Textual holdings statement fields 866-868
Currently, you are only able to search the 866 field in Alma and Analytics. To record holdings more accurately, the 867 (supplemental material) and 868 (indexes) should be used. We have data stored in these fields and are unable to search/report on them easily. We would like the 867 and 868 fields to be searchable and perhaps even indexed in Alma, and reportable in Analytics. Reporting on any standard MARC field should be possible in both Alma and Analytics.
Rebecca Bearden
shared this idea
Hello All,
This idea has been closed as part of a cleanup process for ideas older than two years with fewer than 20 votes.
This cleanup process is necessary to streamline our idea management process and ensure that the most relevant and impactful ideas receive the attention they deserve. If you still feel strongly about this idea, you may submit it via the NERS process.
We value your feedback and encourage you to continue submitting and voting for ideas that you believe will enhance Alma.
Alma Product Team
-
Rebecca Bearden
commented
Hello Yoel, I also think my intention at the time of creating this was that "summary holdings" is an option but it is not specified as only searching the 866, which can be confusing, and also, this would tie up 3/10 slots allowed for marc fields, when there are countless others users may want to use, and many of us have to go through a lot of layers to make an institutional setting change. Thanks!
-
Rebecca Bearden
commented
Hello Yoel,
While this helps in analytics (which was developed after my original idea was proposed), is there a way to search the different textual holdings statements fields in Alma yet? Last I checked all were included in the Summary holdings search, so you cannot search specifically in an 866 vs an 867 or 868. That would still be desirable. Thanks!
-
Andrea Molinet
commented
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 bulk of the MARC Holdings records? All of the 85x/86x fields should be included.
I haven't yet tried to extract Supplementary (867) or Index (868) data from Alma. Apparently, if they are not currently in Analytics (maybe as part of Summary Holdings?), I will have no choice but to have ExLibris add those fields as local parameters for us. I should be thankful I have not yet used all 10 local parameters in our Holdings.
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