[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Hierarchy with call-vol-copy

[Coleman, Marlene]

In a public library setting the call #s in a consortium can be pulled from the bib record, but then edited by the individual system. Call #s are specific to an organization, and I think the term is straight forward, it's a designation for shelving, more specific than the copy location. We do need volumes and copies. Though holds are generally placed on titles, for multi-part sets e.g. DVD TV series, or encyclopedias, which are circulated in parts, holds can be put on the individual part (of call numbers) specific to that part.  There can also be multiple copies the individual part/call #.

Owning vs circulating library is another thing, since we've just migrated, we're still trying to understand that one.

Hope the above was actually feedback to the question asked.

Marlene  

Marlene F. Coleman, BA, MLS, CIM
Branch Manager, ILS Database Manager
Beaufort County Library, Beaufort Branch
311 Scott Street, Beaufort, SC 29902
843-470-6544    mcoleman at bcgov.net
www.beaufortcountylibrary.org
For Learning ♦ For Leisure ♦ For Life 

-----Original Message-----
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:46:20 -0500
From: Paul Waak <ptwaak at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] call number records
To: open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org
Message-ID: <1FE0A14C-0C54-457E-A11F-5A67C1774843 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Paul Weiss <pweiss at eou.edu> wrote:
> Have you all found value in the bib > call number > copy hierarchy?  
> I'm not suggesting a system redesign (although I wouldn't impede  
> that :-) ), I just wanted to get a sense of how other libraries deal  
> with it.
>
The name "call number" is an obstacle here as well.  I would not  
redesign the system, but I am very open to renaming this element.  I  
have seen "volume" elsewhere, but that gets confused with multi-volume  
encyclopedias, etc.  "Holdings" seems the most promising to me.

> So I now have a pretty good idea of what the 2 fields were designed  
> for, and presumably how they continue to be used in PINES. How do  
> the rest of you all use them? Are they always the same for you? Or  
> do you use them as designed? Or for some other purpose?
>
> We don't generally view housing and ownership as different. We do  
> though often use the same call number across many members. I'm  
> trying to decide if it makes sense just to put the same org unit in  
> both fields, which would require multiple call number records with  
> the same call number but different org units, or just put the  
> consortium as the owner of the call number record so that we only  
> need 1 call number record per call number. Any advice?
>

It is useful when for systems within a consortium. We have a  
consortium in Texas that is not on evergreen, but illustrates this  
nicely. Fort Worth is a system that owns its items at the system level  
but houses them at specific branches. Haltom City, a peer library in  
the consortium, has only one location and uses the same org unit for  
both ownership and location. In this consortium, ownership is a level  
2 property in the org unit hierarchy, and housing becomes distinct for  
org units at levels 3 and lower.

This separation also simplifies rotating collections.

Paul Waak
pwaak at yahoo.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20090618/112875e7/attachment.htm 

End of Open-ils-general Digest, Vol 36, Issue 21
************************************************