[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Level vs depth vs scope ??

Coleman, Marlene mcoleman at bcgov.net
Fri Jan 29 10:07:16 EST 2010

I'm with the Jasons on using "level", which is how I think of it.


Marlene F. Coleman
ILS Database Manager
Branch Manager, Beaufort
Beaufort County Library
mcoleman at bcgov.net
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jason Boyer <jasonb at myjclibrary.org>
> I use the term "level" whenever I'm discussing permissions with people
> unfamiliar with the terminology. It makes sense since we already talk
> decisions being made at the "library level" or "consortium level."
> would likely understand without a lot of confusion that they're only
able to
> effect things at their level or below.

"Level" makes a lot of sense, yes.  That actually has the added
benefit of having a meaning very close to the same as you describe
when talking about a directed graph (and, in particular, an adjacency
list, as the org hierarchy is currently implemented).  It's not
perfect, as in the technical context it would mean "exactly the named
level" instead of "the named level or below", but it doesn't fall into
the same class of confusion we'd get from "breadth" vs "depth".  I can
definitely support either "level" or "range."  Thanks for the input!


> Jason
> --
> Jason Boyer, IT Specialist
> Jackson County Public Library
> 303 W Second St
> Seymour, IN 47274
> jasonb at myjclibrary.org
> p (812) 522-3412 ext. 227
> f (812) 522-5456

More information about the Open-ils-general mailing list