[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Improving LC Call Number Displays & Behaviors

[Donald Butterworth]

Hi Kathy
Issue #2 Multiple Suffixes in Volume and Copy Creator
Are you talking about the suffix field here or the parts field? I was
thinking the parts field would be the most appropriate place to store the
volume/part information. Is there a reason you can't have a part listed as
"volume 1, part 1" or as "volume 1, part 2"?

My understanding of how suffixes and part designation works is that you can
create a suffix "v." and then enter a value in part designation "1"
Providing a call number like
BR
60
.C49
v.1

I don't see how you can create a call number
BR
60
.C49
v.1
pt.5
with the current structure. Am I missing something?

Issue #5 No entries found when doing "Bib Call Number" searches
We've had discussions about the bib call number search at various times in
IRC,  the most recent one being last week when you sent this e-mail. The
relevant bug report is at https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1074096.
The thought was that this search probably works with call numbers stored in
the 099 field, but I haven't had a chance to confirm this behavior. If you
wanted it to work with another call number field, then I think you would
need to adjust the bibcn entry in the config.metabib_field table in the
database to point to another field. You would then need to reingest your
records to get the call number search working with the new tag(s)

I'm not sure what all is going on with Bib Call Number Search. I was simply
reporting the behavior. However it makes no sense to me why a default
setting for this feature would only index locally assigned call numbers
instead all LC or Dewey number. My supposition was that Bib Call Number
Search should index call numbers from the bib record while the Call Number
(Shelf browse) indexes the copy/item record.

Personally I only see the need for the Shelf browse. The other seems
superfluous, but perhaps I am missing something. I can't recall any other
ILS that has two different call number indexes. I would recommend
eliminating this option, especially since it returns null results.

As an aside, it would make sense to me to include the Call Number (Shelf
Browse) option in the Browse the Catalog "Browse for:" dropdown list.

Blessings,

Don


On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> wrote:

>  Thank you for pulling this list together Don! I have a couple of
> questions/comments.
>
>  Issue #2 Multiple Suffixes in Volume and Copy Creator
>
> The suffix structure is not sufficiently complex to handle LC call numbers
> that include multiple suffixes such as volume 1, part 1, volume 1, part 2,
> etc. Currently, the only way to account for these exceptions is to simply
> include it as part of the text in the Call Number text box.
>
> Are you talking about the suffix field here or the parts field? I was
> thinking the parts field would be the most appropriate place to store the
> volume/part information. Is there a reason you can't have a part listed as
> "volume 1, part 1" or as "volume 1, part 2"?
>
>  Issue #5 No entries found when doing "Bib Call Number" searches
>
> We've had discussions about the bib call number search at various times in
> IRC,  the most recent one being last week when you sent this e-mail. The
> relevant bug report is at
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1074096. The thought was that
> this search probably works with call numbers stored in the 099 field, but I
> haven't had a chance to confirm this behavior. If you wanted it to work
> with another call number field, then I think you would need to adjust the
> bibcn entry in the config.metabib_field table in the database to point to
> another field. You would then need to reingest your records to get the call
> number search working with the new tag(s)
>
> However, what I have heard is that many sites (including ours) do not use
> the bib call number search nor do they really see a need for the bib call
> number search. For consortia, this makes sense since the individual
> libraries within the consortium use different call numbers and wouldn't all
> necessarily be using the same call number that is on the bib record.
> However, we even had a single, academic institution mention in IRC that
> they have disabled the bib call number search. There has also been
> discussion of removing that search from the default install of Evergreen.
> It would still be there for people who had a need for it, but they would
> need to customize the numeric search of their catalog to add it.
>
> My question for you and anyone else who uses the bib call number search is
> if there is a need for that search that can't be fulfilled by an
> asset.call_number search, which is the call number that you add when you
> are adding volumes/copies to the record. Is it primarily because you
> dislike the display of the results when doing a Call Number (Shelf Browse)
> search? If so, I would wholeheartedly support an alternate project that
> brings about an alternate, text-based display for that search. It's
> something MassLNC once put out as a possible development project (see
> http://masslnc.cwmars.org/search/node/call%20number), but ultimately
> decided not to fund the project.
>
> Kathy
>
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
> #evergreen IRC: kmlussier
>
> On 12/4/2014 9:01 AM, Donald Butterworth wrote:
>
>  Colleagues,
>
> Another priority that emerged from the Evergreen for Academics survey is
> Library of Congress Call Numbers displays and behaviors. My assignment is
> to identify issues. To that end an Evergreen DokuWiki was created entitled Improve
> LC Call Number Displays & Behaviors
> <http://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=evergreen_for_academics:improved_lc_call_number>
> I have identified 10 issues so far. Please note that the examples, problems
> and wishlist items listed originate from behaviors in my local 2.6.1
> catalog <http://evergreen.asburyseminary.edu/eg/opac/browse>.  Also
> please understand that we have used Evergreen for less than six months. So
> there may be some issues listed that are the result of incorrect settings,
> or some issues may already have been addressed in more recent releases.
>
>  The Evergreen for Academics group greatly appreciates your feedback. If
> you have an opinion or comment on any item please share it. If there are
> issues or outstanding bug reports that you would like to see listed, please
> email me directly and I will add them to the Wiki.
>
>  Don
>
> --
> Don Butterworth
> Faculty Associate / Librarian III
> B.L. Fisher Library
> Asbury Theological Seminary
> don.butterworth at asburyseminary.edu
> (859) 858-2227
>
>
>


-- 
Don Butterworth
Faculty Associate / Librarian III
B.L. Fisher Library
Asbury Theological Seminary
don.butterworth at asburyseminary.edu
(859) 858-2227
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20141211/54ef51db/attachment-0001.htm>