All –

  I would prefer the ITEM and ITEM LOCATION designators – and consistency 
across all functions / buttons / screens / views etc would be very welcome.

As Dan and Lynn point out below, there have been VAST inconsistencies and also 
problems with function.    If we stick with item (which implies copy, call 
number, and barcode), that keeps it very simple.     Copies has the implication 
of multiple copies of a title of a book, whereas we mean more than that in most 
systems because we will have different kinds of physical things attached to one 
MARC record.    Using the term ‘items’ keeps it most generic.



From: Open-ils-general 
[] On Behalf Of Daniel 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 6:52 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Towards more consistent terminology in the web 

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.


On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Lynn Floyd 
<<>> 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<>
Anderson County Library
Anderson, SC

Reply via email to