Make more sort fields available in Physical Item Sort Routines
Make more sort fields available in the Physical Item Sort Routines, to include all enumeration and chronology fields, as well as receiving date and material type. Retain sort routine selection in all areas of Alma, including when receiving.
Use case: Currently the limited options available in the Physical Item Sort Routines do not allow for serial items with no volume or number to be displayed in correct chronological order. Instead they sort alphabetically by month. Serial items published daily do not sort in correct chronological order, because the chronology field J is not an option in the Physical Item Sort Routines. Multi-volume sets need to be sorted differently than serials. Un-received serial items (predictions) may need to be sorted differently than received serial items. Including more fields in the Physical Item Sort Routines, specifically chronology J, receiving date, and material type, would help solve this problem.
Completed as part of Alma December release:
When configuring the Physical Items Sort Routines, the following additional fields are available for sorting physical items: Chronology J (month), Chronology K (day), Material type, and Receiving date.
For more information please see Alma release notes at https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/010_2018/001Alma_2018_Release_Notes?mon=201812BASE
Laura Doublet commented
I agree!! We have large amounts of items that migrated to the same holdings because they have the same location. They don't however, have the same call number so the Alternative Call Number field is very important in determining what call number these items are. I would definitely like to see the Alternative Call Number field added to the physical sort routine.
Chris E Rea commented
Why isn't it already a default that the same sorting options be in sort routines? I can sort individually by receiving date, but I can't create a new sort routine that defaults to always sort by receiving date. I don't understand. Why one place, but not the other. Thanks.
That would be useful. Also - when a journal volume includes 2 years. (For example 2010-2011). Chronology I should be sorted correctly: between those 2 years and not before the first year. (between 2010 and 2011 and not between 2009-2010).
Dean Lingley commented
This is what we want too:
Retain sort routine selection in all areas of Alma, including the physical item List of Items screen: https://www.screencast.com/t/Jipof8adXGXX
Marilyn Taylor commented
Yes. This would be helpful for our institution as well.
K Floyd commented
We have had a big problem with migrated data (less structured) and new data (more structured), and it makes an ugly and inaccurate from: until: display in both Alma and Primo.
There is a similar idea from 2015, just requesting Chron J to be added: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/11009571-add-chronology-j-for-months-or-seasons-as-a-phys
Shirleanne Ackerman Gahan commented
"Retain sort routine selection in all areas of Alma, including when receiving."
YES, this would be extremely helpful!
Receiving new items from the Continuous items tab: Each time I click "Manage Items" from the "Receive new materials" page, I would like the issues sorted by Description. I want to make the sort routine "stick" as I go from title to title. Currently, the sort routine defaults to "Library/Location"
From a repository search (for physical titles), when clicking on "Items" I want my sort routine to "stick" for any title unless I change it.
Mary Grenci commented
What is really needed is to enable manual sorting of physical items within a particular location, so that the individual user can decide what order the items need to be in. Without this, there will always be cases where items sort out of order. For instance, currently (and with the proposed change) items with the designator "new ser. v." will sort before items with the designator "v.". Items with designator "no." always will sort before items with designator "v.", regardless of whether this is chronologically correct. Any sort routine that is totally automated will result in incorrect sorting in some cases.