Re: INNOPAC digest, Vol 1 #951 - 9 msgs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:50:43 -0700
- From: "Jackie Coats" <jacoats@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: INNOPAC digest, Vol 1 #951 - 9 msgs
Yes, please.
Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: <innopac-request@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <innopac@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:05 AM
Subject: INNOPAC digest, Vol 1 #951 - 9 msgs
> Send INNOPAC mailing list submissions to
> innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://innopacusers.org/list/listinfo/innopac
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> innopac-request@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> innopac-admin@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of INNOPAC digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. ILL records not available for checkout (McClellan Jr., Michael C.)
> 2. RE: Holdshelf Procedures (David Ruml)
> 3. Re: ILL records not available for checkout (Said Shafik)
> 4. Re: Millennium Create Lists and logins was RE: All Ports inUse when
they
> are not (Michele M. Morgan)
> 5. JurisLink (MICHELE LUCERO)
> 6. JurisLink (MICHELE LUCERO)
> 7. Re: Searching LCH (Mieko Yamaguchi)
> 8. Re: Why is LYRCIRC higher than TOT CHKOUT? (Mieko Yamaguchi)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "McClellan Jr., Michael C." <MMcClellan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'innopac@xxxxxxxxxx'" <innopac@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: ILL records not available for checkout
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:36:30 -0500
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Since moving to phase 2 we have had a problem with ILL records that can't
be
> checked out. I'm getting a little tired of having to call the Help Desk
on
> a regular basis and am looking for some possible workflow explanation.
The
> Help Desk staff mentioned that phase 2 has less of a tolerance for
problems
> then it's predecessor and is more likely to not proceed with the checkout.
> The virtual item appears as "Ready to check out" but when you scan the
item
> you get "Warning: ILL Item not available for checkout". The only thing
that
> looks odd to me is that the item status is "-" Not Checked Out instead of
> "!" On Hold shelf. Could this be the problem or is this more of an
> indicator of a locked record. I have tried the Unlock locked ILL records
> but this doesn't help. I'm hoping that someone else ran into this with
> phase 2 and traced it back to something staff were doing incorrectly as
> opposed to a III bug awaiting a future fix.
>
>
> Michael McClellan
> Circulation Department Supervisor
> Minneapolis Public Library
> 250 Marquette Ave
> Minneapolis, MN 55401
> 612-630-6042
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: David Ruml <David.Ruml@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'innopac@xxxxxxxxxx'" <innopac@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Holdshelf Procedures
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:53:44 -0500
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> We have self-service hold pickup, so we don't use the system-generated
slips
> with the patron info for all to see. Instead, we use little white
stickers
> that you can get at office supply stores. The circ clerks write the first
3
> letters of the patron's last name, plus the first initial. (Not the
> complete name, for privacy reasons). The sticker gets affixed to the
spine.
> Then the item is filed on the self-service holdshelf by last name. When
the
> sticker no longer applies (item is picked up, hold expires, etc.), then
the
> sticker is peeled off.
>
> DAVID E. RUML
> Carrollton Public Library
> Carrollton, Texas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eeva Stierwalt [mailto:eeva.stierwalt@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:31 PM
> To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Holdshelf Procedures
>
>
> Hello! We are a 16 branch public library and each branch has it's own
> holdshelf. At some branches, the holdshelf is accessible by the public.
> Because of this, we have been unable to use the Hold Pickup slips
generated
> by Millennium/Innopac BECAUSE they have patron phone# and address on them
> and we don't want these available for other patrons to peruse! So, we
very
> laboriously write out using black marker in big bold letters the patron's
> name and the date the item expires from the holdshelf and we attach this
to
> the item with a rubber band. We have 3 bays of holdshelf here at the main
> branch and they are often full, so you can imagine how much tedious work
is
> involved getting these items onto the holdshelf. Some of our branches
have
> the holdshelf behind the counter, but they too write the name out in bold
> letters for each item, because the
> system generated slips have such small writing.
>
> We can't be the only library with this issue??? How are other libraries
> handling this process and making the best use of their Millennium/Innopac
> system? Thanks for sharing! Eeva
>
> Eeva Stierwalt
> Information Systems Specialist
> Automated Collection Management
> London Public Library
> 251 Dundas St.
> London, ON Canada N6A 6H9
> t 519.661.5156
> f 519.663.9013
> e eeva.stierwalt@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
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:12:04 -0500
> From: "Said Shafik" <sshafik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <innopac@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: ILL records not available for checkout
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> We run on phase 2 also and our ILL staff sometimes face the same problem,
which no logic reason for the cause of it. What we do now if our ILL staff
face it is to close the session, exit the Telnet software, then restart it
and restart an III session. At that point ILL staff are able to do their
work.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Said Shafik
> Information Technology Department
> Arlington Heights Memorial Library
> 500 N. Dunton Avenue
> Arlington Heights, IL 60004 USA
> Phones: Home (847)806-6679 Office (847)506-2652
> Faxes : (847)506-2650, (847)506-2655
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> MMcClellan@xxxxxxxxxx 07/29/03 01:36PM >>>
>
> Since moving to phase 2 we have had a problem with ILL records that can't
be
> checked out. I'm getting a little tired of having to call the Help Desk
on
> a regular basis and am looking for some possible workflow explanation.
The
> Help Desk staff mentioned that phase 2 has less of a tolerance for
problems
> then it's predecessor and is more likely to not proceed with the checkout.
> The virtual item appears as "Ready to check out" but when you scan the
item
> you get "Warning: ILL Item not available for checkout". The only thing
that
> looks odd to me is that the item status is "-" Not Checked Out instead of
> "!" On Hold shelf. Could this be the problem or is this more of an
> indicator of a locked record. I have tried the Unlock locked ILL records
> but this doesn't help. I'm hoping that someone else ran into this with
> phase 2 and traced it back to something staff were doing incorrectly as
> opposed to a III bug awaiting a future fix.
>
>
> Michael McClellan
> Circulation Department Supervisor
> Minneapolis Public Library
> 250 Marquette Ave
> Minneapolis, MN 55401
> 612-630-6042
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:20:25 -0400
> From: "Michele M. Morgan" <mmorgan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Organization: NOBLE, Inc.
> To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Millennium Create Lists and logins was RE: All Ports inUse
when they
> are not
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> We've been working with how the different create list settings (Admin,
> Settings, Create Lists) take up user licenses and are having trouble
> deciding on the best option for our libraries.
>
> With the default setting (Don't wait for searches to complete) executing
> a search does indeed take up 2 user licenses. If one license is
> available for the user to login to Millennium, they can specify search
> criteria, but when they try to execute the search, they are told there
> are too many users and all they can do is exit, losing whatever search
> strategy they have just built. We often have trouble in training
> sessions where we have multiple users from each library. If we have 3
> users in a session, there need to be 6 available licenses in order for
> each of them to be able to start a search.
>
> The second setting (Wait for searches to complete) is more
> straightforward in terms of its use of licenses in that it only takes up
> one, and once you start a search, you can't do anything else in your
> Millennium session. Some users find it difficult to work with, however,
> since once a search is running, the session can't be minimized using the
> Minimize button in the window. Programs can be opened around it, and it
> can be minimized using other Windows tricks, but it's an annoyance.
>
> The third option (Prompt to wait for searches to complete) works like
> the default option until you run into your user license limit. If you
> have logged in with your remaining license, and try to start a search,
> you will be prompted with:
>
> "Sorry, there are too many users to launch search process.
> Wait until search completes?
> Yes, No"
>
> It's not ideal and we find the message confusing, but here, if you
> answer Yes, your search is executed and occupies your Millennium session
> until it finishes. You don't lose your search strategy unless you
> answer No.
>
> We're leaning toward using the 3rd option, but it would be more
> desirable if Millennium allowed the user to login and start a list using
> one license, and only go looking for another license if the user
> attempted to leave Create Lists and do other Millennium functions.
> We're planning on submitting this as an enhancement request.
>
> Sheila Smart wrote:
> >
> > I do know that the Manual says that there is a setting "Don't wait for
> > searches to complete" and that is my preference as it allows us to
perform
> > other tasks, especially toggling to any other applications running on
the
> > PC at the same time. What I didn't realise was that, even if I didn't
> > chose that setting but chose the one "Wait for searches to complete"
> > another login is opened while a search is being performed. It may be
that,
> > being new to the Millenium Modules and not interpreting the manual
> > accurately, I had misunderstood the situation but it seems that the
> > responses from the list to the original problem show I am not the only
one.
> >
> > At 23-07-03 20:09 Wednesday, you wrote:
> > >At 05:08 PM 07/23/2003 +0100, Sheila wrote:
> > >>I've just tested this and find that it does, indeed use two ports. I
was
> > >>not aware that this is what happens. We are just starting to
implement
> > >>our Millenium Modules now and wish that this had been made clearer us
as
> > >>it will inevitably impact on how we arrange our procedures.
> > >
> > >
> > >At the risk of being accused of being an evil tool of the dark side,
> > >consider the following:
> > >
> > >(1) In the character-based system, a login cannot perform additional
> > >tasks while in Create Lists. If you want to run a list and do
something
> > >else at the same time, you have to use two logins/licenses.
> > >
> > >(2) In Millennium applications, being "in" Create Lists does not use
an
> > >additional login---an additional login is only used while the search is
> > >being performed. I suppose sorting might use a login, but listing and
> > >showing records do not.
> > >
> > >(3) Millennium applications (Phase 2+) have Create Lists settings
which
> > >can be altered to deal with local login situations. We're currently
> > >having a little problem with one of the settings so I can't provide
> > >definitive evidence that all work as described, but according to the
> > >manual, Mill Create Lists can be set to (a) wait for searches to
complete
> > >and use only one login (i.e., behave like the character-based system
and
> > >prohibit other activity); or (b) allow other work to be performed
while
> > >the list is running (at the cost of use of an additional login (which
is
> > >indeed spelled out in the manual)); or (c) if all logins for a group
are
> > >in use, prompt the user to decide. The default behavior is (b). See
Page
> > ># 105323 of the R2002/P2 manual.
> > >
> > >
> > >Bob Duncan
> > >
> > >
> > >~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~
> > >Robert E. Duncan
> > >Systems Librarian
> > >David Bishop Skillman Library
> > >Lafayette College
> > >Easton, PA 18042
> > >duncanr@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >http://www.library.lafayette.edu/
> > >
> > >--
> > >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
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > ******************************
> > Sheila Smart
> > Technical Systems Manager
> > University of St Andrews Library
> > North Street
> > ST ANDREWS
> > Fife KY16 9TR
> >
> > Tel: 01334 462316
> > ******************************
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Michele Morgan, Technical Assistant
> North of Boston Library Exchange, Danvers Massachusetts
> mmorgan@xxxxxxxxxx
> Ph: 978-777-8844
> Fax: 978-750-8472
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> From: MICHELE LUCERO <mlucero@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:43:07 -0700
> To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx, law-lib@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: parsey01@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: JurisLink
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Hi!
>
> I am a current graduate student pursuing my Masters in Law Librarianship.
I
> am in hopes that any of you that utilize JurisLink by SIRSI will be able
to
> provide me with helpful information for my project. I have already
contacted
> SIRSI and several libraries that utilize the Unicorn system behind
JurisLink. JurisLink is an integrated system specifically created for law
libraries. The
> final project I am working on consists of in-depth research on this system
> including history of SIRSI, Unicorn and JurisLink, the software of
JurisLink,
> strengths, weaknesses, and comments from clients and professionals. My
> objective with this project is to provide a conclusion of whether or not
> JurisLink is an ideal system based on my findings and research. If any of
you
> that utilize this system can provide me with your comments/and or any
helpful
> information please contact me below. It is greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Michele A. Lucero
> Law Library Assistant
> Lionel Sawyer & Collins
> mlucero@xxxxxxxxxx
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> This e-mail message is a confidential communication from the law firm of
> Lionel Sawyer & Collins and is intended only for the named recipient(s)
> above and may contain information that is a trade secret, proprietary,
> privileged or attorney work product. If you have received this message in
> error, or are not the named or intended recipient(s), please immediately
> notify the sender at 702-383-8888 and delete this e-mail message and any
> attachments from your workstation or network mail system.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: MICHELE LUCERO <mlucero@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:53:16 -0700
> To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx, law-lib@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: parsey01@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: JurisLink
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Hi!
>
> I am a current graduate student pursuing my Masters in Law Librarianship.
I
> am in hopes that any of you that utilize JurisLink by SIRSI will be able
to
> provide me with any helpful information for my project. I have already
> contacted SIRSI and several libraries that utilize the Unicorn system
behind
> JurisLink. JurisLink is a new integrated system specifically created for
law
> libraries. The final project I am working on consists of in=depth
research on
> this new system including history of SIRSI, Unicorn and JurisLink, the
> software of JurisLink, strengths, weaknesses, and comments from clients
and
> professionals. If you any of you that utilize this system can provide me
with
> your comments/and or any helpful information please contact me below
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> This e-mail message is a confidential communication from the law firm of
> Lionel Sawyer & Collins and is intended only for the named recipient(s)
> above and may contain information that is a trade secret, proprietary,
> privileged or attorney work product. If you have received this message in
> error, or are not the named or intended recipient(s), please immediately
> notify the sender at 702-383-8888 and delete this e-mail message and any
> attachments from your workstation or network mail system.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:39:10 +0100 (BST)
> From: Mieko Yamaguchi <iss053@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Searching LCH
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Leo Papa wrote:
>
> > We do have access to "OUT DATE" in Create Lists, and didn't realize it
was
> > equivalent to the LCH in the item records (a no brainer in retrospect).
>
> OUT DATE and LCHKIN are two different fields in the item record. In
> character-based display field labels may be abbreviated as OUT and LCH
> or as you see below into nothing if you opt to have the time (as well as
> date) displayed. Fixed field 06 is OUT DATE and 11 is LCHKIN.
>
> Although it is possible to search on the OUT DATE and LCHKIN in create
> lists I don't think you can actually seach or sort on the TIME element of
> these fields.
>
> I1295391x Last updated: 28-07-03 Created: 04-06-94 Revision: 23
> 01 COPY NO.: 1 09 PATRON: 1027453 16 ODUE DAT: - - 23 STATUS: -
> 02 ICODE1: 0 10 LPATRON:1028894 17 IUSE3: 0 24 INTL USE : 0
> 03 ICODE2: - 11 :25-07-03 16:03 18 RECAL DA: - - 25 COPY USE: 0
> 04 I TYPE: 19 12 INVDA: - - 19 TOT CHKOUT: 3 26 IMESSAGE:
> 05 PRICE: #0.00 13 IN LOC: 2 20 TOT RENEW: 5 27 OPACMSG:
> 06 :28-07-03 15:49 14 NO. RENEWALS: 0 21 LOCATION: udsbk 28 YTDCIRC: 2
> 07 OUT LOC: 2 15 NO. OVERDUE: 0 22 LOANRULE: 43 29 LYRCIRC: 0
> 08 DUE DA:31-08-03
> 30 090 QL591.G7|bF6
> 31 VOLUME v.4
> 32 BARCODE 30110006009428
>
> Mieko
> -----
> Mieko Yamaguchi m.yamaguchi@xxxxxxxxxx
> Technical Services Manager/System Coordinator +44 (0)1248 382970
> Main Library, University of Wales Bangor, UK +44 (0)1248 382979 (Fax)
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:43:06 +0100 (BST)
> From: Mieko Yamaguchi <iss053@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Why is LYRCIRC higher than TOT CHKOUT?
> Reply-To: innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Michele,
>
> Thanks for posting this observation. I was aware that there was a
> problem of checkouts while an item was on reserve not being added to
> TOT CHKOUT in Milcirc but I assumed that it was a bug which would be
> fixed. In your message to the list about a year ago you reported this
> and also assumed it was a bug.
>
> http://innovativeusers.org/list/archives/2002/msg02929.html
>
> Whatever Innovative's explanation it doesn't sound like an intentional
> design change. If it was I have to say it was a misguided design
> change. In character-based libraries had the option to include reserve
> checkouts in TOT CHKOUT or not. Removing that option "intentionally"
> does not seem like a progress.
>
> I assume that libraries wanting to add reserve checkouts in TOT CHKOUTs
> can still remove items from reserve in character-based.
>
> Mieko
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Michele M. Morgan wrote:
>
> > In actuality, if you use Millennium, the reserve circs are NEVER added
> > to the TOT CHKOUT field when the item is removed from the course,
> > whether you store RESER NOTEs in your item records or not.
> >
> > In a previous release of Millennium, it was true that reserve circs were
> > added to TOT CHKOUT, but this is no longer the case in the current
> > release. We've been told by III that this was a design change and there
> > are plans in a future release to make addition of the reserve circs to
> > TOT CHKOUT an option.
> >
> > Interestingly enough, in the current release, the character system
> > behaves differently than Millennium. When you remove your items from
> > reserve using the character system, the circs while on reserve ARE added
> > to the TOT CHKOUT field.
>
> -----
> Mieko Yamaguchi m.yamaguchi@xxxxxxxxxx
> Technical Services Manager/System Coordinator +44 (0)1248 382970
> Main Library, University of Wales Bangor, UK +44 (0)1248 382979 (Fax)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> --
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
digest
> Public replies: INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
> Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/list/listinfo/innopac
>
> End of INNOPAC Digest
>