Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Paul POULAIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, shouldn't we rename "itemtype" in items table something like
> "issuing type" ?
Or "loan type", which is shorter and I think more commonly used.
Regards,
Galen
--
Galen Charlton
VP, Research & Development,
Hi Jesse,
Its heartening that you find these reasonable. i already added them to the wiki.
Since i don't speak Perl anywhere as well as i do some other languages, i'll
need help to fix these things. Let me know what else i can do to help ensure
these make it into Koha.
Thanks and regards,
k
Galen Charlton a écrit :
> I agree that a bib-level document type or material type is still
> needed. We should give it a name other than "bib-level item type"; I
> suggest "material type", "document type", or "bib type", and perhaps
> its own column in biblio.
great !
just to point that UNIMARC
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Nicolas Morin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Ryan Higgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mandate item-level circulation rules.
+1 to Ryan's proposal.
> On a related note: while the circulation rules should be applied to
> the ite
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Ryan Higgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ this text also available at:
> http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=en:development:rfcs3.2:rfc32_item_level_itemtypes
> ]
>
> RFC: Koha 3.2
>
> Mandate item-level circulation rules.
>
> Currently we use the system preference
