[ILL-L] Reasons for no

[Elizabeth Andrews]

I would personally use "lack volume/issue" rather than "title not
owned."  To me, title not owned implies that you don't have the title at
all, which might make the borrowing library wonder why you were in the
lending string to begin with.  When we lack a requested volume, I don't
differentiate between missing volumes and canceled titles.  
 
Hope this helps!
Elizabeth  
 
Elizabeth Andrews
Interlibrary Loan Assistant
Loyola University Chicago
eandre4 at luc.edu / 773-508-8404


>>> "Merle J. Slyhoff" <mslyhoff at law.upenn.edu> 7/16/2009 10:31 AM >>>

An interpretation question:
 
In OCLC WCRS reasons for no, how would you reply to this scenario:
 
We stopped receiving a title with volume 24.  Even though our holdings
are listed, we received a request for an article in volume 42.
 
What is the reason for no?
 
1.        Lacking volume/issue  - to me this means we are still
receiving the title but for some reason lack this volume/issue
 
2.        Not owned – because we no longer subscribe, we do not own
this volume
 
We’ve been indicating not owned as we cancelled the title and therefore
do not own what is requested.  However I’ve been told that we’re listing
the wrong reason.  Your thoughts?  All would be resolved, of course, if
we could actually make comments or clarify under Other, or if Cancelled
title was an option.
 
Merle
 
*******************************************************************
Merle J. Slyhoff                                     V: 215-898-9013
Collection Development &                      F: 215-898-6619 
Document Delivery Services Librarian     E: mslyhoff at law.upenn.edu
Biddle Law Library
University of Pennsylvania 
3460 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-3406
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/ill-l/attachments/20090716/af2e7b75/attachment.htm