[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers

Sun Sep 11 22:20:33 EDT 2011

Thank, Elaine, this is a helpful explanation.

One of the problems I see with placing hold on metarecords involves the
standard formats.  I like that you can place a single hold on all formats
of Great Expectations (or whatever) or limit the hold to books,
audiobooks, videorecordings, etc.  But Books seems to include Large Print 
(a format a lot of people don't like) and the person who wanted the book
on CD may not be able to use the book on cassette, etc.

If a system were using a locally defined index for formats as described in
the search grammar page, would that work for metarecord holds?
http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=documentation:technical:search_grammar

Also, can anyone tell me whether there are plans to include this feature
in the Template Toolkit skin?

-- 
Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
26 Cherry Hill Drive
Danvers MA 01923
Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/
E-mail: et at noblenet.org

On Sun, September 11, 2011 9:59 pm, Hardy, Elaine wrote:
> Grouping formats and editions into metarecords is not effective if you
> don't have relatively clean data. The imperfections in the grouping
> algorithm are magnified. Because the union database for PINES was created
> out of individual library databases with different bibliographic utilities
> and widely divergent adherence to national standards, we had a large
> number of duplicate records or records with incorrect coding and other
> information. As a result, grouping did not work when we went live with
> Evergreen. It was initially the default for search results (or at least
> easier for the search results to be returned as metarecords -- it has been
> 5 years and my memory around it is a little fuzzy) in PINES Evergreen.
> However, it was immediately apparent that it just didn't work for us. So
> it was made optional in the advanced search. If you have few duplicate bib
> records and records primarily correctly coded and described, this feature
> probably works well for you.
>
> Elaine
>  
>  
> J. Elaine Hardy
> PINES Bibliographic Projects and Metadata Manager
> Georgia Public Library Service,
> A Unit of the University System of Georgia
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304
> 404.235-7128
> 404.235-7201, fax
>  
> ehardy at georgialibraries.org
> www.georgialibraries.org
> http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
> [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of
> Elizabeth Thomsen
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:54 PM
> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Metarecords and copy numbers
>
> Thanks, Ben, sorry I missed that bug ticket!  I'm now subscribed.
>
> As for people being interesting in Group Formats and Editions, I feel like
> this is an underused and underpromoted feature of the Evergreen catalog.
> The grouping algorithm is not perfect, but it seems to work really well,
> and the benefits to the user seem obvious.  What's the downside?
>
> Is there a reason this is typically only shown as an option on the
> Advanced Search screen?
>
> On Sat, September 10, 2011 10:33 pm, Ben Shum wrote:
>> To follow up, I found the bug ticket on this particular issue described.
>> I guess I was the original person who reported it to the community
>> back in January 2011 when we were first testing Evergreen 2.0.
>>
>> See here for bug details:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/707757
>>
>> Good to know that others are still interested in the "group formats
>> and editions" option for the OPAC, I guess.
>>
>> -- Ben
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Elizabeth Thomsen wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Ben!  I never thought that it might have been a 2.0 thing,
>>> and wondered how I could never noticed this before.  I realize now
>>> that my favorite Evergreen sites have all upgraded since I last looked
> at this.
>>>
>>> On the topic of grouping records and the language of FRBR, check out
>>> j.weinheimer's video "Conversation between a patron and the library
>>> catalog" that's been making the rounds:
>>>
>>> http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12351402/conversation-between-a-patro
>>> n-and-the-library-catalog-short
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
>>> NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
>>> 26 Cherry Hill Drive
>>> Danvers MA 01923
>>> Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/
>>> E-mail: et at noblenet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, September 10, 2011 4:30 pm, Ben Shum wrote:
>>>> Hi Elizabeth,
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I can confirm that this bug is known to exist for
>>>> awhile now. It started when some new code was added to the OPAC in
>>>> 2.0 to display copy info in the results summary page.
>>>>
>>>> I can't remember if there's an active bug ticket on the issue yet
>>>> but will check Launchpad later for this topic and post back if no
>>>> one else gets to it first.
>>>>
>>>> -- Ben
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from my Droid Incredible.
>>>>
>>>> Elizabeth Thomsen <et at noblenet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We really like the option to group formats and editions, and the way
>>>> it allows users to place a single hold on multiple different bib
> records.
>>>> It's one of my favorite features in Evergreen.
>>>>
>>>> I have a question about the way the metarecords display in the
>>>> results list. In our own training system and the live Evergreen
>>>> sites I've checked, the metarecords show as having 0/0 copies, which
>>>> certainly must discourage patrons from placing holds on them.
>>>> Logically, shouldn't these copy numbers be aggregated from all the
>>>> bib records? And if they can't be, is there any way to suppress the
>>>> display of the copy numbers for the metarecords? No copy number
>>>> information seems much better than wrong copy number information,
>>>> especially when 0 makes these look like hopeless for holds when the
>>>> metarecords actually increase the chances that the user will get a
>>>> copy of the book faster than if they choose only a single bib
>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>> It's possible I'm missing something obvious here, in which case I
>>>> hope someone will enlighten me!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
>>>> NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
>>>> 26 Cherry Hill Drive
>>>> Danvers MA 01923
>>>> Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/
>>>> E-mail: et at noblenet.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>