Hi Filip,

  I understand that you're saying in the Duke example I could determine which of the rules had precedence by I selecting either location or material type as the priority.  What I don't understand is if priority is set for each rule, for each library or for each institution? 

   In the example I've set I would want the location as a higher priority, but there are other times that I would want a different criteria as a priority.  So it would only be setting the priority for each rule that would let me control this the way I need to. 

  But that flexibility creates another concern.  If we can set priorities at the rule level when creating/adjusting a rule:

 - how would I know (or how easily would I be able to tell) that a new or changed rule might be overridden by or override another rule somewhere else?

 - and if I adjust for a priority in one place, how would I know what other rules are going to be impacted by that change?

I know that I should let Wendy answer her question herself but I think what she was talking about is one of my concerns as well.

We need to be sure that priority for specificity 'understands' that a sub-location is more specific than a location.  At some point there was a conversation about a hierarchy of locations at one point, going from institution, to building, to collection, to sub-collection  ( e.g. reserves is a sub-location within the main library building and may need to behave differently than a reserves sub-location in another library building).   In this scenario specificity would need to work so that a rule that names a sub-collection has precedence over a rule that names a building even though they are both listed under location.  The rule would also need to be aware of the parent locations in order to differentiate properly.

       Is that what you were referring to Wendy or did I miss the boat?

Talk to you all tomorrow.

Andrea