LAW-VUG Enhancement Recommendations
A cooperative effort of the LAW Special Interest Group of the Voyager User Group
Summary of enhancements necessary for law libraries
- Fuller implementation of the MARC holdings format (p. 2-15)
- Component titles (p. 1-9)
- Implement $8 and 852 $t of MARC holdings (p. 10-13)
- Better prediction of regular irregulars (p. 13-15)
- Link from purchase order to exact check-in component (p.16-18)
RANKED 11/12 - Link from problem list to exact check-in component (p. 19)
RANKED 11/12 - Display controls at the component level (p. 20-21)
RANKED 12/12
Addendum:
Original Law Enhancement Requests
Including
rankings from AALL LAW-VUG meeting, July 2001
1. We need fuller implementation of the MARC holdings fields, especially:
a. Component titles
Problem: Unable to link serials check-in components holdings with MFHD holdings for meaningful display in the OPAC. Unable to generate a display label from serials check-in to make the distinction in the OPAC as to what supplement, or basic unit, or index component belongs with its corresponding unit from the MFHD display. Desire to have better linking between component titles and OPAC display. Libraries can identify components by using $o in the MARC holdings field, but check in information should display associated with the correct component. See also the VUGM Serials Enhancement Committee, Serials Problem Statement Number 3, Sub-statement Number 2 "Check-in Component Name: Output component names to OPAC holdings to display and linked them to associated 85X/86X data."
Description: The OPAC display from serials check-in for multi-component serials cannot be interpreted. Many serials have multiple components of the basic, supplementary, and/or index level. When these multiple check-in components are displayed in the OPAC, they are lumped together by component type with no linkage to their associated MFHD field (their specific field for records with multiple/duplicate 85x/86x). Additionally there is no ability to generate a display label from serials check-in to make the distinction in the OPAC as to what supplement or basic unit or index belongs with its corresponding unit from the MFHD display.
As currently designed, "component" in check-in is merely a quick retrieval mechanism within Acquisitions. Quick retrieval is desirable, but should not be a substitute for the ability to link to the desired component and a display name. Libraries should be able to decide which holdings record (in the case of multiple holdings with different 844's), or to which element of a single holdings record the checked in item is related.
Examples of the problem: LACLL
[From L.A. County Law Library database] Do a title browse exact = labor relations reporter.
(http://www.themis.lalaw.lib.ca.us/) Select title #5. Here "Recent issues" refers to three separate parts of the reporter service; "Supplements" to another, yet since there is no correlation between the MFHD and no labels to designate what these parts are, the OPAC display is meaningless.
Examples of the problem: Syracuse University Law Library database
Do a Title search = New York consolidated laws service in our OPAC (http://summit.syr.edu/webvoy.htm). The OPAC display of "Current issues" and "Supplements" is meaningless since there are so many. The practice of law requires that the most up-to-date information be available; it is a critical role for law libraries. For patrons to not be able to determine that we have the (2001 May) v. 1-v. 2 of the quarterly update service is a DIS-service to our patrons! Serials check-in needs to accommodate the labeling of components.
Examples of the problem: Syracuse University Law Library database
Do a Title Search = Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation in our OPAC. Select record #2. Here, the supplements have had labels attached (manually) in check-in to give some meaning to the OPAC display, to designate which supplemental component corresponds to which MFHD 866. Without adding these labels, the eight supplements from check-in would not be interpretable. However, even this manual fix is not perfect, as there is still no direct link to the appropriate MFHD field – as can be seen in the inability to order the supplements or to have the display from CK-IN fall right below the display from the MFHD.
Examples of the problem: Syracuse University Law Library database
Do a Title Search = USCA in our OPAC. Select record # 1. Here, the supplements display form OPAC is misleading and labels would help.
Examples of the problem: Syracuse University Law Library database
Do a Title Search = Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy. Without a label for the 2000 supplement, the fact that it is a "yearbook" is lost. We have a separate component set up for these annual yearbooks, however, without the specific label the OPAC display value is lost.
Instead, we manually add a label "Yearbook: " to bring meaning to the OPAC display, since the link to MFHD field cannot be made.
Now the OPAC display provides added value to our users who are looking for the Yearbook. Now they know that this 2000 supplement is the yearbook.
b. Implement $8 and 852 $t of MARC holdings
Problem: Libraries cannot use MARC holdings fields (MFHD field delimiter $8 and MFHD field 852 delimiter $t) to determine sequencing of holdings in the OPAC. See also the VUGM Serials Enhancement Committee, Serials Problem Statement Number 1 "Publication Patterns."
Description: When a record has multiple holdings either to reflect multiple locations or multiple copies in a single location, the MARC holdings format has a $8 field in the 852 that can be used to sort the holdings records in the way that the library wants. Currently Voyager sorts multiple locations in alpha order. If there are multiple holdings for a single location they are sorted in holdings record number order. See MARC 21 holdings 852 p.9 for examples.
In the same vein, the 852 field has a $t field that would allow the sequencing of copies for the same location. Or in law we have multiple holdings for same copy and location because of pieces like transfer binders or superseded volumes. All of these could be sequenced correctly if $8 were implemented. Endeavor claims that Voyager has implemented MARC holdings. This is true only in a very limited sense.
Example: [From L.A. County Law Library database] Currently because we cannot sort by the sequencing feature of $8 we label our Main library "AtMain" to get it to display first before our 9 branches. If staff do not watch the holdings record number, they may get copies out of order. (http://www.themis.lalaw.lib.ca.us/) Search Simple search in Witkin California procedure 4th. Note the name of the Main library and the mis-sequenced copies
c. Better prediction of regular irregulars
Problem: Serials publication patterns do not have the ability to predict regular irregulars. See also the VUGM Serials Enhancement Committee, Serials Problem Statement Number 1, Sub-statement Number 4 "Publication Patterns: MARC21, Field 85X, $y."
Description: We should be able to replicate patterns for a year without editing. From as simple as a biennial that is always issued in June and November, not June and December, to a serial that every year has both combined issues and skipped months. These are predictable, but the system does not have a way to predict a year and have it repeated.
Examples of problem: From Syracuse University Law Library
Library Journal is published 20x/year: semi-monthly in Feb.-June; Sept.-Nov. and monthly in Jan., July, Aug. Dec. The inability to properly predict this regular "irregular" requires staff editing of issue numbers, dates, and then closure of the pattern at the end of each year (to cut down on the amount of editing required) in order to properly predict them. Furthermore, this manual editing must be done prior to claiming an issue in order to guarantee that the correct issue (enum and chron) is being claimed.
From the history we see the regular pattern. Being able to combine and omit within a pattern, i.e. in this case combining (and omitting) the Jan 1 + 15, the July 1 + 15, the Aug. 1 + 15, and the Dec. 1 + 15 would resolve the problem, since the enumeration would then be corrected by the prediction:
Examples of problem: From Syracuse University Law Library
ABA Journal is another example of a regular irregular. In this case it is a monthly periodical that is dated month and year and has a volume number, but no issue number. Voyager does not have the flexibility to predict this, as it requires a second level enumeration to restart the volume number.
Libraries are forced to pick a prediction pattern that does part of the job. Here we used a monthly (month, year) and noted to staff to add volume number.
From the history we see that staff have had to add in the volume number to appropriately record the enumeration.
2. We need a direct link from the purchase order to the check-in component(s):
Problem statement: Inability to access check-in components directly from purchase order. As the system is currently designed, you can access the purchase order directly from the check-in screens ("view order" buttons). However, you cannot access serials check-in directly from the purchase order. You can view the components (from Line Item, Display, Components), but you cannot access the components or their check-in from there.
Description: This is a problem because staff need to be able to access associated check-in records directly from the PO. The absence of this direct link prevents seamless integration of acquisitions/serials workflow. If you begin your problem resolution with the purchase order, you cannot access the serials check-in directly. There is no "view check-in" or "view components" option from the PO.
Examples of problem: From Syracuse University Law Library
Retrieve and open purchase order # 2671. This PO has 18 line items on it. Of the 18 line items, no. 1-13 & no. 18 have components attached. In fact, of those 14 line items with components, there are a total of 54 components!!!!! Yes! :(
Unfortunately, however, we cannot access the component's check-in information directly from here. In order to get to the check-in information, we need to open up serials check-in, search the components' titles, and then proceed with our workflow.
Having a clickable link from the component name of every component would be beneficial to the library community.
3. We need a direct link from the problems list to the exact check-in component.
Problem statement: Inability to access check-in components directly from the problem list. Problem list now has component name, but no click-able link to the component.
Description: As the system is currently designed, you can access an individual component's problem list directly from check-in (history -> problems history tab). However, if you start at the problems list, you cannot access the specific serials check-in directly from the problems list. You can view the component's name in the problem list (there's a column for component), but you cannot open the components or check-in from there.
This is a problem because staff need to be able to access the specific check-in records directly from the problems list. The absence of this direct link prevents seamless integration of acquisitions/serials workflow. If you begin your problem resolution with the problems list, you cannot access the serials check-in directly. There is no click-able link from the component column on the problems list.
Examples of problem: From Syracuse University Law Library
Start at "Order Maintenance" "Problems." Search by Mark Reason = System Claim. Select any Marked Issue.
You can "click" to directly access a PO or an Invoice, but not to access the component in serials check-in. Although the component name is listed, there is no link.
4. We need display controls at the component level
Problem: Libraries have no ability to configure OPAC display of serials check-in for each component. Currently automatic display of serials check-in is set to display all.
Description: Libraries want to be able to determine and set display intervals for each component in serials check-in. Currently display of the serials check-in is set to display all. Libraries want the ability to set a display interval (e.g. display last # of receipts, or do not display any, i.e. display last 0 # of receipts, etc.) for each component in serials check-in. The automatic display interval should also be able to manually override.
Example
Each component should be able to have a display interval set (e.g. display last # of receipts, e.g. to not display any = display last 0 # of receipts, to display all = all (?)). To display last receipt only = "Display latest 1 receipt." Operators also need to be able to override this on the history screen to accommodate extraneous receipts that are added in the check-in process, yet should not be counted as the "latest" receipt. We would suggest adding this component level display on the subscription maintenance screen and for operators to set a default value in the Tools, "Defaults" or "Workflows" options.
[From Wake Forest University Professional Center Library] This would be very helpful, as everyone who has to deal with newspapers and other dailies knows. I would like to add to this the capability of having a default setting for "Do Not display in OPAC." We check in our replacement volumes, reporter volumes, etc. so we have a record and we always have to turn the displays off after we update the MFHD.
[From Syracuse University Law Library] Our policy is to display the latest receipt only of predictable serials (e.g. Akron law review); to display latest 1 receipt of serials that have been by-passed due to the inability to predict their irregularity (e.g. NY Jurisprudence, 2d, CD-ROM); to display 0 of other by-passed (e.g. USCA, replacement volumes; CLS, repl. v.; North Carolina Digest, replacement volumes; NY Practice Series, bound volumes).
Our policy is to display the latest receipt only of predictable serials (e.g. Akron law review)
Some libraries display latest year (e.g. Law Library Journal, ABA Journal)
Our policy is to display 0 of other by-passed (e.g. USCA, replacement volumes; CLS, repl. v.; North Carolina Digest, replacement volumes; NY Practice Series, bound volumes)
Addendum:
Original Law Enhancement Requests
Including rankings from AALL LAW-VUG meeting, July 2001.
Rankings for the above Enhancement Requests are included on page 1. For specific problem statements, descriptions, and examples, please refer to the original LAWVUG Enhancement List available at http://law.pepperdine.edu/voyager/
| Ranking | Statement | Sub-statement | Problem Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/12 | Fuller implementation of the MARC holdings fields | ||
| 11/12 | Link from purchase order to exact check-in component | ||
| 11/12 | Link from problem list to exact check-in component | ||
| 12/12 | Display controls at the component level | ||
| 9/12 | Received status. | Problem: Line item status of "Received complete" for subscription/standing order/etc. on purchase order in acquisitions is misleading. | |
| 7/12 | Piece level information better integrated into the acquisitions module. | Problem: "Piece" field should be integrated (and indexed) into acquisitions module (invoice tab of purchase orders, payment history tab in serials history) and printed on voucher/check requests. | |
| 6/12 | Check in call number label without editing. | Problem: When producing a call number label as part of check-in, the system requires that you edit the call number each time a piece is checked-in, rather than saving the print form | |
| 6/12 | Copy anything (regardless of fiscal year). | Problem: Operators cannot copy an invoice or a PO if it's from a previous fiscal year. | |
| 1/12< | Complete authorities validation algorithm. | Jurisdiction validation. Any heading with a $z shows as a partial validation. Every $z shows as not authorized. | Problem: Create authority validation of jurisdiction subdivisions against 781 fields in 151 authority records and/or 151 fields. The way the system works now is unacceptable. This validation piece was promised during the Authority Task Force work, but never delivered. |
| Complete validation of string. | Problem: Authority validation only matches against $a. $a and $x, $y are not validated even when an authority record for that combination has been loaded into the system if a $z intervenes. | ||
| 1/12 | Webvoyage enhancements | Problem: Voyager does not allow for the hooking in of additional scripts to provide additional functionality. |