Howdy and hello!
We're looking into starting accepting credit/debit card payments online through
the OPAC, and of course need to choose a payment processor.
Between the available options in Evergreen, and those listed by our bank, the
choices are narrowed down to:
Authorize.net
Payp
You are correct, how the volume is represented in the call number has no effect
on the monographic part. In EG our migrated items have the volumes in both the
suffix (we migrated them there) so these are technically in the call number and
in the monographic part field. We copied the suffixes the
Janet sent me an email offlist explaining how you migrated from vols in
your call number to monographic parts.
Elaine
_
J. Elaine Hardy
PINES Bibliographic Projects & Metadata Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Ste 150
Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304
404.235-7128
404
Elaine,
This was actually how it is represented in the "Parts" field because our
previous system had used a free text field for "Volume" that is equivalent
to parts in Evergreen and related to identify how holds can be placed.
Tim
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Hardy, Elaine
wrote:
> Do you m
We don't have centralized cataloging. Each library is responsible for
their own cataloging and their call numbers are their own.
The two of us that are catalogers in the PINES staff would be likely the
ones creating the monographic parts or we would be very specific to the
person that would be c
Do you mean that the call number has the vols represented differently or
that your labels for monographic parts are different? I thought that how
the vol was designated in the call number didn't mater to the monographic
parts?
Elaine
_
J. Elaine Hardy
PINES Bibliographic Projects & M
Elaine asks:
Have you
> considering, rather than Pt 2 merging labels changing it to making
> managing parts permissions at the consortium level rather than the
> local
> level? That would solve the duplicate label issue and move the
> management
> further up the hierarchical structure. This would
Elaine,
We have an issue from our migration where parts are represented in multiple
ways (v. 1, vol. 1, volume 1, v1, etc.). With this development, access to
this would still be controlled by a permission so each implementation would
decide who has permissions to make changes on this.
Tim
On T
Hope I'm wording this correctly. We haven't implemented Monographic parts
because of the need to retrospectively change volumes so I may not be
interpreting the functionality that exists correctly.
I have always thought that creating monograph parts should be done at the
consortia rather than t
Mike,
The coding table design decisions will ultimately be up to Dan Pearl (our
in house developer) but I was thinking the label_sortkey would not be
eliminated since that would be a default sort. I personally was
envisioning that an extra table column would be needed for sort order
whereby recor
Tim,
That looks like a good set of enhancements. Just one comment and one
question:
* I suspect that the "DISK 15.1" anomaly is caused by an extra space
between "DISK" and "15.1", which gets it an extra pile of zeroes.
* Do you plan to leave the existing sort label infrastructure there, and
Hi Martha,
Does the event definition contain a value for Group Field? If so, I
recommend removing the value and seeing of that helps.
-b
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Martha Driscoll wrote:
> We are trying to create an action trigger using the ApplyPatronPenalty
> reactor. The idea is to
12 matches
Mail list logo
