[OPEN-ILS-DEV] URI scoping in Evergreen

[Mike Rylander]

I need to think about this much harder than I have (which is not hard
at this point...), but I have some questions to start with before
commenting on the specific plan you've outlined.

 * Is this primarily about display of LURIs on the record detail page,
or is it actually about inclusion of records in the result list?  Or,
both (it's not entirely clear if there are multiple "issues"
addressed)?
 * Are there cases where it would be useful to set an LURI-specific
scope? (perhaps, but not necessarily, a scope (range) encoded with the
owner in the $9 of the 856)
 * Related to the previous question, could the outcome of what you
outline be described in terms of a default value to use when the LURI
does not supply a scope?
 * Am I correct that the effective use-case here is to create sections
of the org tree that are fenced off from one another WRT URI
visibility?
 * If yes to the previous question, would this extend to copy visibility?
 * If no to /that/ (and related to the first question), would you
still want the records found, just with a truncated or otherwise
altered LURI display?

The answers to those will help me comment intellegently.

As to the question about pref_ous, the current behavior was
specifically requested as a feature, so I think it would be a mistake
to remove that as the default.  If I look at SITKA as a group of
separate consortia sharing one system and co-cataloging bibs, I can
certainly see where you're coming from here, though.  I believe
something can be worked out.

Thanks, Liam!

-- 
Mike Rylander
 | Director of Research and Development
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Liam Whalen
<liam.whalen at bc.libraries.coop> wrote:
> Using the new global setting opac.luri_as_copy, which treats URIs as copies, is working well for Sitka, but our libraries need more granularity regarding which URIs get displayed.  Currently, when visiting a record with URIs attached we are getting too many URIs appearing in the record details.  In some cases over 50 URIs are being displayed.  In cases where one record contains unique links for each library, this is not a desirable situation for patrons because they have to hunt through the links to find the correct one for their library.
>
> We have code now that allows us to select URIs based on the OU supplied in 856 $9, but we need further specificity regarding which OUs display which URIs.
>
> Here is an example of our OU tree:
>
>                                         Sitka
>                                 /                       \
>                         Federation                      Federation
>                         /       \               /                       \
>                         System  System          System                  System
>                         /    \                  /    \                  /       \
>                 Library         Sub-System   Library    Library     Library     Sub-System
>                                 /
>                               Library                                           /       \
>                                                                             Library     Library
>
>
> In some instances, a system will have its OU as the 856 $9 value.  But, searches at the Sub-system or Library level underneath the System, will need to display that URI from the System.  In other cases, searches at the System level will need to display URIs owned at the Library or Sub-System levels.
>
> I am proposing 2 new OU settings, opac.uri_ancestor_scope and opac.uri_descendent_scope.  These would be numerical values letting the TPAC know how far up or down the OU tree the TPAC needs to search in order to find URIs for a give OU. In most cases, these settings will need to be set for every OU because setting inheritance will not make sense most of the time.
>
> These changes will also require two new TPAC function that can retrieve n number of OU ancestors and n number of OU descendants, so the 856 $9 can be properly checked.  Does something like this already exist?
>
> Additionally, I am proposing another setting opac.ou_ignore_luri_as_copy.  For Sitka’s purposes, this is set at the 1st and 2nd level OUs, so that URIs are not displayed in the search results for those OUs.  If URIs were displayed at our 1st and 2nd levels the search results pages would be too big to be useable.
>
> Finally, when including URIs as copies, Sitka libraries only want records belonging to the pref_ou to be included in the search results if the pref_ou is within the OU tree for the search OU.  I have code for this working now, and it is only a slight modification, but I am not sure if that fits with everyone’s needs, so it might require a library setting as well.  Something like opac.include_all_pref_ou_uris might work.
>
> What does the community think of this plan?  Are there any situations where this is unhelpful to consortia as they exist now?  I believe e-resources are a growing part of library systems, and I do not want to diverge from the community code.  At the same time, Sitka libraries need these changes.  So, if we can come to an agreement on how to best display 856 values, I will make it happen.
>
> Liam Whalen
> BC Libraries Cooperative - Sitka
> Systems Specialist
> 855-383-5761 x1022
> liam.whalen at bc.libraries.coop
>