[667] in ad-lib
Re: workflow problems--I mean, opportunites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Celeste)
Tue May 23 15:59:11 1995
To: rschmidt@MIT.EDU
Cc: ad-cat@MIT.EDU, gyoung@MIT.EDU, standish@MIT.EDU, cfollett@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 May 1995 12:50:47 EDT."
<9505231650.AA11147@lauren.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 15:58:37 EDT
From: Eric Celeste <efc@MIT.EDU>
> BINDERY BACKLOG
>
> With overnight ftp-ing of OCLC records into Advance, we
> need to account for the time between cataloging a record
> and the item's stay in the bindery. Is there a need for
> temporary location information, to be updated on receipt by
> processing librarians in public service units?
This question came up in another context after yesterday's meeting and I
had a short chat with Grant about this. Here's the scoop to date...
(1) In Advance we will track where things are in processing not with
temporary locations, but with "status" entries. The status of an item will
be "In Processing" or "At Bindery" or some such thing.
(2) Since we are barcoding most items on receipt, the catalogers will not
be creating 949's or editing the items for most of the work they get. This
means they also would not have an opportunity to change the status of the
item.
(3) I imagine, though I have not confirmed, that the status of an item
generated by an acq order would be "On Order". I have no idea if that
status changes when the item is received.
(4) If the status is set somewhere in processing, then the divlibs/branch
processing offices will have to remove all the statuses from items when
those items are received at the local offices. No status on an item
results in a display of "In Library".
Ann is on ad-cat and I've cc'd Mark Farrar on this message so that they
can be a part of some of the discussion around item status. This is
clearly one of the areas we will have to train processing folk.
...Eric
