
> v.80(2004:Jan3-10,24,Feb-May10,May24-31,Jul-Nov)
>    supplements bound with corresponding months
> v.81(2005:Feb14-Apr4,18,May2-9,23-Sep-Oct10-17,Nov 7-14,Dec)
>    supplements bound with corresponding months
> v.83-84 Jan-Mar(2008)
> v.82(2006:Feb13-Apr3-10,24-May 1-22,Jun-Dec 4-18)
>    supplements bound with corresponding months
> v.82-83(2007:Jan8-May,Aug-Dec)
>
> Supplements:  v.83 Aug(2007)
>    bound with v.83 Aug(2007)
> v.83 Sep(2007)
>    bound with v.83 Sep(2007)
>
>
> I expect other academics are thinking about that.  Thanks.

We are indeed thinking about exactly that, along with the good folks
at Equinox and other Evergreen libraries. Mike and I (99% Mike) hashed
out an initial structure for how to best support serials that will
result in some reorganization of the relatively simple bib / volume /
copy structure. We're planning to introduce subscription objects and
issuance objects that will enable us to model MFHD, including support
for system-generated and text summary holding statements. Here's a
rough sketch of the proposed structure:
http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=acq:serials:model As
subscriptions are owned by a given org_unit, we will be able to
display different holdings for different libraries within a single
Evergreen instance.

Also, recognizing that not all members of a given consortium may have
access to every e-resource, or that members may have access to a given
e-resource via different proxied URLs, we will be enabling URLs to
have the same status as a copy so that searches can be scoped to a
part of the consortium rather than forcing them to be transcendent or
forcing multiple URLs to be pushed into a given bib record and asking
users to choose the right URL.

-- 
Dan Scott
Laurentian University