Library Priority Table Question--Related to Record link maintenance

["Ruel Eskelsen" <reskelse@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am wondering about some of the other functions of the hierarchical coding
schemes you mentioned below.

We recently enabled allowing patrons to place Holds on Available Items and
implemented the Branch Request Balancing Table to have our largest branch
collections called upon first in the Paging order.

However, the system seems to be choosing to Page an item in an arbitrary
fashion and Innovative has no suggestions other than taking us to the
Release 2001 Upgrade, which I don't see anything in the Known Issues on
this feature not working.  We are currently running Release Update D
2000/2001.

The examples of the Balancing Table in the INNOPAC manual show hierarchical
coding schemes.

We did not implement a hierarchical scheme as suggested by Innovative, but
have sub-collection codes for our Main branch, location code=slc, subcodes
fic (fiction), ya (young adult), juv (juvenile), etc.

I am wondering if we need to redesign our codes to give them a hierarchical
structure in order for the Paging process to work correctly.  Innovative
Tech. support says no, but they don't seem to have satisfactory answers as
to why the feature isn't functioning properly.  Frequently some of our
smallest branches get items Paged before the larger, more well staffed
branches get their items paged.

Anyone else dealt with Branch Code Balancing not working?

Thanks,
Ruel J. Eskelsen
Salt Lake Public Library

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/19/01 at 4:06 PM Lai-Ying Hsiung wrote:

>One answer as to why there are location codes in Bib and also in Item 
>record:  at our library, the bib.
>location is more generic, e.g. sp stands for special collection in Bib and

>this can have 10-20 specific sub-locations in the Item record, like spovr 
>(sp oversize), spscz (sp Santa Cruz) spphd (sp disserations). The 
>comprehensive bib location code is very useful in functions like Create 
>List, even though it means more maintenance efforts are needed and there 
>may be discrepancies between Bib and Item locations for one bib. record
>
>At 03:23 PM 12/19/01 -0700, you wrote:
>>We are a metro-public library with 6 branches and overflow storage.  We
>use
>>Link Maintenance to ensure the Bib record locations match the actual
>>attached Item records.  If we don't run this, we get a lot of Bib records
>>with location codes where there are no attached items anymore (lost or
>>stolen items not replaced, or weeded items), which impacts Create Lists
of
>>Bib records by location.  This also supposedly makes the "Limit to Where
>an
>>Item is located" function in OPAC searches work more accurately.  I guess
>>the OPAC Search searches the Bib record location codes instead of the
Item
>>record location codes.
>>
>>Don't ask me why there are location codes in a Bib record and an Item
>>record, I've never had a satisfactory answer as to why there are Bib
>>location codes and Item location codes too, when they contain the same
>>data.
>>
>>Hope this helps,
>>
>>Ruel J. Eskelsen
>
>Lai-Ying Hsiung         			            			
>Electronic Resources/Serials Librarian		
>McHenry Library 				
>University of California, Santa Cruz		
>Santa Cruz, Calif. 95064
>Phone: (831) 459-5166     Fax: (831) 459-2473    lhsiung@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>--
>This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
>list
>Public replies:  INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
>Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/list/listinfo/innopac