2017-05-11 Resource Access Meeting Notes
- Andrea Loigman
- Mark Canney
Date
Attendees
- Cheryl Malmborg
- Charlotte Whitt
- Mark Canney
- David Bottorff
- Wendy Wilcox
- William Weare
- Maria Grzeschniok
- Joanne Leary
- David Larsen
- Felicity Walsh
Goals
- Location hierarchy - What use cases are we trying to meet for each layer?
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 min | Housekeeping | Andrea |
|
| 55 min (or less if we choose to work offline) | Location hierarchy | Andrea |
|
Notes
Cate and Filip were unable to join us so Andrea led us in a discussion about Location Hierarchy from the Circulation Components page: Institution, Campus, Library, Collection, Shelving Location.
Can we justify all five of these levels? Are five levels sufficiently flexible to account for all use cases including floating collection, shared collection and reciprocal borrowing?
At the top end of the hierarchy there was discussion about Consortia. Do we need this sixth level of hierarchy with our locations? We may need to wait to hear from the Consortia SIG. Also, do we need to provision a high level location for reciprocal borrowing situations like those powered by Relais, ILLiad and RapidILL? Or can Resource Sharing be handled entirely with APIs?
At the bottom end of the hierarchy we discussed Shelving Locations and special situations like Reserve, Bindery, New Books and ILL Office. Do we need non-public desks to behave differently from Public Desks? Can we allow them to circulate items but have distinct workflows from Public Desks?
Also, we discussed whether Circulation Desks could be configured to allow a many-to-many relationship with Shelving Locations or is there some fixed reason for the traditional one-to-many setup?
The discussion will continue next Thursday 5/18; no meeting on Monday 5/15.
Recording - available through 5/26/2017
https://zoom.us/recording/play/OLyWPJj_zqEPsj3oLz_jwNk1ZIlhtY468e6fIZQZafF1X64lqjTmEQMt6Xh3a-J-