Is there a strong reason not to use Item effective location?  Item effective location is used for circ rules, routing etc.  It feels odd and potentially confusing to look to Holdings permanent location to drive other functionality.

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Erin Nettifee
Sent: 30 January 2020 10:19 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items

CAUTION: External E-mail

I think that would work. An item should always have a Holdings Permanent Location, that value is required AFAIK for physical items.

I could see scenarios where libraries were making uses of holdings temporary location for things like renovations…. But as long as the behavior was clearly documented, I think that’s the right choice. It’s certainly more consistent than trying to parse when one might apply over the other.

-Erin

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Holly L. Mistlebauer
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:14 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
Importance: High

Hi RA SIG!  Quick (I hope) question for you... 

When an item is overdue, the overdue fine is “owned” by the Effective location for item.  If an item is lost, the lost item fee should be owned by the owning library rather than where it may happen to have been shelved when it was checked out.  Would that location be the Holdings location Permanent location?   (See Item Location section screen print below.)

Thanks,

Holly

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=rRkZjvybFA0nO2O1Z4dtrJtYKHJYtUf0