Hi Don, > Please pardon my ignorance, but it sounds like Evergreen requires keying in > every call number prefix. Is that true? Wouldn't that be an unnecessary extra > burden for the data entry person?
The call number label field was originally designed as a free-text field to meet the requirements of PINES, which has *many* call number schemes that change often. I think for our libraries, the flexibility of being able to change the call number labels easily outweighs the burden of data entry, but this email thread may lead to an effort towards a more standardized option if that makes sense for other Evergreen user agencies. Chris Chris Sharp PINES Program Manager Georgia Public Library Service 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (404) 235-7147 [email protected] http://pines.georgialibraries.org/ From: "Don Butterworth" <[email protected]> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:26:23 AM Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: Call numbers in Evergreen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Scott" <[email protected]> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:36:40 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Call numbers in Evergreen <snip> Interesting. In the past we used prefixes on our call numbers to identify which library holds a given book, but we've done away with them to avoid messing up call number sorting in the loverly shelf browse. The idea of having non-sorting prefixes and suffixes is intriguing - although I wonder if it would make more sense to work out a programmatic way to tell the spine label editor to generate a given prefix or suffix when printing a spine label, rather than manually entering that information into new fields all the time. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In our former system, call number prefixes were assigned based on a parameter set in a Collection Code definition area. In other words, the collection code ATSREF defined the call number prefix prefix Ref., ACREF also defined the call number prefix Ref. This work great both for gathering statistics and applying the prefix. It was a set it then forget it operation. Our current system "tries" to do the same thing, but it does not work as seamlessly. Please pardon my ignorance, but it sounds like Evergreen requires keying in every call number prefix. Is that true? Wouldn't that be an unnecessary extra burden for the data entry person? Don (the lurker) Don Butterworth Faculty Associate / Librarian III B.L. Fisher Library Asbury Theological Seminary (859) 858-2227 [email protected]
