> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Galen Charlton <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? >
No, this will not happen at the Sitka level. We have two types of URIs. URIs that are identical across all branches because they license them as a group, and URIs that are unique because libraries license them separately. In the case of unique URIs each library would have its own 856. In the case of identical URIs there will not be a case where one library has an 856 that another library will need access to. Liam > 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
