Electronic Collection - Automatically publish as Deleted when a linked Descriptive Record is unlinked
In order to triggering publishing of an Electronic Collection from Alma to Primo, the Electronic Collection must have an Electronic Collection URL and an unsuppressed bibliographic record added as the Linked Descriptive Record.
However, the reverse is not true.
If you unlink a bibliographic record from the Electronic Collection, the outcome does not function as expected to then publish the inventory as Deleted.
The workaround for this undesirable behaviour is to first go to MD Editor, suppress the record, and then remove it as the Linked Descriptive Record from the Electronic Collection.
Ex Libris have described this behaviour as expected and ‘by design’, despite there being no reason to publish this record for users. The outcome in Primo is for a record showing as available online in the availability statement and yet with "No full text available" in the View It.
Our contrary argument to this unsatisfactory 'by design' case outcome is that we expect Alma not to have gotchas like this, for it to behave logically, and to be assisted in our work by Alma automatically running processes to either suppress or publish inventory by which a user can be fulfilled.
See case 00641717.
Stacey van Groll
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
-
Stacey van Groll
commented
I am noting that the Closed template text doesn't make sense, given my own comment of it being fixed as a defect years ago.
-
Stacey van Groll
commented
I am going to remove my own vote from this, as this was actually fixed as a defect in the July 2020 Release (new case querying this: 00853757).
I'm going to leave this here, rather than deleting it, as an example of the broad issue of Ex Libris incorrectly pointing customers to the Idea Exchange after labelling a case as an 'enhancement', when it was actually a bug that plagued our site for almost 5 years. We should have been supported with better troubleshooting and case handling soon after our 2016 Implementation when we first encountered the problem.