> From Jennifer:
>
> 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.
>
>
Kathy said:

>
>
I disagree with the idea that item implies copy, call number and barcode.
> IMO, we are choosing the best term to describe what lives in the asset.copy
> table, which certainly could be a physical thing rather than a copy of a
> book, but is not the same thing as a call number, which can contain
> multiple items/copies, or a barcode, which is an identifier for that
> item/copy. We need to be very precise in what we call these entities in the
> client. When we are referring to a call number, we should say call number
> (or volume).
>
> I like Dan's approach of using 'holdings' when we need some way to refer
> to a group that can contain items/copies and/or call numbers.
>

I like this idea of holdings when talking about call number + item
groupings.   But I do think the term item is better than the term copy,
because I think Jennifer is right about copy implying that there is more
than one of the same thing. There might be only one, or there might be
multiple items which are parts as opposed to "copies."  You have to add
items to create parts, and it seems weird to say you are adding copies in
that instance, since they are all different things.

Reply via email to