This idea has already been implemented as described in the original proposal. The idea should probably have been marked Completed and closed. I think we need a new idea exchange proposal to request a _specific_ change to the current behavior.

In Theory you could add the MARC coding based on the retention note using Normalization rules?? Or pulling data from the MARC coding to build a set to set the retention note?

I concur with Caroline Brown regarding being able to add multiple conditions for retention as well as adding an expiry date in the code table. The expiry date could then be automatically lifted from an item based upon the expiry date set for the condition and if there is no expiry date set for the condition, it should be assumed to be indefinite.

As noted in recent ALMA-L communications ("Multiple Conditions for Retention Information in Item Records") an institution may have multiple commitment partnerships or other reasons to commit to retain. Having the option to select multiple reasons, as well as an expiry date would be very beneficial to this function.

Michael Cohen is correct about 583 fields, and I strongly support the use of 583 fields to record retention commitments. In addition to the benefits of following a MARC standard, it is is also useful to be able to export the 583 fields in publishing profiles.

However, the ability to block deletion of items committed for retention would be an extremely useful enhancement. We have had far too many retention titles withdrawn because people weren't paying attention to commitments. I hope that the new item information can be set in batch in the Change Physical Items job, allowing us to run the job on sets based on 583 fields. Even better would be if deletion blocks could be based directly on the 583 field (though that would be complicated because 583 is used for more than just retention commitments).

This is very exciting! To have the ability to set the item as a do not delete will make our job much easier! Thank you!

The suggestion of an Item-level field that could be toggled on for committed titles -- and produce error reports from batch jobs – is a good one. But the statement that currently there is no way to mark records for commitments is misleading. There is no standardized way at the Item level, but commitments at the Holdings level are already well established using MARC field 583. We should avoid adding extra data in Items that already applies from Holdings.

I'm out of votes as well but want to add my support for this idea.

Jane Daniels

Central MIchigan University Libraries is part of the Mi-SPI Michigan statewide print initiative. Yes, we are absolutely interested in this. I am, however, out of votes! This would be very helpful in managing items in the collection.

Great idea!
Amie

Flag Items not to be deleted

We have a number of resources that need to be retained in our collection. Unfortunately these are sometimes accidentally deleted because there is no system alert not to. It would be great if we could somehow flag these items in Alma so that staff are alerted not to delete the items e.g. during weeding/withdrawal processes. Ideally Alma would prevent these items from being deleted, unless by a staff user with higher privileges.