Ability to report all MARC tags and subfields in bibliographic, holdings and authority records
Hi Ex Libris
I would like to have the ability to report on Marc bibliographic, Holdings and Authority data with ease.
It should be easier to create an output field that will output a whole Tag or Tag with subfields using Alma Analytics.
There used to be a BRIALLIANT functionality with VOYAGER where you could use Oracle stored functions to output MARC data. Options included:
GetAllAuthTag (AuthId, tag, format)
GetAllBibTag (BibId, tag, format)
GetAllMFHDTag (MFHDId, tag, format)
GetAuthTag (AuthId, tag)
GetBibTag (BibId, tag)
GetAuthSubfield (AuthId, tag, subfield)
GetBibSubfield (BibId, tag, subfield)
GetMFHDSubfield (MFHDId, tag, subfield)
GetMFHDTag (MFHD_Id, tag)
GetTag (id, rectype, tag, occurrence, indicators, subfields, format)
This type of functionality is really useful if one needs to create reports for weeding projects etc. Below are examples of reports that could benefit this functionality
A report that would list:
all Sound recordings that are Cassettes or 8 track.
all Books which are bigger that 23cm
all Serial titles that underwent a title change / merged into etc.
all holdings that contain a specific note relating to Access and Use.
Thanks
Skalk van der Merwe
Victoria University of Wellington Library
Please note that it possible already in Alma user interface to report on (create sets of records) according to any field and / or subfield of the MARC record. This functionality does not require that the field is indexed. Indication rules are used to retrieve data according the presence (or non-presence) of data in fields or subfields.
For further details see the following three files at https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Materials/Overview_Materials/Presentations_and_Documents
Rules – Indication rules and set filtering.pptx
Rules – Indication rule examples.docx
Rules – Indication rules – How to use wildcards for field codes .docx
-
Kevin M. Randall commented
As others have pointed out, the requested feature is *NOT* supported in Alma. The functionality mentioned in the Ex Libris response is the ability to FILTER sets by specific field and subfields. This is *totally different* from the requested functionality, which is to be able to REPORT OUT specific fields and subfields. While filtering does in essence report out the *records*, it does not report out the *specific fields/subfields* in those records. Neither feature can in any way substitute for the other.
-
Natasha Stephan commented
With all due respect, the response does not address the original idea. This functionality is not in Analytics, as proposed in the idea.
-
Frances commented
How can you export out the data from the filtered set you created? For example you would like to see all info. from a 300 field in your set of 300 records?
-
Maaike Vautier commented
We also need this for holdings. Indications rules don't work for holdings. Could you please reconsider?
-
Jan K. commented
We need this functionality in Analytics in order incorporate the data (i.e. to append notes from the holding record to a shelf list report, or to limit results by something in the fixed fields) efficiently into our reports. Creating sets in Alma and MARC export capability is not the same as reporting capability. Please reconsider this suggestion.
-
Naomi Maendel commented
We would also love to see this, especially the 245 subfields. Many scientific journals have the same main title but are split into sub-disciplines, which are in 245 |n or |p. Right now, only the 245 |a is reportable, so we often get a list of 10-15 journals that have the "same" name; they look like duplicates. We have to look up each one in Alma to get the full title.
Naomi Maendel
University of Manitoba -
Chris commented
I am currently working on a mass digitization project where we use the 300, 590, and 856 fields in part of our workflow to identify material to be digitized. It would be amazingly helpful to be able to access these fields in Analytics and just have the power and flexibility of accessing subfields (especially in field 35!) like you have suggested.
Is this a technical issue for Alma?? It seems otherwise capable of querying Marc record fields. Or was it a decision on the part of the design team to prioritize certain fields? It would allow for an even greater diversity of institutions and libraries to accomplish their individual projects if we had to option to truly select any Marc record field in Analytics.
Chris
Getty Research Institute