2018-02-01 Resource Access Meeting Notes

Date

01 Feb 2018

Attendees

• Andrea Loigman

• William Weare

• Anne L. Highsmith
• Mark Canney
• Cheryl Malmborg
• Rameka Barnes
• David Bottorff
• Deb Lamb
• Kimie Kester
• Cate Boerema (Deactivated)
• Darcy Branchini
• Sharon Wiles-Young
• Wendy Wilcox
• Holly Mistlebauer
• Joanne Leary
• Tania Hewes

Goals

• Finalize location needs

Discussion items

Notes

Collection use cases document is at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IQczdKieuqQ_Q4Steoybi0EFNkotNZlspep5IytT2MQ/edit#gid=0 please add a few examples from your institution.

Cate brought up the need for sub-groups to work on RA topics such as reserves,notifications,printing slips,requests and loans,fees and fines,checkin,permission and overrides.   There is a great deal of work left to define all RA requirements.  We will discuss more next meeting and when Cate is back.\

Cate reviewed the locations model.  Discussion of locations in loan rules was deferred. Oliver Pesch is working on how to explain how rules are interpreted.

Review of location model:

The highest levels - institution, campus and library are hierarchical and required.

Below those are 'parking'.  These are name/value pairs that can be defined by each institution and may be defined differently for different libraries within an institution.

They are not inherently hierarchical.  Adding constraints to enforce the defined parking levels is being discussed.

Collections may be defined outside the location structure.  Collections could be used in loan rules.  Cate proposed holding off on further discussion until the loan rules engine is ready to test.  It may be that a 'parking' location could be used to implement the collection idea.  The Inventory group is also developing the idea of  'tagging' items. This would have to work with loan rules as well as an intellectual category.

Permanent and temporary item locations:

The permanent location will be in the holdings record; temporary in the item record. We have a need to make exceptions at the item level to assign a permanent location different from the permanent location in the holding record.  We are not clear how the current inventory model works.  Are permanent locations stored in both item and holdings? Will holding location changes cascade down to items? Is there a way (without creating separate holdings records) to prevent item level permanent location exceptions from being overwritten. Cate is asking Charlotte Whitt to review our discussion.

Other uses of 'location' in folio:

• a branch or library associated with a user
• scope of permissions
• calendar
• login location
• pickup location
• checkin location

Most of these do not use location in the same sense that items do.  A user might be associated with a library and some permissions might be at a branch or library level.

The calendar, login location, pickup location and checkin location need to be associated with service points.  For example, there are probably more 'shelving' locations in a library than there are service points.  Within a library service points may be staffed different hours and may or may not be used as pickup or checkin locations.

However (David) it is necessary to associate item locations to service points especially for pickup and checkin (intransit).  Preferably this should be possible by specifying a high level such as library and making exceptions at the parking levels.