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

[Bill Erickson]

Thanks for the explanation, Kathy.  The non-acquisitions use case is one 
I had not anticipated.  And it looks like Thomas has already made great 
strides toward implementing active_date.  For reference: 
git.mvlcstaff.org/?p=tsbere/ILS.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/active_date

-b

On 05/24/2011 02:57 PM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Bill Erickson
| VP, Software Development&  Integration
| Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
| phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: berick at esilibrary.com
| web: http://esilibrary.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20110524/1ce3c883/attachment-0001.htm