Display OCLC Number in Brief Results Lists
In the brief results display in Alma, the Record Number field is extremely useful in all types of technical services workflows. However, at times a non-OCLC number is displayed in the Record Number field, even though the record contains an OCLC number. The most useful control number from any record is, if present, the OCLC record number.
It appears that the current behavior is for Alma to display the value from the last 035$a subfield in the record. Can we configure this field, or can Ex Libris modify this field, so that if an OCLC number is present in any 035$a subfield, the OCLC number is selected and displayed in the Record Number field; and that it display a non-OCLC number only when an OCLC number cannot be found in any 035$a subfield in the record.
The All titles, Physical titles, Electronic titles, and Digital titles repository search results now display all 035 $a content.
For more information please August Release Notes:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/010_2019/Alma_2019_Release_Notes?mon=201908BASE
-
We are planning to display all the Other systems numbers including the OCLC Number according to the cataloging order. By default the display will show the first id. There will be an arrow enabling to expand the field and should all other ids in 035 $a. In addition the ids will be exported as part of the current display export.
-
Pauline Smith commented
Not just in display. When I export the brief result to a spreadsheet, I would like to see the OCLC numbers to be exported, not the other system numbers. There is a similar request for physical items export list. This improvement should also apply to all bib record exports.
-
Diana Brooking commented
I think it would make sense to have this be configurable by libraries. For our consortium the OCLC number is the number we need to see up front, it makes workflows so much more efficient if we don't have to click, click, scroll down to discover this number. But for a consortium in Norway, for example, I can see they might prefer a different standard number.
-
John Butera commented
I would like to suggest that while OCLC numbers (035) are very important - MMS ids are a much more useful control number to display in brief records as they are the most distinct code in marc records.
Of course if libraries had the option to configure this setting at the local level - that would be handy as well.