Andrea Molinet
My feedback
6 results found
-
52 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Andrea Molinet
supported this idea
·
-
19 votesAndrea Molinet
supported this idea
·
-
34 votesAndrea Molinet
supported this idea
·
-
19 votesAndrea Molinet
supported this idea
·
-
962 votes
Dear all,
We are adding physical item templates to our roadmap.
It will be possible to save an item as a template, and then use this template to pre-populate new items when they are created.
The system will remember the user's template selection, so they won't be required to specify the template each time they create an item (only when the item differs from the previous item created from a template).
Andrea Molinet
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesAndrea Molinet
supported this idea
·
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Leslie and Yoel,
Perhaps this original request, which is over 4 years old, had been resolved during normal development? This idea was originally submitted in 2016; I do believe all of the holding 866 field is now included in the Holdings Details table under the Physical Item subject. When I look there, I see Summary Holdings (presumably the 85x/86x fields, though the other Idea that Leslie cites indicates it may only be the 866 field), along with Non-public Note (subfield $x of 866 or is it 852$x, there is no way to verify that in Analytics) and Public Note (subfield $z, but of which field?).
Regarding using the local parameters for common MARC fields, I totally agree that the Alma system should have automatically included certain fields in Analytics. For instance, why on earth does analytics ignore the 7xx fields, particularly the 780 and 785 (preceding and succeeding titles!!!)! I had ExLibris add those as local parameters for us. However, right now, I have 10 BIB local parameters in use. If I need anything else from the BIB, I guess I am out of luck...
Best,
Andi