Alma
Your feedback matters to us. Help us improve Alma by telling us what you’d like to see using the message areas below. You can also can support something already posted.
We would love to be able to respond to every idea that is submitted, but this is not feasible. We are, however, committed to responding to the most popular ideas—those that have received the most points.
For more information please review our FAQ and guidelines. Thank you.
31 results found
-
Edit an authority record when cataloging a bibliographic record
Here is an enhancement request concerning authorities.
Currently, when cataloging a bibliographic record in the metadata editor, we can press F3 in a field to choose an authority.
Example :
MARC21 field 100 -> F3 to choose an author authority.When pressing F3, the cataloger can :
- select an authority
- view an authorityI would like ExLibris to add a third option :
- edit authority(for example : after clicking on "view" an autor authority, I want to be able to edit it to add a field 4xx)
Thanks for taking this into account!
204 votesWhen you use F3 in the MD Editor and view a local authority record, there is a new action Edit to edit the local authority record. Edit is also available when viewing a local authority record using Browse Bibliographic Headings. See Viewing and Linking to an Authority Record for more information.
For more information please see Alma April release notes at:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/010_2019/Alma_2019_Release_Notes -
Add the possibility to open more than one record in MD editor
On a search result list, I can click on 'edit' to open a record in MD editor. If I want to open more than one record in MD editor, I need to click 'edit' for the first record, click 'Back' on the MD editor screen, click 'edit' of the next record an so forth.
I would be nice if more than one record could be selected to open in MD editor.119 votes -
“Pushing” sets of records from an Institution Zone to the Network Zone (consortial environment)
In some cases (actually quite regularly) we are facing the following problem in our Alma Network configuration. Using a normalization rule, we want to make bulk changes to a set of bibliographic records (stored in the Network Zone) where this set can only be built in the Institution Zone because the query uses search criteria from either localized fields in the bibliographic record or from the inventory (holdings, items, portfolio, …). Building the query and saving the set in the IZ is obviously not a problem but running normalization rules on NZ bibliographic records from within an IZ is. Non-localized…
69 votesAs of July release Institution Zone staff can create a local set of bibliographic records in the Institution Zone and then save the set in the Network Zone.
For more information please see Alma Release Notes
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2020/Alma_2020_Release_Notes -
Add full browse functionality to the F3 authority search in the metadata editor
The recent browse of authority headings found in the bibliographic catalogue is very useful, as is the further enhancement to edit records associated with a heading.
If similar functionality was added to the F3 search in the metadata editor, this would be a great improvement. The current search is very prescriptive and contains a list of headings that contain an exact match on what has been entered. This makes finding the correct heading difficult, especially for complex author/title authority records or headings. We are finding that our cataloguers are searching Connexion or LC Authorities Online, then having to type the…
71 votes -
When editing a normalization, merge or indication rule there is only an option to preview and save. There should also be a "save as" option
What happens now is user edits his rule, is happy with it, then he must copy it to his mouse, create a new rule, and paste it into the new rule. A "save as" would be much more logical. User would do "save" as he does today to change the existing rule, and "save as" to save his changes to a new rule.
3 votes -
Ability to limit Authority Control task list to only Institution zone records
It is overwhelming to have hundreds or thousands of records listed in the Authority Control task list every day, especially when most of them are Community Zone records that we're not supposed to change. We need to have the option to get a list of only our Institution Zone records that need to be worked on. This would save a lot of time and frustration from having to weed through the morass of Community Zone authority issues.
4 votesIdea was implemented as part of August release
please see https://youtu.be/BgQam-QxyAo
for more information -
Delete multiple MARC fields after they are highlighted / selected in Metadata Editor
At the moment, you can select multiple MARC fields when you hold down CTRL, as can be seen by the fields highlighted in BLUE in the attached screenshot.
However, when one attempts to remove them (CTRL+F6), only the first field is deleted.
This is a request to delete all highlighted fields
117 votes -
Authority jobs & authority control task list - ability to exclude certain categories of records from authorisation
Some records are necessarily brief and are not fully catalogued, for example records for Resource Sharing requests, and new records for items that are On Order and haven't yet been catalogued. We would like to exclude such records from the authority linking process and from the Authority Control Task List, to ensure that the Task List only includes records that we really do need to check. If the authorisation process could be configurable to allow us to exclude categories of records, the Task List would be a much more usable feature in Alma.
241 votesThe Authority Control task list is used to monitor and manage the authority control process in relation to the institution’s bibliographic records. It is now possible to facet authority control messages related to bibliographic records that are linked to the Community Zone, which is helpful when you do not want to monitor the authority control process for these records. See Using the Authority Control Task List for more information.
Ability to define events that should be reported separately is planned and will be supported in future release. -
Authorities ordered according to the correct order rather than subfield alphabetical
Alma organizes the name/title results in MARC subfield order, rather than RDA/MARC order.
For example, instead of this expected order:
700 |a Rolvaag, O. E.,|q(Ole Edvart),|d1876-1931.|tWorks.|kSelections.|f1936you instead get the subfields in alphabetical order, like so:
700 |aRolvaag, O. E.,|d1876-1931,|f1936|kSelections.|q(Ole Edvart).|tWorks.Please fix this so subfields are ordered properly which will allow the new browse feature to work properly.
4 votesSubfields of MARC 21, UNIMARC, and CNMARC authority record fields used to create display, sorting, and search elements, were extracted in alphabetical order rather than in cataloging order. This was fixed. As a result, additional bibliographic record elements were created. For MARC 21 display elements, this includes 5XX note fields excluding 59X, 520 and 505; 59X local note fields and 69X local subjects. For MARC 21 search elements: this includes 59X local notes, 9XX local fields, 09X local call numbers, and 69X local subjects. For UNIMARC and CNMARC, display elements include 69X local subjects. Search elements include 69X Other Classification Number, 3XX notes, 9XX local fields, and 69X local subjects.
-
There should be a way for institutions to share normalization rules amongst each other.
Currently each institution makes his own normalization rules and no one else can take advantage of the "cool tricks" and "advanced formulations" done. There should be a method similar to the very useful and popular one done in analytics, where there is a "community" folder in which institutions can share. In analytics reports are shared among all of the live institutions, saving time and effort. Something similar should be done for the normalization rules. We now have a huge pool of existing reports libraries share. Libraries copy reports from other libraries and then when necessary make local changes. This would…
19 votes -
UNIMARC to MARC21 Authorities crosswalk issues
UNIMARC to MARC21 crosswalk should be updated
On behalf of the Product management team we would like to hear about the improvments that are required of the following 'Planned' feature (which it's need was raised by a specific library) - any comment is welcome.0 votesA number of enhancements were introduced to the UNIMARC/MARC21 crosswalk to handle missing/new/incorrect fields mapping
For more information please see Alma December Release Notes:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2021/Alma_2021_Release_Notes
- Don't see your idea?