[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Opac Visibility Issues - asset.opac_visible_copies was: 856 9 - for suppression - timing

[Josh Stompro]

Hello, I figured out what our problem was.  We had bad data in 
asset.opac_visible_copies, I think it was from our test load maybe.  So we had 
some records that had no visible copies (only one copy that was marked not 
visibible) that had 6 entries in the asset.opac_visible_copies table.  So no 
matter what I did, I couldn't get it to not show up in the catalog search 
results.

To fix it I followed the notes from commit c1155bee5400 [1], which say to run 
"SELECT asset.refresh_opac_visible_copies_mat_view();" to clear and rebuild the 
table.

After fixing this we don't need to even bother with the 856 hiding trick, it 
just works like we would expect now.  If there are no visible copies, the bib 
is hidden also.

If there are any migration checklists out there, this should get added to them.

1 - 
http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commit;h=c1155bee540027de270580a6a6c1d6078bbd478f


Josh Stompro - LARL IT Director

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Josh 
Stompro
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 4:32 PM
To: open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] 856 9 - for suppression - timing

Hello, we have been using the trick of using 856 subfield 9 set to a non 
visible org unit to try to suppress certain records from the catalog and z39.50 
results.  I think it works, but whenever I try and test it I cannot get it to 
work immediately.  I'm assuming that the visibility of the record is cached 
somehow?  Is the cached data that causes the delay located in the memcached 
server?  Can anyone give me pointers of what to look for if I want to try and 
clear it out manually by querying the memcache server?

Thanks
Josh

Lake Agassiz Regional Library - Moorhead MN larl.org
Josh Stompro | Office 218.233.3757 EXT-139
LARL IT Director | Cell 218.790.2110

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Searchable Copy Notes

[scott.tho...@sparkpa.org]

I agree with everything you say. I was proposing having the Copy Notes search 
interface in the staff client only. It would be separate from Search Catalog. 
If we do make it available to the public and integrate it with the Search 
Catalog interface, how would we present it so that patrons understand what it 
is and what it does? I can see why it would important for patrons to be able to 
search copy notes themselves, but it is a hard concept to get across.

Scott



From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Elaine 
Hardy
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 4:44 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Searchable Copy Notes

Clarifies; but, I'm still not convinced it would be a viable solution. 
Especially for a library with 1000s of donations from 100s if not 1000s of 
donors. Or for those where one donor, such as a local business, might donate 
money for hundreds of items every year.

The inefficiency and insular nature of copy notes comes up ever so often. 
Consortia like the way public notes display in the catalog so they are tied to 
the specific copy rather than a record; but, we don't like most else associated 
with them, including the lack of searchability by patrons and staff. We also 
don't like that there aren't copy note templates for recurring notes, no 
ability to add the same note to multiple copies at one time (especially at the 
time attributes are being edited at copy creation rather than singly after 
creation) and the clunky nature of having to dig down to see nonpublic notes.  
While I would prefer to see those issues solved first, I understand that it is 
probably easier to get support for development for some kind of search 
functionality for patrons.



J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service/PINES
1800 Century Place, Ste. 150
Atlanta, GA 30045
404.235.7128 Office
404.548.4241 Cell
404.235.7201 FAX

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Mike Rylander 
> wrote:
Elaine,

Sorry, I should have mentioned that all of what I said still requires 
development, and adding display of specific types of buckets would be a trivial 
component of that work.

The fact that public copy notes can display in the OPAC today doesn't really 
mean that making their content searchable would be simpler that what I've 
suggested.  In terms of effort and cost (both direct development and 
maintenance of the code, and I believe for cataloger efficiency benefits), 
folding copy notes into search is much more costly than displaying specific 
copy buckets that a copy belongs to.

Does that help clarify?



--
Mike Rylander
 | President
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / Open Your Library
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  mi...@esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Elaine Hardy 
> wrote:
The main problem I see with the copy bucket approach is that it removes the 
direct acknowledgement of the gift  a public copy note gives by being displayed 
in the OPAC, which is desired by many donors.  They want everyone to see that 
they donated the book both in the book itself and in the OPAC, as well as being 
able to search the catalog for their donations. Removing that direct link and 
using just a copy bucket would mean that the item retrieved by itself would not 
indicate the gift in the OPAC.

Like PaILS, PINES also does not allow information of a local nature to be input 
into the bibliographic record, so copy notes are used to indicate gifts. There 
are many changes we would like to see to notes, the ability for patrons and 
staff to search them is one. Our libraries do often get donors wanting to see 
the books they donated in the catalog as well as the physical item on the shelf.

Elaine



J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service/PINES
1800 Century Place, Ste. 150
Atlanta, GA 30045
404.235.7128 Office
404.548.4241 Cell
404.235.7201 FAX

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Mike Rylander 
> wrote:
Scott,

Since your main use case is about applying the same message to many specific 
copies, like a "digital book plate", it might be interesting to consider using 
copy buckets with a new type of, say, "donation", instead.  Each bucket of that 
type would get its own name and description fields, analogous to the title and 
value fields on copy notes.  Here are some benefits I see:

 * By only having the one bucket for a given donation, regardless of the number 
of items, we avoid human error on the note entry.
 * Also, searching the name and description strings becomes very "cheap" 
compared to copy note title/value, since there is only the one bucket rather 
than a note per item.
 * We