That is how it used to be - but we do have another level - a 'sub-budget' -- I do think Budget & then Fund makes sense since that was the language used before - but where does the 'sub-budget' go - does it become a 'sub-fund'? On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Lenora Oftedahl <OFTL@critfc.org> wrote:

What about Budget for the entire monetary mass a library has to spend. Fund for each section of the budget?

Or account?

Lenora Just tossing ideas of words I vaguely remember from acquisitions class and previous positions

Lenora A. Oftedahl StreamNet Regional Librarian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission http://www.fishlib.org

...

...

...

From:   Galen Charlton <gmcharlt@gmail.com> To:     Garry Collum <gcollum@gmail.com> CC:     "koha@lists.katipo.co.nz" <koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> Date:   2/3/2010 8:55 AM Subject:        Re: [Koha] Budgets in 3.2 Acquisitions

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Garry Collum <gcollum@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I talked with our Acquisition's Librarian.  She thought that both 'root' and 'source' are programmer's terms.  'Source' is better than 'root.'  She preferred 'Main' or 'Material's Budget.'

I agree that 'root' and 'source', both of which refer to the tree structure of the budgets, could be viewed as programmers' terms, but 'Materials Budget' seems a little too book-centric - i.e., a source budget could in fact be a budget for materials, but a top-level budget could also be for electronic databases licensing.

That said, either "Source Budget" or "Main Budget" works for me, though the latter only as long as there's no confusion caused by the fact that you could have multiple "main" budgets.

Regards,

Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha