[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] RE: Open-ils-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 11

[Mike Rylander]

On 5/7/07, Fitzgerald, Carol <Carol_Fitzgerald at nrel.gov> wrote:
> I'd like to offer our perspective on a couple of Francis McNamara's
> questions that Jason addressed:
>
> RE: > 8.  When I create an item, the bib did not show up in the pac
> until I
> > checked in that item.  We don't do that.  We have too much stuff going
>
> > through, it just goes to the shelf, they cannot stop and check it in
> > before doing that.  Is there an option to not have to check it in?
> Jason's response:
>
> There's at least one PINES library asking for that now, but I need to
> figure out if the current behavior is due to actual PINES policy or not.
> But we can definitely make it a configurable setting.  As more non-PINES
> libraries try out the software, we'll take any hard-coded PINES-policy
> and turn them into options.  One of our goals is that library software
> should never dictate library policy.  The software should just enforce
> it where necessary (we're also against "babying"
> the users, but sometimes that is asked for too).
> ----------------------------
>
> Jason, one of my pet peeves about our current system is that we have to
> check in items after we've added them.  Our vendor rep informed us that
> it was put in at the request of public libraries (their largest client
> base) who needed it to cut down on errors.  I neve quite got the logic
> of that.  We are a relatively small library and don't have a large
> volume of new physical items to add (including serials), especially
> since we've begun adding more electronic books and serials.  The extra
> step of having to check in an item after we've added it is something
> we've adapted to but would be happy to cut out of our process!

The fact that the items need to be "checked in" and their showing in
the OPAC are largely orthogonal from a code perspective.  If the
status (In Process, in this case), shelving location and item record
say that the item is visible then it will show up in the OPAC.

The point of the intermediate In Process status is to allow work to be
done before the item is targeted or grabbed for a hold.  It also
allows the cataloging and shelving to be completely distinct, and is
meant to simplify both the checkin/shelving and cataloging workflow.

Any item that comes across the circ desk In Box can be "checked in" to
find out where it needs to go, or capture it for a hold, or whatever.
So, the cataloging department puts in a pile of items and then rolls
the cart over to the circ department without having to inform the circ
staff of anything special, or in other words, without having to
transfer state information.  The circ department doesn't need to know
if the items came from the bookdrop, from cataloing, from patrons
directly, or as transits from other libraries.  They just check the
items in and the items tell the staff where they need to go.

Anyway, that's the background and the intended use.  I hope that helps
clarify a few things for everyone!

>
> ----------------------------
> RE: <snip bib_status and staff_only flags>
> > Is there anything like that in Evergreen?
>
> Jason's response:
>
> Right now, the visibility of a record is dependent on the state of its
> items (which are easy to edit in batch).  I'm not sure of the design
> rationale for not having a record level override of item attributes like
> holdability and OPAC visibility, but if a strong enough case is made for
> one it could be added.
> -----------------------------
>
> We have staff-only records that do not display in the opac, for a number
> of reasons.  One is that our acquisitions staff like to be able to put
> in records of out-of-print titles our researchers have requested and
> that we've been unable to acquire yet or where our copies have gone
> missing or are lost or damaged.  We don't put them in as "on order"
> because we've not yet found a vendor who can provide the title.  Still,
> we want a record in the staff pac to show that we are actively
> searching.  Some book distributors keep our requests on file and,
> sometimes months to years after we've let them know we're looking, come
> up with a copy for us.  There are enough out-of-print classic titles in
> photovoltaics, physics, chemistry, etc. to warrant our attention to this
> process for our researchers.

If a record doesn't have any items (or any visible items) then it
won't show up in the public OPAC (but will be visible from within the
staff client, of course).  Is this what you're looking for?

Another option, assuming items exist, is simply to create a "staff
only" location (either shelving or organizational "sub-library") and
mark that as invisible to the public OPAC.  This is probably more
flexible overall.

These are all intended uses for the visibility information that is
stored with organizational units, shelving locations, items and
statuses.

Again, I hope this helps some!

-- 
Mike Rylander