Force and Recall holds act like normal copy holds

[Thomas Berezansky]

The branch below causes the two hold types to cut in front of all other holds as well as ignoring hold rules and causes recall holds to auto-fill and change the copy to cataloging when they reach their destination.

It also adds two new permissions for placing the holds, based on the circ library of the copy (as hold rules are ignored).

http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/tsbere/copy_holds

[Dan Wells (dbw2)]

Not commenting on the code at this point, but only on the use of the term "recall". At least in academic libraries, the term "recall" is established to mean "cut an extended (e.g. 6 month) loan short and place the item on hold the the person requesting the recall." Dan Scott worked out some code for that which I believe is in 2.1 (and which I am very much looking forward to trying). Since this looks like something else (setting status to cataloging), I think we need to spare our future selves much confusion and come up with a totally different term for it.

On the other hand, if this is just a specific instance of the same idea (which I can sort of see), then we need to make sure this use-specific code is in harmony with the existing "recall" ideas/code.

[Thomas Berezansky (tsbere)]

For the record, I did not pick the term recall, nor did I decide fully what it should do. I was told what it was intended for via IRC before I wrote the code, and the naming of it was already present before I looked at it. I am just making the alternative hold type mean something.

As an extra data point, to my knowledge, on our old system a "Recall Notice" was basically an overdue notice stating that someone else had a hold that the item could fill. Which is very different from your view.

My view of the Recall functionality I implemented here was that this is a cataloger's recall, as in the item for whatever reason needs to be dealt with in the cataloging department. This could be for repair, relabeling, etc.

[Dan Wells (dbw2)]

Maybe I was being too specific, but I think the "Recall Notice" in your old system sounds about the same as what I was trying to describe. It is common (but not strictly necessary) for a shortened loan period to be part of the process, as it gives a lot of leeway in allowing faculty to checkout items for very long periods under the condition that we may ask for it back (shorten the loan period and issue a notice) should the need arise.

While I did a lot of this type of recall in my time managing a circulation desk to satisfy student requests, I have never dealt with this concept of sending a checked-out item straight to cataloging, though it sounds interesting. Hopefully someone can enlighten us both a little further about the original intentions (e.g. Does it shorten the loan period? Does it send a notice?), but in the meantime, I will throw out the suggestion that we might call this new idea a "Processing" hold or simply a "Cataloging" hold.

[Thomas Berezansky (tsbere)]

Just as a note, the item is sent to cataloging at check-in time, when it would otherwise be put on the hold shelf.

[Mike Rylander (mrylander)]

Dan,

The term "Cataloging Recall" seems, to me, to be clear enough to point out the distinction. The point isn't the hold, per se, so I don't have any fondness for "Catalonging Hold", and it doesn't end in a circulation, but in a "recall this item to the back room" action. Is "Cataloging Recall" a good enough compromise?

[Dan Wells (dbw2)]

Hello Mike,

Thanks for weighing in on this. I do think "Cataloging Recall" is distinct enough. It would be nice, though, from an interface/labeling perspective to be able to use a different verb altogether, as verbs with modifiers can be cumbersome. For example, any button or menu labeled "Recall Item" will now be ambiguous, and we will instead need something like "Recall Item to Cataloging" or "Recall Item for Patron" (these direct actions might not exist, depending on the workflow, but you get the point).

With that in mind, here are a few other verbs we might consider before we settle on using "recall" for both actions:

Retract Item
Collect Item
Withdraw Item

I admit that none of these at first consideration have quite the same ring as "recall", but they also have the definite advantage of being unencumbered with library-specific meaning (AFAIK), and especially once established I think they will be understood.

As always, I would be glad to hear more perspectives from others beyond the three of us who have chimed in so far, but I also recognize that this not exactly a high-stakes decision, so I am pretty comfortable with "Cataloging Recall" if that is as far as we are willing to collectively go.

Thanks again,
Dan

[Jason Etheridge (phasefx)]

> Withdraw Item

I think this one collides with library jargon. IIRC, if an item is
withdrawn, it's been removed from the collection.

[Mike Rylander (mrylander)]

Merged to master with a change in user-visible terminology from "recall hold" to "cataloging recall".