Luigi Siciliano
My feedback
41 results found
-
15 votesLuigi Siciliano shared this idea ·
-
26 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
12 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
-
25 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
-
15 votesLuigi Siciliano shared this idea ·
-
82 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Luigi Siciliano commentedI absolutely agree this behavior should be out of the box.
Meanwhile, I found this ( https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Community_Knowledge/Adding_statement_of_responsibility_to_Title_in_Primo_VE ) and I merged it with Jesse Kruppa (UCR) customization below.
Following rule is the result:rule "Primo VE - Title"
when
MARC."245" has any "a,b,c"
then
set TEMP"1" to MARC."245" sub without sort "a,b"
remove string (TEMP"1","<<")
remove string (TEMP"1",">>")
remove substring using regex (TEMP"1","(,|/|:|;|=)+$")
set TEMP"2" to MARC."245" subfields "c"
concatenate with delimiter (TEMP"1",TEMP"2"," / ")
create pnx."display"."title" with TEMP"1"
endThis rule is not for a local field but I'like to use it as a replacement for the current display.title rule, as detailed here: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Community_Knowledge/Adding_statement_of_responsibility_to_Title_in_Primo_VE
I am testing it in our environment. Anyone willing to test it as well and to provide some feedback ?...
Luigi Siciliano supported this idea · -
12 votesLuigi Siciliano shared this idea ·
-
39 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
-
78 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
-
12 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·Luigi Siciliano shared this idea ·
-
68 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment Luigi Siciliano commentedThis rather old idea is still a very good one. reCaptcha is annoying and has issues with privacy policies. Forcing a registration for this feature would make the option safer without the need of any reCaptcha step.
-
19 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
-
48 votes
Dear community,
Thanks for raising this idea.
I would like to better understand the requirement:
Do you want to limit users to be able to install/use only cloud apps that they have the proper roles for operating? Meaning - users will not be able to install/use a cloud app they do not have the required roles to operate it.
or
Do you want to allow the use of cloud apps only for users that you specifically choose (by giving them a dedicated role for that)? Meaning - users will be able to install/use cloud apps only if they were given a dedicated role for that (for example, a new role "CLOUD_APP_OPERATOR")?
or
Both?
or
Other?
I would be happy to hear your thoughts and clarifications.
Thanks,
Uri Beladev
Platform Product Management team
Luigi Siciliano supported this idea · -
80 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment Luigi Siciliano commentedWe strongly support implementation of this idea and we rely on Alma + Primo classic.
Actually, rather than an enhancement request, it looks to me that the current behaviour of Database type collections is inconsistent with the general behavior of collections in the system, and should be fixed without the need of an enhancement request. -
96 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Luigi Siciliano commentedI mean of course update the value in purge date when saving *the user*.
Luigi Siciliano shared this idea · -
23 votesLuigi Siciliano shared this idea ·
-
4 votesLuigi Siciliano shared this idea ·
-
248 votesLuigi Siciliano shared this idea ·
-
10 votesLuigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
-
34 votes
Dear Colleagues,
This item is not planned for 2023 but I am keeping it open here for more votes and future reference.
We will let you know if there will be any updates.
BR
Na'ama
Luigi Siciliano supported this idea ·
I strongly support this old idea. Time and tabs in the UI go by but this need remains. The match with print journals is a wonderful feature, but unfortunately its implementation is poor. Here is a recent example in our catalogue: https://ubz-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/urcfc9/TN_springer_jour10.1007/s40888-016-0034-2
We don't have the full-text, and we propose the print version of the journal. But we don't cover the needed year, thus making the patron confused.
If the year of publication and/or the issue could be considered as they are for the electronic version, that would be great.