[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Towards more consistent terminology in the web client

[Janet Schrader]

Hi Kathy,

One thing I noticed immediately when I tested the omnibus cataloging bug
fixes on a CWMARS test server with version 3.0.10, was that the "add
volumes" button now says "add copies". After 6+ years on EG using add
'volumes' this really stood out. Is this because of the bug fixes or the
3.0.10 version, or local change?

Another difference on the same test server is under the "Mark for" button
on the bib record display. Previously it was mark for "Volume transfer" now
it's "Holdings transfer".  Same question as above as to why. If a
deliberate change, it seems that "volume" has more meanings than just "call
number".



Janet


Janet Schrader

Bibliographic Services Supervisor | CW MARS

67 Millbrook Street, Suite 201, Worcester, MA 01606

P: 508-755-3323 x 325 | F: 508-757-7801

------------------------------

jschrader at cwmars.org  ||  http;//cwmars.org <http://www.cwmars.org/>


On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A recent discussion on the cataloging list turned my attention back to
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1538691. This bug primarily
> focused on the way we used items and copies to describe the same entity in
> Evergreen. A majority of people providing feedback on the bug indicated a
> preference for items over copies.
>
> I have created a branch that does so, as well as another branch that does
> the opposite. I have also loaded each branch on a test server to give
> people an idea of how things would look in an all item world or in an all
> copy world.
>
> https://mlnc2.noblenet.org/eg/staff/  uses 'items.'
> https://mlnc3.noblenet.org/eg/staff/ uses 'copies'
>
> The login for each server is admin / evergreen123.
>
> I think it would be good to get broader community feedback before deciding
> on a direction.
>
> While working on the branch, I realized we also need to make a decision
> about the use or shelving location vs. copy location.
>
> What I would like to do is send out a community survey that asks: 1) do we
> need these terms to be consistent (people may be perfectly happy using
> items and copies interchangeably) and b) which terms are preferred.
>
> Do you all think this is the best approach for moving forward? Are there
> any other inconsistent terms we should be adding to the survey?
>
> Let me know what you think. My hope is to issue the survey by Thursday.
>
> Thanks!
> Kathy
>
> --
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
> (508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20180807/26be02fa/attachment-0001.html>