PINES is also in favor of a staff visibility flag that is separate from the OPAC-visibility flag.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:12 PM Jason Stephenson via Evergreen-general < evergreen-general@list.evergreen-ils.org> wrote: > Hi, all. > > On 1/22/24 17:57, Lussier, Kathy via Evergreen-general wrote: > > Thanks Galen. > > > > It sounds like an option is in order then, and I'm now wondering if a > > global flag is appropriate or something that allows us to determine > > staff catalog visibility on an OU by OU basis. > > We talked about this internally at C/W MARS and thought that a field for > staff catalog visibility on the org. unit would be appropriate. > > HtH, > Jason > > > > > Yes, NOBLE has OUs that left the consortium that are completely disused. > > Another issue is that, in Massachusetts, we have very few multi-branch > > libraries. Displaying a system level and the branch level in the catalog > > search selector is redundant for all but four of our libraries. We also > > need an org unit for our statewide sharing system, which is not > > something that gets searched. There may be some other use cases, but, > > overall, we've found it very useful to have control over how the org > > units display in that specific library selector. > > > > Kathy > > -- > > Kathy Lussier > > she/her > > Executive Director > > NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange > > Danvers, MA > > 978-777-8844 x201 > > www.noblenet.org <http://www.noblenet.org> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:46 PM Galen Charlton <g...@equinoxoli.org > > <mailto:g...@equinoxoli.org>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:09 PM Lussier, Kathy via > > Evergreen-general <evergreen-general@list.evergreen-ils.org > > <mailto:evergreen-general@list.evergreen-ils.org>> wrote: > > > #2 introduces new behavior that hasn't been used in previous staff > > > catalogs. We could not think of a use case where an org unit > > > should be invisible in the public catalog when performing a > > > search, but should be visible in the staff catalog search. > However, > > > if there is one, let us know so that we can add an option, > > > most likely a global flag. > > > > I can think of several: > > > > - Library joining a consortium. Most any migration workflow I can > > imagine will result in a period of at least a few days, and > > sometimes longer, where an OU exists and has holdings attached to it > > but shouldn't be visible in the OPAC, but where staff nonetheless > > need to be able to do staff-side searches limited to that OU. > > - Library opening a new branch with an opening day collection. This > > could lead to an even longer period where the OU exists but is not > > yet ready to be visible to patrons > > - An explicitly hidden or resource collection > > > > Does NOBLE have OUs that are completely disused? > > > > Regards, > > > > Galen > > -- > > Galen Charlton > > Implementation and IT Manager > > Equinox Open Library Initiative > > g...@equinoxoli.org > > https://www.equinoxOLI.org <https://www.equinoxOLI.org> > > phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) > > direct: 770-709-5581 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Evergreen-general mailing list > > Evergreen-general@list.evergreen-ils.org > > http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-general > _______________________________________________ > Evergreen-general mailing list > Evergreen-general@list.evergreen-ils.org > http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-general >
_______________________________________________ Evergreen-general mailing list Evergreen-general@list.evergreen-ils.org http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-general