Hi Ann-Marie,

   I'd love to have a cross SIG discussion about this.  I don't think that there has been any decision about which group gets to define this, it's just that RA is trying to ensure that we have

the flexibility to create circ policies that meet the needs of all types of institutions. 

The exemplars we've been looking at include:

 - University of Chicago uses 3 levels (though OLE allows for up to 5),

 - VZG currently uses 5 levels,

 - Duke uses 3 levels (but only 2 are truly functional for circ rules which forces a crazy number of item types and rules).

Some of the things we're trying to make sure that we account for are floating collections and shared collections, which none of our systems can currently handle well.

We've been pretty specific that no institution would be required to use all 5 levels.  But you are quite right, the possible effect of this on acquisitions does need to be considered.

I'd also note that you should ignore the names of the levels.  The nomenclature is there for convenience sake, but we're aware that these terms will not be useful for all institutions.

Andrea

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> on behalf of Ann-Marie Breaux <abreaux@ebsco.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:31:56 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org; folio-rm-t@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org; metadata-mgmt-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: FOLIO Location data - RA, RM, MM SIGs

Hi everyone,

I tried posting this on Discuss with no replies, so am trying the listservs instead.

I take part in the RM SIG (which mainly covers selection and acquisitions) and to a lesser extent the MM SIG. I don't take part in the RA SIG, but read the notes sometimes.

When it comes to the structure of location, item, and holdings data, it seems like data that crosses into the work of all 3 SIGs. I wonder if it would be useful to have an inter-SIG discussion about those topics at some point.

The one that particularly caught my eye is the location work going on in the RA SIG:
• What do we actually need to accomplish with the location hierarchy?
• How do we create a structure that leaves us open to future needs?

Digging back through some notes, it looks like location is conceived of as a very hierarchical structure, e.g. consortium, institution, campus, building, collection, shelving location. Would there be any value to flattening this out and having fewer levels? Is there value in discussing in the other SIGs? The locations will impact acquisitions (particularly if ordering/financial permissions are tied to particular locations, or if libraries are receiving shelfready materials) and metadata. Or is there a decision that RA SIG will define location structure, and the other apps of FOLIO will structure location-related work based on that RA design?

Thanks,
Ann-Marie

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