All of our libraries resource share; that is a requirement of our consortium.  
So when I say that they aren’t resource sharing below, it is merely on specific 
items/titles that they’ve restricted use to local availability due to scarcity 
or fragility usually.  And yes, patrons do get frustrated when they see 
something they want that isn’t available for transit, but that has less to do 
with parts than transit holds in general.  Our reason for encouraging parts to 
be placed on all materials, regardless of transitability, is that we found that 
libraries were losing local circs because the patrons wanted to be able to say 
what they wanted when placing the hold, so if the local library chose to skip 
creating a part on a parted record, their patrons were bypassing the local 
materials in favor of those that were parted because they knew what they were 
getting.

For your manga example, if one of my libraries doesn’t want to part, they have 
to put their holdings on separate (individual volume) bibs rather than the 
record that’s parted.  Can hit all of the bases then so patrons can still place 
holds on what they want, regardless of whether they search for the full run or 
the individual issue.  It means more bibs and a lot more searching for some 
patrons, but it’s worked for us so far as it appeals to two different search 
styles.

As more and more of the libraries have parted their materials, we are getting 
less frustration about not being able to get the part desired (because now 
there are 12 or 15 copies available rather than just the 1 at the library that 
started parting the record) and reverting to frustration about why we can’t 
just ship everything all the time! ☺

I believe our error code is something along the lines of the item not 
transiting that far rather than maxholds, but there’s always room for 
improvement on the error messages!

-Anna

Anna Goben
Evergreen Indiana Coordinator
Indiana State Library
140 N Senate Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-234-6624
Fax: 317-232-3713

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Sylvia 
Orner
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 9:04 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group <open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Monograph Parts in Consortiums

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or 
click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
________________________________
Thanks, Anna!

Our problem is that we do not engage in resource sharing at the consortium 
level.  We have some libraries and library systems that share with each other, 
but not across the board.  Like you said, we’d like to see patrons able to view 
only those parts that are available to them.

It sounds like you have libraries that don’t share resources but make use of 
monograph parts.  Do their patrons ever experience issues requesting parts that 
are not available to them?   Right now, we’ve noticed that if a patron places a 
hold on a part that’s not available to them, they get an error message stating 
that they have reached the maximum number of holds which is kind of confusing 
because we don’t have a maximum number of holds.



From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Goben, 
Anna
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 8:10 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Monograph Parts in Consortiums

Hi Sylvia,

In Indiana, we use parts heavily for resource sharing, so scoping to specific 
branches/systems would actually work directly against our goals to maximize the 
pool of available targets.  What we have talked about instead is a way to scope 
the holds on parts to only show those parts that are available to the patron 
(either via transit or locally).  Due to the complexity of our holds rules, we 
do not anticipate that will happen any time soon though.

We have shared style guides to build our parts so that there aren’t unnecessary 
duplications of parts and for sorting purposes.  Also for high demand/heavily 
parted titles, we have asked that even those libraries that aren’t resource 
sharing use parts so that patrons have a consistent experience.  It does mean 
some extra work for your catalogers, especially up front for any major 
collection, but in the long run, our patrons have indicated they really 
appreciate the ability to request the specific part they want regardless of who 
owns it.  (And generally, they don’t care who owns it as long as they can get 
it and get it quickly.)

-Anna



Anna Goben
Evergreen Indiana Coordinator
Indiana State Library
140 N Senate Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-234-6624
Fax: 317-232-3713

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Kathy 
Lussier
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 11:25 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
<open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org<mailto:open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Monograph Parts in Consortiums

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or 
click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
________________________________
Hi Sylvia,
I do not know of a way to limit the display of parts to the scoped library 
without development.

Just to give some background on this feature, one of the primary reasons it was 
developed was precisely so that holds on a specific volume or disc could be 
applied across the entire consortium. Prior to the existence of parts, the only 
way to place a hold on a specific volume or disc was to place a volume-level 
hold, which targets copies that share the same call number owned by the same 
org unit. For our consortia, this was too limiting because we want our part 
holds to be fillable by all libraries just as we do with title holds. We don't 
use any hard or soft hold boundaries in our consortia that might limit which 
libraries can fill a hold.

If you want to limit the holds to just holdings within the library or system, 
you could probably refrain from adding parts, make the volume hold link 
available to the public, and encourage them to place holds that way. However, I 
think this would be very unintuitive and would lead to a lot of title holds on 
the record that could be filled by a random volume.

Barring that, I think development would be required to get what you're looking 
for.

Kathy


--

Kathy Lussier

Project Coordinator

Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative

(508) 343-0128

kluss...@masslnc.org<mailto:kluss...@masslnc.org>

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Sylvia Orner 
<sor...@albright.org<mailto:sor...@albright.org>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

We’ve recently had a couple of libraries in our consortium (SPARK) move towards 
using monograph parts for things like manga.

We are now noticing that when patrons go to place a hold on a record with 
monograph parts, they can chose from all parts that exist within the 
consortium, not just those with holdings at their library or library system.  I 
understand that the parts are shared at the consortium level, but is there any 
way to hide parts that are not associated with any holdings at the scoped 
library or library system?

If it’s not possible, I would be interested in hearing how other consortiums 
deal with monograph parts.

Thanks so much!


Sylvia Orner
Head of Technical Services
Scranton Public Library
2006 N. Main 
Ave.<https://maps.google.com/?q=2006+N.+Main+Ave.+%0D%0A+Scranton,+PA+18508&entry=gmail&source=g>
Scranton, PA 
18508<https://maps.google.com/?q=2006+N.+Main+Ave.+%0D%0A+Scranton,+PA+18508&entry=gmail&source=g>
570-207-2379
sor...@albright.org<mailto:sor...@albright.org>


Reply via email to