Manage Sets without Repository Manager permissions
It would be nice if we could update and manage repository sets without needing the Repository Manager role. Without it, staff can create sets and run queries, but they can't update any sets that weren't personally created by them, making it so that managers are having to make small updates that could easily be made by staff.
Emma Ferguson
shared this idea
-
J. Collins (UBE, SLSP)
commented
We strongly support this idea.
Currently, managing institution-level bibliographic sets in Alma requires the Repository Manager role. However, this role includes a broad range of permissions that are not all necessary for managing sets, for example:
• Running jobs for bulk updates
• Performing metadata changes on NZ and IZ level
• Running import profilesFor everyday workflows—such as managing Primo collections based on bibliographic sets—which in many institutions, including ours, are not carried out by administrators, we are required to grant staff significantly broader permissions than are actually needed for these tasks. This goes against the principle of least privilege and unnecessarily increases the risk of unintended metadata changes.
In our view, Alma would benefit from a dedicated role that is limited to managing Alma sets and Primo collections, including the ability to:
• Create and edit logical and itemized sets
• Add or remove records from sets
• Manage set ownership and visibility (e.g. for Primo publishing)
• Edit institution-level sets regardless of the original creatorAt the same time, this role should explicitly not include permissions to run global jobs, perform bulk updates, execute import profiles, or make institution-wide metadata changes.
Such a solution would provide a much more secure and flexible permissions model.
-
Kevin M. Randall
commented
Are the staff able to duplicate a set, and then make edits to their private copy of the set?