[OPEN-ILS-DEV] copy create date vs. receive date in ACQ for hold protection

[Kathy Lussier]

Hi Bill,

I don't know about an IRC dicussion, but I had posted a question about this
to this list a couple of weeks ago -
http://georgialibraries.markmail.org/thread/fv4fdrdhczkaknw5. We were
considering something similar to option 3, but with the addition of giving
libraries the option of using either the create date or "active" date when
using age protection. It looks like option 2 would primarily work for
libraries using acquisitions, is that right? In our case, we will have
libraries using acquisitions and others that will be entering on order items
via cataloging, and we need something that will work in all of these cases.
We also liked the idea of storing an "active" date that is distinct from the
create date so that it would be useful in reports, such as reports used to
gernate new materials lists. 
 
Kathy

-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 756-0172
(508) 755-3721 (fax)
klussier at masslnc.org
IM: kmlussier (AOL & Yahoo)
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
<blocked::http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier> 





> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
> [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On
> Behalf Of Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 2:47 PM
> To: open-ils-dev at list.georgialibraries.org
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] copy create date vs. receive date
> in ACQ for hold protection
>
> Of the options, I like #2 the best.  Assuming age hold
> protection logic isn't duplicated (living in more than one
> place) this seems cleanest, and a prominent comment would at
> least increase the likelihood of catching somebody's
> attention if/when age hold protection needs to learn any more
> similar tricks.
>
> My preference for option 2 is mostly a gut thing, though.
>
> --
> Lebbeous
>
> On 05/24/2011 02:37 PM, erickson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to solve the problem of accurately managing copy
> age hold
> > protection for items created through acquisitions.  I seem
> to recall
> > some recent discussion about this in IRC, though I don't
> know if any
> > decision was reached (and the relevant logs elude me) so
> I'm taking it
> > to the list...
> >
> > Age protection looks at copy create_date to determine how long to
> > protect the copy from foreign holds.  If an item is created through
> > acquisitions, though, the create date of the copy will be
> the date at
> > which the copy was, well, created and not the date it was marked as
> > received (i.e. arrived at the library).  This means that
> some portion
> > of the age protection interval will be spent waiting for (holdable,
> > age-protected) on-order copies to arrive at the library from the
> > vendor, limiting the value of age protection.  I see 3
> possible ways out of this:
> >
> > 1. Set copy.create_date to 'now' at copy receive time.  This is the
> > simplest solution, but has the disadvantage of clobbering some
> > potentially useful data - the date the copy was actually created.
> >
> > 2. Change the age hold protection logic to investigate the receive
> > date
> > (acq.lineitem_detail.recv_time) when available, falling back to
> > copy.create_date when not.
> >
> > 3. Add a new field to the copy to track receive date
> (active_date?) in
> > addition to create date.  This would also require changes
> to the age
> > protection logic.
> >
> > Preferences or alternate suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > -b
> >
>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20110524/22112536/attachment.htm