Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [External] Re: Towards more consistent terminology in the web client
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 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 > 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. >> >> >> >> >> 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,
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [External] Re: Towards more consistent terminology in the web client
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 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. > > > > > 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 > ha
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [External] Re: Towards more consistent terminology in the web client
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. [cid:image001.png@01D4360D.60883140]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 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.<mailto: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
