Hi Cate,
for the Hamburg State Storage (Library) it is correct, to have the remote (storage) location “own” the lost item fee.
On site we operate a closed stack “book tower building” – which might be considered somewhat “remote” (non public). Here either solution would work.
Carsten
Von: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
Im Auftrag von Cate Boerema
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Februar 2020 09:55
An: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Betreff: RE: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
Thanks, Erin!
I’m curious – for folks on this thread that use remote storage, would you want the fee/fine owner to be the onsite library or the remote location?
From:
folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
On Behalf Of Erin Nettifee
Sent: 31 January 2020 07:13 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
CAUTION: External E-mail
Yes, I see no reason why that would be different if an item was at a remote location. It would still have an item effective location in FOLIO, so you would define the expected fine behavior based
on knowing that that effective location was offsite, and how your library wants it to behave.
I do wonder if there are libraries out there where the holdings permanent location might be the onsite library, and the item effective location might be the remote location, for items that they’ve
moved offsite. But regardless, as long as it’s documented, I think you should be able to build the fee/fine owner structure to meet your needs.
Erin
From:
folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
On Behalf Of Cate Boerema
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 12:18 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
Thanks, Erin. I see now why effective location won’t work for this.
Question: when something is in remote storage, should the overdue fine be “owned” by the remote storage location?
From:
folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
On Behalf Of Erin Nettifee
Sent: 31 January 2020 03:35 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: Re: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
CAUTION: External E-mail
Yes, David - you can have one fee-fine owner that controls all of your service points. So your centralized model would work.
As far as I know, there is no FOLIO constraint on being able to accept payment for only certain service points. But I could be wrong on that.
Erin
Get
Outlook for iOS
From:
folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> on behalf of David W. Bottorff <dbottorff@uchicago.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:10:38 AM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
This doesn’t impact Chicago, as all of our bills are “owned” centrally, so I defer to others.
That having been said, I think holdings permanent location is likely to be correct in most cases. I can certainly imagine a scenario in which there could be a permanent item location that would be correct instead, but
those are likely to be extreme outliers.
Ultimately, I imagine libraries would eventually want the ability to edit the fee owner manually to correct any of these outliers, but I don’t think that would be a high priority.
Again, I would ultimately defer to others for whom this is an actual issue, as Chicago doesn’t track this. What does matter is whether we can set the owner to be the same for all bills, or can allow payments of all bills
at service points regardless of fee owner. As long as we can ignore fee owner, we’re fine.
Best,
David
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 31, 2020, at 7:26 AM, Joanne Elisa Leary <jl41@cornell.edu> wrote: