[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Questions about serials

[Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley]

Hi Kathy,

I've included some responses to your questions inline below.

On 05/17/2012 10:44 AM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have several questions about serials that have been forwarded along to
> me that I wasn't able to answer. Can anyone help me out with these? We
> are using 2.2 RC1.
>
> 1. [clipped for brevity]
> My question is whether I am suppose to be able to edit this
> automatically-generated MFHD statement. If so, I can file a bug report,
> but I just didn't know what the intended behavior is here.

You should not be able to edit that, but we ought to make the interface 
reflect that instead of suggesting that the user can edit it, so that's 
still material for a bug report.

(I'm 90% confident on this answer, but would invite Dan Wells to correct 
me, since MFHD statements and their visibility in the OPAC are things 
he's a little more sure of than I am.)

>
> 2. My understanding is that special issues can only be created via the
> alternate serials control view. Is that still the case?
>

Well, you can create new issuances in the serial control view, if under 
the expanded subscription if you find it in the Subscriptions tab, but 
as far as I know, you can't create any items or units for an issuance 
manually created in this way, so for the use cases that we're probably 
talking about, you won't be able to receive anything on these issues or 
see them reflected in any summaries.

> 3. When creating seasonal issues, we noticed that autumn is always used
> instead of fall. However, there are many publications that use the term
> fall. Is there a way to control this terminology on a
> subscription-by-subscription basis?
>

There is not.  Also, we'll need to be able to internationalize those 
labels.  This merits a bug report.

> 4. This last question will probably turn into a bug report, but I just
> want to understand the expected behavior before filing the bug. We have
> libraries that prefer using something like "most recent 5 years" as the
> textual holdings statement. I've been playing with the summary method
> and have found that I can successfully do so by setting the summary
> method to "Use record entry only."
>
> However, I found that the remaining three options ("add to record
> entry", "merge with record entry" and "do not use record entry")
> generate the same display in tpac. It displays the holdings statement
> automatically generated by Evergreen followed by the record entry. I'm
> assuming that "do not use record entry" should not be displaying the
> record entry at all. What is "merge with record entry" supposed to do?
>

TPAC needs to learn to respect the summary method setting.  It doesn't 
really get it right today.  I had a conversation with Dan Wells fairly 
recently about how we want this all to work.  I have notes on a 
whiteboard that is not in front of me at the moment, but in a bug report 
I could put the outline of the work that needs to be done.

> 5. I've set up a distribution with the display grouping set to
> "chronology" and another distribution with the display grouping set to
> "enumeration." However, I don't see any different between the two in the
> tpac display. What is the difference supposed to be?
>

Assuming a lot of things about the caption/pattern and the holding code 
of the issuances, as you drill down from the summaries to individual 
issues, you should see groupings like "2012" and perhaps "May" for the 
one with grouping set to chronology, versus "v. 12" and maybe "no. 5" 
for the one with grouping set to enumeration.

> Thanks in advance for your help!

Hope this did help!
-- 
Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley
  | Software Developer
  | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
  | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
  | email:  lebbeous at esilibrary.com
  | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com