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.|f1936
you 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.
Subfields 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.
-
Rodrigo Donoso commented
Hi Dana,
When will this development be available? It is really important and basic in the area of the authorities. More than an "idea" is a problem in Alma. -
mcorby commented
I agree completely with this suggestion. This is closely related to the "suggest an idea" for "Add full browse functionality to the F3 authority search in the metadata editor" which has many votes. In order for the browse functionality to work effectively, the headings have to display in the correct, while also ignoring relationship subfields such as i, e, 0, 3, 4 and 5.