Hi Annn,
I am following the discussion, thank you.
I think we should wait for Peter's answer.
If it comes down to the requirement to make some kind of list (maybe not based on MARC fields ) I think this will be problematic, because that would imply a selection, also for MARC record fields.
But I like your idea of library-specific configuration files. I think this approach will offer the greatest freedom for the libraries, including the option to query all MARC fields. Or at least all MARC fields they need.
Best,
Ingolf
Dr. Ingolf Kuss
hbz - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum NRW
Postfach 270451
50510 Köln
Germany
Tel.: (+49) (0) 221 400 75-161
------------------------------------------
Pardon me if you're already getting notifications about this, but we're having a lively discussion over on
discuss.folio.org about this issue of whether and how to come up with a list of MARC fields to be included in the reporting system (
https://discuss.folio.org/t/listing-marc-fields-for-reporting/1335/7). If you haven't been following it, you might want to give it a look.
(Sending this because I can't tell who might be tracking the reporting sig discussions. Please excuse the duplication if you're already aware of all this.)
Anne L. Highsmith
Clinical Associate Professor
TAMU Libraries
5000 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-5000
979 862 4234
------------------------------------------------------
You received this message because you are subscribed to OLE Mailing List "reporting-sig".
To unsubscribe from this list and stop receiving emails from it, follow this link: http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=tHqZr1cphZ17WLKM3jdvRNP29fp7YyyN.
To post to this group, send email to reporting-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <mailto:reporting-sig@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>.
Visit this group at https://ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org<https://ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> .