Hi all, let me add a few notes about consistent terminology both from the perspective of a person who trains staff to work in Evergreen and from the point of view of the Evergreen translator. In both cases I would definitely advocate for the maximum consistency of used terms (however, I also agree with Dan that in some cases it is important to keep in mind the clarity of a particular term in its context).
Evergreen is very complex ILS. So if you are Evergreen newcomer, learn about Evergreen functions or try specify the optimal library workflow, it always makes things easier if the same term is always used for the same thing (no matter whether you are system manager, cataloger, circulator etc.). When it comes to translations, the consistency is perhaps even more important. As the strings are translated separately from the Evergreen, using more terms for the same thing can be confusing or problematic in many ways. Just one example: During translation I came across the term "location", that was probably originally used for the "library" or "organizational unit" in Evergreen, but in some cases it was also used in the meaning of "Shelving location". Both terms were translated differently to Czech, so this particular case of inconsistency was really misleading not only for translators but primarily for the Evergreen users. Unfortunately, the "location" inconsistency (or similar cases) is impossible to solve using different translation terms (as during the last year it turned out, that if one English term had two or more different translations available in the chosen locale language, the web staff client didn't translate the term at all). Another example: Some English terms can be translated many ways (e.g., word "hold" is possible to translate to Czech by about fifty words). This means, that additional (inconsistently used) term coud lead to different translation and could in some cases slightly shift the meaning of the translation string. Moreover, due to further terms the number of translation strings increases too. This may cause unwanted inconsistencies in translations that may have negative consequences on localization functionality in some cases. By the way, number of translation strings increases not only by inconsistently used terms but also due to "typing inconsistencies" like Activate On — Activate on, Add Special Issue — Add special issue, Apply Standing Penalty/Message — Apply Standing Penalty / Message, Call Number — Callnumber, Identification Type2 — Identification Type 2, etc. As translator are usually the first who come across such inconsistencies, I wonder if we could help a little with the issue. For example it would be possible to settle on what to do in such cases (like sending email, adding the term to Launchpad bug or on specific Evergreen dokuwiki page etc.). Eva --- Mgr. Eva Cerniňáková cer...@jabok.cz Tel. +420 211 222 409 Knihovna Jabok http:/knihovna.jabok.cz Tel. +420 211 222 410 Jabok - Vyšší odborná škola sociálně pedagogická a teologická Salmovská 8, 120 00 Praha 2 2018-08-08 0:52 GMT+02:00 Daniel Wells <dbwe...@gmail.com>: > Janet, I can speak to those textual changes, as I am probably responsible > for both. They were attempts to improve accuracy and consistency within > the great ball of changes touched by the omnibus branch. Whether these > attempts succeeded is of course debatable :) > > To explain a little further, first, within the holdings view we used to > have two separate options, one to mark a library for call number ("volume") > transfer, another to mark a call number for copy/item transfer. These > options were folded into a single marking action for ease-of-use, and I > picked the name "holding transfer" as an attempt at a generic enough term > to mean either transferring an individual copy or a whole call number's > worth of copies (depending on the context of the action). Because the > record-level transfer option uses the same code to do the same thing (just > with a default library chosen), "Mark for Holdings Transfer" was an attempt > to convey that these were two paths to the same underlying behavior. It > also helped prevent term mismatch for other messages related to these > behaviors (think confirmation boxes). > > As for the "Add Volumes" vs "Add Copies", the problem there was that the > omnibus branch created an "Add Volume" menu entry within the holdings view > which did exactly that, add an empty "volume" (call number) with no copy. > It felt like bad design to have this menu entry for "Add Volume" which only > added the call number while also having an "Add Volumes" button which added > both the call number and the copy. An early revision, for maximum clarity, > relabeled the record-level button to "Add Volumes and Copies", but a long > button label such as that brings its own challenges. It was then reasoned > that "Add Copies" in some sense implicitly means (at the record level) "Add > (Volumes and) Copies", since you can't have the second without the first. > And thus the current label was born. > > Overall, I think it is a very good idea to keep questioning these labels > as we work toward consistency. As we do so, we should also keep in mind > how these labels overlap and interact. Otherwise, we might paint ourselves > into a corner if by deciding to replace every X with Y, when some of the X > was really Xa or Xb. In particular, and to echo what Lynn brings up, I > think all of the following terms need to be carefully reconsidered as to > how they relate, and how we should use them for maximum clarity and > expressiveness: > > Copy > Item > Holding > Volume > Part > Call Number > > All of these terms are common and useful in libraries, but I personally > think there is at least one where Evergreen strays pretty far from the > common and useful meaning of the term. And with that, I leave you all in > suspense until tomorrow! > > Sincerely, > Dan > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Lynn Floyd <lfl...@andersonlibrary.org> > wrote: > >> I came up with another terminology that should be looked at Call Number >> vs. Volume. There are lots of places where these terms are used >> interchangeably. >> >> >> >> Lynn Floyd >> >> lfl...@andersonlibrary.org >> >> Anderson County Library >> >> Anderson, SC >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Open-ils-general <open-ils-general-bounces@list >> .georgialibraries.org> *On Behalf Of *Diane Disbro >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2018 2:51 PM >> *To:* Evergreen Discussion Group <email@example.com >> libraries.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Towards more consistent terminology in >> the web client >> >> >> >> I appreciate this, Kathy! >> >> >> >> Some inconsistencies in the XUL client have already been removed in the >> web client - standalone interface/offline circulation; show holds/view >> holds on bib. Simplify, simplify, simplify. I look forward to seeing the >> survey. >> >> >> Diane Disbro >> >> Branch Manager/Circulation Coordinator >> >> Union Branch >> >> Scenic Regional Library >> >> 308 Hawthorne Drive >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=308+Hawthorne+Drive+Union,+MO++63084&entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> Union, MO >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=308+Hawthorne+Drive+Union,+MO++63084&entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=308+Hawthorne+Drive+Union,+MO++%C2%A0+%C2%A0++63084&entry=gmail&source=g> >> 63084 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=308+Hawthorne+Drive+Union,+MO++63084&entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> (636) 583-3224 >> >> ddis...@scenicregional.org >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> A recent discussion on the cataloging list turned my attention back to >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1538691. This bug primarily >> focused on the way we used items and copies to describe the same entity in >> Evergreen. A majority of people providing feedback on the bug indicated a >> preference for items over copies. >> >> >> >> I have created a branch that does so, as well as another branch that does >> the opposite. I have also loaded each branch on a test server to give >> people an idea of how things would look in an all item world or in an all >> copy world. >> >> >> >> https://mlnc2.noblenet.org/eg/staff/ uses 'items.' >> >> https://mlnc3.noblenet.org/eg/staff/ uses 'copies' >> >> >> >> The login for each server is admin / evergreen123. >> >> >> >> I think it would be good to get broader community feedback before >> deciding on a direction. >> >> >> >> While working on the branch, I realized we also need to make a decision >> about the use or shelving location vs. copy location. >> >> >> >> What I would like to do is send out a community survey that asks: 1) do >> we need these terms to be consistent (people may be perfectly happy using >> items and copies interchangeably) and b) which terms are preferred. >> >> >> >> Do you all think this is the best approach for moving forward? Are there >> any other inconsistent terms we should be adding to the survey? >> >> >> >> Let me know what you think. My hope is to issue the survey by Thursday. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> Kathy >> >> >> -- >> >> Kathy Lussier >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative >> >> (508) 343-0128 >> >> kluss...@masslnc.org >> >> >> >> Lynn Floyd >> Head of Information Technology >> Anderson County Library >> Anderson, SC >> lfl...@andersonlibrary.org >> > >