[OPEN-ILS-DEV] URI scoping in Evergreen

[Rogan Hamby]

Justin,

I've recommended that same approach here but to my knowledge none of our
libraries are doing it yet, is it working well for you?


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Justin Hopkins <
justin at mobiusconsortium.org> wrote:

> Hi Galen,
>
> Here in Missouri many public libraries participate in a group purchase of
> electronic resources through Overdrive - a program called molib2go. (
> molib2go.org)
>
> All molib2go member libraries have access to the same set of resources and
> they share the available copies. It is also possible for a library to
> purchase additional copies of individual titles that are only available to
> their patrons. So, while the entire group may share one copy of "The Hop"
> if a particular library wants to ensure their patrons have access to this
> must read item, they can purchase one or more additional copies.
>
> Overdrive makes the groups MARC records available on an FTP server each
> month and we have a process that downloads the records, adds $9s for each
> Missouri Evergreen library who subscribes to molib2go, and adds them to the
> database.
>
> The premium set of records all have different 856 urls, so when we receive
> those from the individual libraries we add the single $9s and then attach
> that as an additional 856 to the record from the group load. The result is
> that a library who does subscribe both as a group and with added copies for
> their library only would see two 856 links in the catalog.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On 7/15/14, 7:59 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Liam Whalen
>> <liam.whalen at bc.libraries.coop> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * If yes to the previous question, would this extend to copy visibility?
>>>>
>>> No, this is strictly for URIs.  I believe, because copies are physical,
>>> they are much more
>>> naturally assigned to the OUs that need to have control of them.  URIs,
>>> in Sitka’s case,
>>> may be assigned at various levels depending on how a library or system
>>> needs to
>>> conceptual organize ownership.
>>>
>> Are there cases, either at Sitka or in other consortia following this
>> discussion, where LURI visibility of shared electronic resources do
>> not map cleanly to the OU hierarchy at all?  For example, do two
>> libraries who have no relationship other than membership in Sitka ever
>> go in on an eresource package together?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Galen
>>
>
>


-- 

Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA
Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services,
York County Library System

“You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop
reading them.”
― Ray Bradbury <https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1630.Ray_Bradbury>

“You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit
me.”
― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20140716/4e62602f/attachment.htm>