Add Holdings Record note elements to Alma Analyics
Holdings note fields would be excellent for Alma Analytics Currently we can not report on 866 $x/$z or 852 $x/$z, but would very much like to. We end up exporting MARC, extracting fields into Excel, and doing cumbersome somersaults to merge those notes with circulation data for weeding reports.
This is being closed as already supported. A lot of work has already been done on the holdings record in Alma. For example the latest comment here in the ideas exchange states
“Seconding both Katie Dunn and JMC on the need for both searching multiple instances of 852 $x and $z, as well as expanding the number of fields searchable. We currently use the more narrowly-defined fields rather than the catch-all 852 $x, but would find both expansions very helpful.”
The Alma Analytics physical items subject area includes the entire 852 field. it is in the “holding details” folder. We have also added several separate fields based on specific sub fields of the 852.
For example see this from Jan. 2018 release notes:
January 2018 Analytics
The following fields from the Physical Items > Holding Details folder are no longer marked as under construction and can be used for saved reports:
-
Pauline Smith commented
I just tried it. It didn't work.
We have two 852s in our holdings records. In the second 852, we have multiple $x to record internal notes. In Analytics, 852 MARC field only reports the first 852. The non-public note field only reports the first $x.
How about reporting out the multiple instances of 852s and multiple $x and $z?
-
Lesli M Moore commented
If you want to want to report on 866 x and 866 z, see: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/12884211-report-on-holdings-866-subfields-x-and-z-in-analyt
-
Chris Sloan commented
Me too!
-
Christopher Thomas commented
The original question mentioned 866 $x and 866 $z. These are not included in the "Nonpublic note" and "Public note" within Analytics. If there is currently a way to include these subfields in Analytics, I'd love to know how to do it.
-
Debra Strelka commented
Seconding both Katie Dunn and JMC on the need for both searching multiple instances of 852 $x and $z, as well as expanding the number of fields searchable. We currently use the more narrowly-defined fields rather than the catch-all 852 $x, but would find both expansions very helpful.
-
mcorby commented
I agree with the comments that multiple 852 and 866 $x/$z subfields need to be searchable in Analytics. We use multiple $x fields in both the 852 and 86x fields on a regular basis, and occasionally multiple $z subfields as well.
-
Katie Dunn commented
Ex Libris added Non Public Note and Public Note to the Analytics Holding Details subject area in January 2018, but only the first instances of 852 $x and $z are indexed. Since these are repeatable fields, anyone using these fields in Analytics should be aware that they're seeing incomplete data.
I reported this to Ex Libris as a bug in case number 00584268. It currently has a status of "Development" and Ex Libris suggested I vote for indexing of 852 repeatable $$x and $$z on the Idea Exchange to gauge interest in the issue. I'm noting it here instead of in a separate Idea.
-
LibraryAnn commented
I added in 2016: Report on Holdings 866 subfields x and z in Analytics
We use the 866 $x to store campus affiliation notes, which are used to direct materials to the Archives at point of removal. Currently you must go through a multi-step process, including exporting bib records with holdings info and using MarcEdit to extract the 866 $x notes. Then you must merge the data in Excel or Access in order to associate the note with the weeding report generated from Analytics.
-
JMC commented
Yeah! Or at least a half-yeah.
I see that "public note" and "non-public note" are now options in the Physical Items subject area within Analytics. Unfortunately, it seems that these are only indexing the 852 $z and $x, respectively, not the other public and non-public fields in the holdings record. (Most notably the 866 $z and $x, as mentioned in Asaf's original idea, but there are others as well.)
So, thank you for the new capability. Please continue to expand it. Ideally, we could report on EACH note individually (i.e. by MARC tag and subfield), but searching all $z or all $x in the holdings record would be a great start.
-
Pat Kohl commented
We would definitely use this. We don't put notes in a lot of holdings records, but the ones we do put in are important and we need a way to find and report on them. Thank you for considering!
-
Betsy R. commented
**Note, this is the same as the suggestion titled "Report on Holdings 866 subfields x and z in Analytics"
-
Submitted on behalf of users by Alma Product Management