Hi, On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Turner, Jennifer M wrote: > Regarding single org unit set-up: while it is possible to set up a single-OU > tree, the argument I found for leaving the Consortium in place is that it > allows the ability to add other branches or libraries in the future. This is > an older list conversation, but I believe it is still relevant: > http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/2009-January/004039.html. > I don't know that we're "expecting" to gain new branches, but can imagine > scenarios in which this might happen, so elected to leave it as a > possibility, especially since the OPAC can be limited to search only the > single library.
I agree that even for a single-branch library, a two-OU, two-level org hierarchy rather than a single OU allows more flexibility in the future. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Director of Support and 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 _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
