Hi, On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Liam Whalen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 15, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Mike Rylander <[email protected]> wrote: >> * If yes to the previous question, would this extend to copy visibility? > > No, this is strictly for URIs. I believe, because copies are physical, they > are much more > naturally assigned to the OUs that need to have control of them. URIs, in > Sitka’s case, > may be assigned at various levels depending on how a library or system needs > to > conceptual organize ownership.
Are there cases, either at Sitka or in other consortia following this discussion, where LURI visibility of shared electronic resources do not map cleanly to the OU hierarchy at all? For example, do two libraries who have no relationship other than membership in Sitka ever go in on an eresource package together? Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: [email protected] direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org
