I think we could simplify circulation and fine rules by incorporating library groups into the mix. For example, I have 27 libraries, and 8 of them follow the same set of rules that are different from the defaults. So, what if instead of cloning these special rules to 8 different libraries (and who knows how many other duplicated sets of rules there are), we defined a set of rules for a library group. If the library is part of that group, it goes by those rules. I don't know if we want to use the same library groups that are already defined in the libraries and groups, or if we want to create a unique Circ rule group. Because, there is always the chance that one or more of the libraries in the 8 that are grouped together by affiliation or region could have a slightly different set of rules. However, I think rules by groups would make managing rules far less complicated than managing groups of cloned rules. Christopher
Also, rules for groups should also list the libraries assigned to that group. :)
We use library groups frequently in the AspenCat consortium and this would be very helpful - Bob Bennhoff
(In reply to Christopher Brannon from comment #1) > Also, rules for groups should also list the libraries assigned to that > group. :) +1
This would be a great enhancement for any large library consortium.