David and Erin, both statements are correct…
From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
On Behalf Of Erin Nettifee
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:35 AM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: Re: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
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: