Re: holds and order records
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
We have a similar problem in our library consortium, especially when one
copy of a best seller ordered for a branch which does not allow holds
arrives before all the other copies.
Your suggestion for an enhancement request looks very good to me!
Adele Thoma Barree
Head of Technical Services
Somerset County Library System
Bridgewater, New Jersey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Yancey" <dyancey at cityofsalem dot net>
To: <innopac at innopacusers dot org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:02 PM
Subject: holds and order records
> We've run into an interesting (and apparently uncommon) situation...
> By design, once item records have been attached to a bib record,
> Millennium will no longer consider any request rules related to the
> presence of an attached order record or its content. While this isn't a
> generally a problem in single-entity library systems or cooperatives in
> which availability of materials between members is relatively
> unfettered, it is problematic for us.
> The problem arises out of the fact that, in our cooperative, certain
> circ policies dictate scenarios in which what is requestable by some
> ptypes is not requestable by others. When a bib/order record is
> downloaded, patrons may generally place bib-level holds. As item
> records are subsequently attached to this bib record (by a library other
> than the one that has the title on order), the ability to request is
> then considered with respect to these item record(s); items which may or
> may not be restricted from the patrons of the library that placed the
> order record on the system to begin with. If these restrictions come
> into play, the patrons of the library still waiting to receive the title
> in question can no longer place a request for it.
> Assuming that my understanding of the problem is sound (and that my
> description of the situation hasn't totally confused everyone), may I
> ask if anyone else has run into this or anything similar? If so, how
> did you deal with it? Furthermore, does the situation merit an
> enhancement request? I'm thinking of something along the lines of an
> option which would allow the rule determiner table to consider location
> codes of either item -or- order records, so that it can at least check
> to see if something is requestable in situations like this.
> We've received some feedback from III on the matter. One of the
> workarounds they suggested is to create suppressed item records which
> "lurk" on bib records to allow holds when needed. Although this would
> accomplish what we want, it's rather inelegant as a long-term solution
> and creates extra work.
> Any insights are greatly appreciated.
> Doug Yancey
> Technical Services Manager
> Salem Public Library
> 585 Liberty St SE
> Salem, OR 97301
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
> Public replies: INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
> Update your subscription options: