Report on Holdings 866 subfields x and z in Analytics
We use the 866 $x to store campus affiliation notes, which are used to direct materials to the Archives at point of removal. Currently you must go through a multi-step process, including exporting bib records with holdings info and using MarcEdit to extract the 866 $x notes. Then you must merge the data in Excel or Access in order to associate the note with the weeding report generated from Analytics.
LibraryAnn
shared this idea
-
Amended plan:
Since the field names Non Public Note and Public Note are already in the "Holdings details" folder of the "Physical Items" subject area, we will be using the following labels."E-Location Non Public Note" for 866 $x
"E-Location Public Note" for 866 $z -
Our plan is to add two new fields to "Holdings details" folder of the "Physical Items" subject area. Field "Non-Public Note" for 866 $x and field "Public Note" for 866 $z. If there are multiple fields and/or subfields, the text will be concatenated and separated by a semi-colon.
-
Andrea Molinet
commented
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 -
Lesli M Moore
commented
I see two reasons to add summary statements to analytics OOTB:
1. Summary holdings are indexed in Alma -- I would expect that to be replicated in Analytics.
2. We only get 10 bib and 10 holding fields to add as local param to analytics. Local param mapping in analytics should be used for local fields; and not for standard MARC fields that most libraries with serials will use. -
Lesli M Moore
commented
-
Betsy R.
commented
**Note, this is the same as the suggestion titled "Add Holdings Record note elements to Alma Analyics"
-
JMC
commented
Holdings 852x/z would also be helpful.
