I 100% agree with all of this and if we're going to do any terminology 
realignment I think we should straighten up as much as possible at the same 

Jason Boyer
MIS Supervisor
Indiana State Library

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Daniel 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:10 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group <open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Towards more consistent terminology in the web 

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or 
click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
Hello all,

Very happy to see the term "Holding" getting some traction.  I would also agree 
that changing the record-level "Add Copies" button to "Add Holdings" makes a 
lot of sense!

Furthermore, after 9 days of suspense, I have finally found time to unveil the 
one term I feel has been misused in Evergreen since the beginning: volume!  
Hopefully there are some like-minded folks to whom this is no surprise.  To 
others, I offer the following somewhat long explanation, and also to help the 
busy and impatient, here is the summary conclusion. "Volume" is a word for a 
physical thing (i.e. something with "volume"), and we already have two 
established words for that (item/copy), so it is of no obvious use to us.  
Volume, be gone!

You may be thinking that's just, like, my opinion, so to that I offer the 
following quote from the American Library Association Fact Sheet:

"The ARL academic library study takes its definition of volume from the 
National Information Standards Organization<http://www.niso.org/> (NISO): A 
single physical unit of any printed, typewritten, handwritten, mimeographed, or 
processed work, distinguished from other units by a separate binding, 
encasement, portfolio, or other clear distinction, which has been cataloged, 
classified, and made ready for use, and which is typically the unit used to 
charge circulation transactions."

With this single quote, we've got the ALA, the ARL (Association of Research 
Libraries), and NISO all agreeing on usage of the term "volume" to be the 
physical "things" in our library collections.  That's some pretty good 
authority, I think.  And when the ALA Fact Sheet then tells us the Library of 
Congress has 34,528,818 "volumes held", they mean 34,528,818 physical things, 
and we all generally understand that usage without difficulty.  It certainly 
doesn't mean "call numbers", and it doesn't mean something conceptual.  It is 
simply the separate units of stuff they have collected and organized.

So, if this is the case, why does "volume" as it is currently used in Evergreen 
feel right to so many of us?  Stockholm syndrome, of course.  Actually, the way 
we use it isn't *totally* wrong, and since some of us have now been using this 
term "the Evergreen way" for 10+ years, it has become a bit ingrained and 
entrenched.  It also just shorter and easier to use and say than "call number" 
even when we really just mean "call number".  I, too, am guilty of such things.

Finally, the term "volume" also brings some additional baggage when it comes to 
parts.  Since the most common *label* for a part is "volume [xyz]", sometime we 
casually refer to a part as a "volume".  To this, I can only say that even 
volumes not labeled "volume" are volumes, so let's not trip ourselves over 
thinking that "volume" belongs to parts in any meaningful way.

My feelings, in summary:
1) "Holding" should be our general term as much as possible.  It simply means 
anything we provide access to.
2) Our circulating units should be labeled "Item" or "Copy".  My slight 
preference is for "Item", but I don't think "Copy" has any major problems being 
understood when used in this way.
3) We should keep using the term "Call Number" for the actual call number, of 
course, but in many places "Holding" will slide in and work fine.
3) "Volume" is tainted, and it would be best to quit cold-turkey.  It is hard 
to imagine us strictly using it as ALA/ARL/NISO have defined it, and we can 
live without it.

Now, some of the above is rhetoric; I can also imagine a path forward where we 
keep "volume", since no label is going to allow software to perfectly fit 
reality.  But I do feel that path will require a little more finesse and 
discipline, and that moving away is ultimately the easier road.

Thanks for reading!


On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Kathy Lussier 
<kluss...@masslnc.org<mailto:kluss...@masslnc.org>> wrote:
Hi all,

I'm sending along a reminder to please fill out this survey by tomorrow if you 
haven't done so already. We've received 97 responses so far!




Kathy Lussier

Project Coordinator

Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative

(508) 343-0128


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Kathy Lussier 
<kluss...@masslnc.org<mailto:kluss...@masslnc.org>> wrote:
As promised, here is the link to the survey for gauge community opinion on 
these terms.


I see the survey as a way to set a general direction for which terms we want to 
use.  Once we have that direction, I think we can dive into the details more to 
see if there are specific instances where we shouldn't be changing a term 
because it has a slightly different meaning or context.

I'll keep the survey open until next Friday.

Thanks all!


Kathy Lussier

Project Coordinator

Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative

(508) 343-0128


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Mary Llewellyn 
<mllew...@biblio.org<mailto:mllew...@biblio.org>> wrote:
+1 for holdings and Sarah!

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Deborah Luchenbill 
<debo...@mobiusconsortium.org<mailto:debo...@mobiusconsortium.org>> wrote:
+1, Sarah!  I like Holdings for that label.

Debbie Luchenbill
Evergreen Coordinator
111 E. Broadway, Ste. 
Columbia, MO  
Missouri Evergreen Help Desk: 
h...@mobiusconsortium.org<mailto:h...@mobiusconsortium.org> / 877-312-3517

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Elaine Hardy 
<eha...@georgialibraries.org<mailto:eha...@georgialibraries.org>> wrote:
+1 Sarah!

J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service/PINES
1800 Century Place, Ste. 
Atlanta, GA 

404.548.4241 Cell
Helpdesk: http://help.georgialibraries.org

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Janet Schrader 
<jschra...@cwmars.org<mailto:jschra...@cwmars.org>> wrote:
+1 to holdings.
I like that because it's consistent with "Holdings transfer" and can be either 
a copy or a volume. Holdings should be familiar to any librarian who used MARC 
record loads to create items 852 or 94x fields.


Janet Schrader

Bibliographic Services Supervisor | CW MARS

67 Millbrook Street, Suite 201, Worcester, MA 

P: 508-755-3323 x 325 | F: 508-757-7801


jschra...@cwmars.org<mailto:jschra...@cwmars.org>  ||  

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Sarah Childs 
<sar...@zionsvillelibrary.org<mailto:sar...@zionsvillelibrary.org>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Elaine Hardy 
<eha...@georgialibraries.org<mailto:eha...@georgialibraries.org>> wrote:
I do like Holdings transfer. I think it is a good descriptor of what we are 
doing with the functionality.

A little quibble, though with not having the button labelled Add volumes and 
copies. I realize that is cumbersome, however, it is more descriptive, 
especially from a cataloger's point of view.

Maybe it should be labeled "Add Holdings"?   Then it's distinct from both Add 
Volumes and Add Copies.

Sarah Childs
Technical Services Department Head
Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
250 North Fifth 
Zionsville, IN 46077
317-873-3149 x13330

Mary Llewellyn
Database Manager
Bibliomation, Inc.
24 Wooster 
Waterbury, CT 

Reply via email to