Prevent Alma from showing "not listed" alerts against correct values in ALL 049 subfields
The January 2016 Alma Resolved Issues spreadsheet advises that:
'In the MD Editor: [...] For local fields (9xx, x9x, xx9) the alert "The field is not listed in profile" appeared; it no longer appears. [...]'
Four years on, however, it still does in places, perhaps most noticeably in the 049 field.
E.g. 049 subfields $$j and $$k are used extensively by those record providers available to Alma users via Search Resources, and the contents of those subfields are held to be completely accurate. However, on saving any record which contains them, the “Subfield … is not listed in profile for field 049” alert appears, to the distraction and annoyance of metadata staff compelled to engage with any such alert.
ExLibris proffer the absence of the $$j and $$k subfields from the documentation for 049 on the OCLC bibformats site (https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/0xx/049.html) as justification for those subfields not to be included in any fix. However, we would respectfully counter that the absence of $$j and $$k from the bibformats site only serves to confirm, not contradict, that the Alma software has no authority whatever to pass a qualitative judgment on these subfields' contents.
SUMMARY – 049 subfields $$j and $$k are used extensively; their contents are completely accurate; and we’d request that the Alma software didn’t continue to suggest otherwise.