Hello Kristen and Noah,

All great points.  While on the back end I agree mediated and unmediated will be handled by the same system underpinnings, I think the workflows from the patron and front desk perspective as well as any initial back office operations are different enough where will see additional features needed to support unmediated.  In the end, I do believe that unmediated will breakdown to a few additional features added to mediated, but I think it would be worth exploring each in detail for requirements before collapsing these.  But, fair warning as I have no actual experience here, so I leave it up to all of you to decide.

 

Harry

 

From: <consortia-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> on behalf of Noah Brubaker <nbrubaker@palni.edu>
Reply-To: "consortia-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org" <consortia-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 5:40 PM
To: "consortia-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org" <consortia-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Follow-ups: Resource Sharing Wiki Page and Discuss Post

 

CAUTION: External E-mail

 

Hello Kristen,

 

I'm glad you looked into this further and raised these points!  I agree with your statements in the first two points (Mixed ILS/ Mediated Unmediated definitions).  I was going to relist the systems in the other section earlier but decided against it because I'm not an expert in this area, but what you have is my understanding as well.  

 

For the last point in the "Cross tenant unmediated" I think there are two considerations here:

  1.  For us, I think this could still work in what you described but want to note it here:  In our consortium the patron has the ability to choose a pickup location which may be other than the patrons home library and that patron can also return to any library.  So the actual checkout could occur at any member institution but ultimately the patrons home library is responsible as you stated.  If the pickup location  could still be selectable in what you described that would meet our need.
  2. In the USMAI consortium, I am understanding that the lending library is actually responsible for ensuring their own items are returned and can impose fees, etc.  on the patron of another library.  So in this case the lending library would need to be able to have knowledge of the patron borrowing the material and the ability to communicate certain notices and possibly asses fees to that patron.

 

I hope this makes sense!

 

---Noah

 


 

Image removed by sender.

Noah Brubaker

PALNI Associate Director

(317)721-8198 | nbrubaker@palni.edu | www.palni.edu

c/o Irwin Library, 4553 Clarendon Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208

 

 

 

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:41 PM Kristen Wilson <kristen@indexdata.com> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I have some changes to propose to wiki page, and I wanted to make them transparent in case they represent disagreements instead of clarifications. Let me know what you think:

 

Mixed ILS Mediated vs. Unmediated

* I believe the relationship should be library-to-library for both the mediated and unmediated models

* The systems listed for mediated also support unmediated processes 

* I wonder if we should just collapse these and note in the description that this model can be mediated or unmediated. They're virtually identical otherwise, and I don't think the mediation aspect is that significant to us (see below).

 

Mediated vs. unmediated

* I don't think the definitions here are consistent with the way I usually hear these terms used. This is what I'd propose:

* Mediated: Patron requests are routed to a patron library staff member, who must review and approve them before they are sent to an owning library

* Unmediated: Patron requests are made directly to the owning library without prior approval by the patron library

* This is usually an internal setting within a system like Relais, often decided at the consortial level. It's not really relevant when considering a walk-in model.

 

Cross-tenant unmediated

* I was under the impression from Kelly's description that she wanted the relationship here to be library to library -- i.e., the owning library checks out the item to the patron library, then the patron library checks out the item to the patron. Then, if the material is overdue, it's the patron library that's on the hook, not the patron. Is that right? Or is there variation in how this model works?

 

Thanks,

Kristen

 

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:42 PM David Dahl <ddahl1@umd.edu> wrote:

Hi, all,

As follow-ups to our last Consortia SIG meeting, I've posted two things:

  • Resource Sharing Wiki Page: anybody with a login to the FOLIO wiki can edit, so please do so; we can review this at next week's meeting
  • Discuss Post: as mentioned at the meeting, we want to find out who's responsible for getting items returned; please chime in with how it's done in your consortium

Best,

David

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com


 

--

Kristen Wilson

Project Manager / Business Analyst

Index Data

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=PRu6QeuGWaoDeF3ozC3CualjTjjfVH8j