The Linking Level in the service record is a hierarchy clearly designed for journals. Books are thrown in as an afterthought, and there is no room for streaming media. The hierarchy would be improved by making it independent of media type. Change the linking levels in the following way:

Change "Article" to "Article/Chapter"
Change "Article DOI" to "Article/Chapter DOI"
Change "Issue" to "Issue/Part"
Leave "Volume" the same
Combine "Journal" and "Book" into "Work (Journal/Book/Media)"
Change "Database" to "Database/Collection"
Leave "Citation" the same

This would accommodate collections which contain streaming media, and collections which contain more than one format, such as books and journals. It also allows for access to subdivisions of books in the same way the current levels allow for subdivisions of journals. It is a more flexible hierarchy which can be applied to any electronic resource.

When you are working in the portfolios list from the electronic service editor in an activated electronic collection and choose to add portfolios from the Community Zone, the list displays the local house icon for active portfolios and no icon for the inactive ones. However, from the electronic service editor portfolios list, active portfolios display with the CZ (double person) icon. Any local portfolios that you have added beyond the CZ collection display with the local house icon. I understand how it makes sense in different contexts, but it may be useful to have an icon that distinguishes between the two. Perhaps the add portfolios could display the list with a CZ icon in a different color for active portfolios.

When importing electronic portfolios through repository import there is an option to specify a MARC-field containing the URL to the resource. When configured, Alma extracts the URL from the first occurrence of that field, which might or might not be the desired full text URL.

Next to this option is another option, "Indicators to skip", that looks like it could be used to specify further which occurrences of the field to ignore and which to use for the URL extraction, but this option is only taken in consideration for "multiple portfolios" imports.

As the probably most likely source for an URL is the 856 field, which is repeatable and where indicators can be used to describe the relationship between the URL and the resource, the option to select or ignore fields by indicators should apply also to single portfolio records.

The current implementation requires preprocessing of records external to Alma even when the incoming records already are valid MARC records that clearly specifies which URL is the full text.

In order to triggering publishing of an Electronic Collection from Alma to Primo, the Electronic Collection must have an Electronic Collection URL and an unsuppressed bibliographic record added as the Linked Descriptive Record.
However, the reverse is not true.
If you unlink a bibliographic record from the Electronic Collection, the outcome does not function as expected to then publish the inventory as Deleted.

The workaround for this undesirable behaviour is to first go to MD Editor, suppress the record, and then remove it as the Linked Descriptive Record from the Electronic Collection.
Ex Libris have described this behaviour as expected and ‘by design’, despite there being no reason to publish this record for users. The outcome in Primo is for a record showing as available online in the availability statement and yet with "No full text available" in the View It.

Our contrary argument to this unsatisfactory 'by design' case outcome is that we expect Alma not to have gotchas like this, for it to behave logically, and to be assisted in our work by Alma automatically running processes to either suppress or publish inventory by which a user can be fulfilled.
See case 00641717.

Currently the ISBN displayed in e-portfolio repository search results is the print ISBN stored in MARC field 776 $z. Please change to display the e-ISBN stored in MARC field 020 $a, or display both the print ISBN (776 $z) and e-ISBN (020 $a).

The e-portfolio repository search finds the e-books. In a bib record for an e-book, the e-ISBN is stored in 020 $a, while the print version's ISBN is stored in 776 $z. It just does not make sense to display only the print ISBN, but does not display the e-ISBN in the e-portfolio results.

The example records are with the title:
C# 2.0 : practical guide for programmers
ISBN display at e-portfolio repository search: ISBN: 0-12-167451-7
ISBN of the ebook stored in 020 $a: 1-281-01999-2 plus others

Details, please refer to SF # 00878619.

Thank you!