Ditto for Cornell.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 18, 2019, at 2:05 PM, David W. Bottorff <dbottorff@uchicago.edu> wrote:

I concur. We only care about blocking based on currently lost items, not lost items that have been resolved and closed (whether by returning the item, paying for it, replacing, it, etc.).

 

#2 all the way

 

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org [mailto:folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Erin Nettifee
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 1:04 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Patron block question...

 

I assume it would be #2, since presumably for #1, if the patron has paid for the item, the loan would be closed and eventually anonymized anyway (which is what you’re saying.)

 

For #1 you’d also have to build a recovery path or else you could be permanently saying someone can’t borrow – which might be appropriate for some scenarios, but definitely not across the board.

 

So it’s all open loans with lost items on the patron’s record.

 

-Erin

 

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Holly L. Mistlebauer
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 2:01 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: Patron block question...

 

Dear RA SIG,

 

Hi!  I have a quick patron block question…

 

For the patron block “Maximum number of lost items” are we to include:

 

1)      All items the patron has lost the entire time they have been affiliated with our institution

2)      Only the lost items the patron has not paid for yet

 

Thanks,

Holly

P.S.  I’m not sure we would have the history for #1.

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

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=j8gD6NJZ9marVvkoeSz3RWpoWJWPkWSI