Hi,

I have been trying to create a report in the Web client which shows the
Total amount showing owed in a patron record. There are many possibilities
in the patron record which all show the same amount owed. There is Total
Owed, Fines Owed, Bills and Total Billed. It would be nice if just 1 of
these would be used and that term usable in a report.

Thanks,

Dawn - Circulation Manager
Bethlehem Area Public Library
Bethlehem Pa

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:02 PM Sarah Childs <sar...@zionsvillelibrary.org>
wrote:

> I'm working on Indiana docs for 3.2, and I have a few questions comments
> on where we landed on the terminology. Overall it seems a lot more
> consistent. The copies/items issue seems like it was fully stamped out.
> Hooray!
>
> I notice we have Holdings for the Add Holdings button and the Holdings
> Editor, but on the menus where we have all the options of Call Numbers and
> Items, shouldn't those also be Holdings? I think people will quickly come
> to understand that Holdings means Call Numbers and Items.  It seems weird
> to have Holdings in just a couple of places.
>
> But my biggest beef is the Transfer Call Numbers to Previously Marked
> Destination menu option. Now that most of the rest of the Actions have
> three options: Items, Call Numbers, & Both, Transfer Call Numbers sounds
> like it means transfer Call Number ONLY, when in fact it is Both.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 9:51 AM Patrick, Irene <irene.patr...@ncdcr.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> One’s view on this probably depends greatly on background.  I strongly
>> disagree that using volume as terminology is Stockholm syndrome.  We’ve
>> been on Evergreen for over a year now, but prior to that we were on Voyager
>> for 15 years.  Voyager had a roughly similar structure.  In Voyager, the
>> structure was bib record, MFHD or volume record, and item record.  The bib
>> record was obviously the MARC record, the MFHD/volume record stored the
>> location and call number, and all the items that shared the same location
>> and call number were attached to that volume record.  Using volume as the
>> term for the intermediate layer makes perfect sense to me.  I prefer it to
>> using “call number” because call number to me is an attribute of something
>> else, not an entity of its own to which items can be attached.
>>
>>
>>
>> Evergreen’s structure is obviously not exactly the same, and since we are
>> now part of a consortium which was set up long before we came on board, I
>> don’t have full understanding of how the underlying structure was set up.
>> Even so, “call number record” just doesn’t feel right to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Before Voyager, we were on Dynix, which only had bibs and items, so it
>> wasn’t even an issue there.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Irene Patrick*
>>
>> Library & Information Management Systems Librarian
>>
>> NC Dept. of Natural and Cultural Resources
>>
>> 919.807.7413  |  irene.patr...@ncdcr.gov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 109 E. Jones St.  | 4640 Mail Service Center
>>
>> Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4600
>>
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/ncghl>  Twitter
>> <http://www.twitter.com/ncpedia>  YouTube
>> <http://www.youtube.com/user/statelibrarync>  Website
>> <https://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
>> Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Open-ils-general [mailto:
>> open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel
>> Wells
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:10 PM
>> *To:* Evergreen Discussion Group <
>> open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>
>> *Subject:* [External] Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Towards more consistent
>> terminology in the web client
>>
>>
>>
>> *CAUTION:* External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless
>> verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.
>> <report.s...@nc.gov>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Kathy Lussier <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!
>>
>>
>>
>> https://goo.gl/forms/jZeADWhF9u7ilM072
>>
>>
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kathy Lussier
>>
>> Project Coordinator
>>
>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
>>
>> (508) 343-0128
>>
>> kluss...@masslnc.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> As promised, here is the link to the survey for gauge community opinion
>> on these terms.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://goo.gl/forms/jZeADWhF9u7ilM072
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kathy Lussier
>>
>> Project Coordinator
>>
>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
>>
>> (508) 343-0128
>>
>> kluss...@masslnc.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Mary Llewellyn <mllew...@biblio.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for holdings and Sarah!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Deborah Luchenbill <
>> debo...@mobiusconsortium.org> wrote:
>>
>> +1, Sarah!  I like Holdings for that label.
>>
>>
>> Debbie Luchenbill
>>
>> Evergreen Coordinator
>>
>> MOBIUS
>>
>> 111 E. Broadway, Ste. 220
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=111+E.+Broadway,+Ste.+220+Columbia,+MO+%C2%A065203&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> Columbia, MO  65203
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=111+E.+Broadway,+Ste.+220+Columbia,+MO+%C2%A065203&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> deb...@mobiusconsortium.org <debo...@mobiusconsortium.org>
>>
>> 573-234-4914
>>
>> https://mobiusconsortium.org <http://mobiusconsortium.org>
>>
>> Missouri Evergreen Help Desk: h...@mobiusconsortium.org / 877-312-3517
>>
>> http://libraries.missourievergreen.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Elaine Hardy <
>> eha...@georgialibraries.org> wrote:
>>
>> +1 Sarah!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Elaine Hardy
>>
>> PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
>>
>> Georgia Public Library Service/PINES
>>
>> 1800 Century Place, Ste. 580
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1800+Century+Place,+Ste.+580+Atlanta,+GA+30045&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> Atlanta, GA 30045
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1800+Century+Place,+Ste.+580+Atlanta,+GA+30045&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>
>>
>> 404.548.4241 Cell
>>
>> eha...@georgialibraries.org
>>
>> Helpdesk: http://help.georgialibraries.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Janet Schrader <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 01606
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=67+Millbrook+Street,+Suite+201,+Worcester,+MA+01606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> P: 508-755-3323 x 325 | F: 508-757-7801
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> jschra...@cwmars.org  ||  http;//cwmars.org <http://www.cwmars.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Sarah Childs <
>> sar...@zionsvillelibrary.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Elaine Hardy <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 Street
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=250+North+Fifth+Street+%0D%0AZionsville,+IN+46077&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> Zionsville, IN 46077
>> 317-873-3149 x13330
>> sar...@zionsvillelibrary.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mary Llewellyn
>>
>> Database Manager
>>
>> Bibliomation, Inc.
>>
>> 24 Wooster Ave.
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=24+Wooster+Ave.+Waterbury,+CT+06708&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> Waterbury, CT 06708
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=24+Wooster+Ave.+Waterbury,+CT+06708&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> mllew...@biblio.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sarah Childs
> Technical Services Department Head
> Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
> 250 North Fifth Street
> Zionsville, IN 46077
> 317-873-3149 x13330
> sar...@zionsvillelibrary.org
>

Reply via email to