webclient: Consistency for terminology in cataloging
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evergreen |
Fix Released
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Starting this bug to track areas where we need a little more consistency in terminology in the sprint 2 (cataloging) interfaces.
Specifically, I was hoping we could get some consensus over copies vs. items, but others may have other terminology they want to add to this bug. Once the latest sprint 2 fixes are merged, we can create a branch to change some of the labels.
The Holdings View Actions menu includes the following actions:
- Add Items to Bucket
- Request Items
- Item Status (list)
- Item Status (detail)
- Item Holds
- Mark Item as Damaged
- Mark Item as MIssing
- Mark Volume as Item Transfer Destination
- Add Copies
- Add Volumes and Copies
- Edit Copies
- Edit Volumes and Copies
- Delete Copies
- Delete Volumes and Copies
- Transfer Copies to Previously Marked Library
- Transfer Items to Previously Marked Volumes
Can we come to a consensus on whether copies or items should be used? Or is there a fine distinction between when copies should be used and when items should be used? For example, a colleague told me today that she uses the word "item" when referring to a unit that combines the volume and copy, but uses "copy" when speaking specifically of a single, barcoded copy without that volume level.
What do you all think?
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | nobody → Kathy Lussier (klussier) |
Changed in evergreen: | |
assignee: | nobody → Dan Wells (dbw2) |
Changed in evergreen: | |
milestone: | 3.2-beta → 3.2-rc |
tags: | added: cataloging |
Changed in evergreen: | |
status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
Personally I prefer the term "Item" for item/copy records. For some reason I tend to think "books" when using the word copy. "Item record" just seems more generic to me for all of the different media types it describes. My 2 cents. -- Don.