Sorry to be talking to myself here, but in doing some more extensive googling, I came across this: http://library-matters.blogspot.com/2009/03/dont-be-afraid-of-using-lots-of-... Thanks Joann! And this: http://koha.org/documentation/manual/3.0/cataloging/item-fields-data-migrati... These answered some of my questions - summarizing for future googlers (list members please correct me if this is wrong) ---------------------- Administrator can set an option to allow using either Collection or Item type for the OPAC's Advanced search, but not both (enhancement request! 8-) Item type does determine circulation rules in effect for an item, but its usage doesn't need to be limited to this function - can have 50 item types covered by four rules. Shelving location is not available for advanced search. ---------------------- The question remains on whether the Collection and/or Shelving location can be assigned to items completely independently of Home branch - I realize the latter especially is "supposed to be" subsidiary to Branch, but since I don't need to use it for that function, and it displays in the OPAC, can I use it for something like Age appropriateness across locations? On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, <hansbkk@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm currently using Koha to catalog a collection of mostly non-book resources at my school, many of which are stored on physical DVDs and/or online available for download.
I'm thinking of re-purposing some of Koha's major data fields where their usual meaning isn't all that relevant to this project. For example, I plan to create my call numbers so they are sufficient to identify the physical location within a given branch. This will free up "Collection" and "Shelf Location" for other, more relevant classifications.
Before I start mapping this out, I first want to get feedback that I'm not way off-track thinking this way. First question:
I believe that the original intention was a hierarchy for physical location: Home branch --> Collection --> Shelving location --> Call number
If I re-purpose these fields so that e.g. Collection is used for distinguishing between "Disc-Data" vs "Disc-Video" vs "Disc-Mixed", is their any remnant of the above original hierarchy that will cause trouble? Is Collection completely independent of Branch in the database and UI design, or is there some enforcement of one Collection being "contained" within a Branch?
Same question of course with Shelving location relative to both Collection and Branch - say I used this field to map to "Age Appropriateness" (Adult-only, Young adult, Juvenile, Early learners). Note that the Age factor is a biblio level one, while many biblios will have both a Data and a Video disc - a member may want to borrow only one or both.