In the course of our relegatuion and withdrawal work we create a large number of itemised sets. A while after the work has been carried it is useful to delete these sets (especially as many contain items which are no longer in our stock). Presently the only way to delete sets is on a set-by-set basis. We would like to be able to delete multiple sets in one go. I envisage this functioning much like the "task list" - that is, have a checkbox next to each set. This could then be checked and a "delete set" command applied to all ticked items.

When running a job and adding a fulfilment note to items in a set I have occasionally added text in the relevant field but forgotten to tick the checkbox next to it so that that running the job has had no effect.

It would be really useful if one of the two follow scenarios could be implemented to avoid this happening:

EITHER have the system automatically tick the checkbox when text is entered into the accompanying field. After all, if a user has entered text deliberately then it is because s/he wants that field to be populated and hence wants to tick the checkbox.

OR have a pop-up warning show at the point of running the job which shows any fields where text has been entered whose corresponding checkbox has not been ticked.

The latter of these suggestions might be preferable as it will highlight any cases where text has been accidentally been entered into fields before running the job.

Title displays as “unknown” in repository search when field 245 lacks $a.
While field 245 is mandatory in a record, subfield |a of this field is not. In some types of cataloging, particularly for manuscripts, other subfields are used and $a is not present. For example, $k for Form and $f for Dates can be used without subfield $a: 245 __ $k Papers, $f 1929-1980.
245$k and 245$f are particularly important to those using DACS (Describing Archives: A Content Standard) for cataloging archival materials.
In repository search, Alma displays “Unknown” in place of the title when 245 |a is lacking. Instead, the contents of 245 should be display, that is, display the subfields of the title that are present in the record.

We'd like the ability to truly 'itemize' a set of All Titles / Physical Titles i.e. translate a set of titles uploaded from MMS IDs into a set on which we could run the Change Physical Items job. Many times we want to add an Internal note at the item level to a set, but we can't to sets that have been uploaded as Titles (except to add a local 9**, report on it the next day in analytics, export that report, excise the barcodes, and re-upload a set at the Item level - ridiculous!).
A smoother flexibility between Title and Item generally would be most welcome.

Thanks,

Sam

Subfield u for uniform resource identifiers has been defined as a valid subfield in many bibliographic fields to provide automated access to electronic resources.
As noted in the OCLC bibformats: "Subfield ǂu defined as the URI is valid in the following fields: 031, 370, 381, 505, 506, 510, 514, 520, 530, 538, 540, 542, 545, 552, 555, 561, 563, 852, 856, 880, 883, 884, and 956. Additionally, subfield ǂu can be used in fields 901-907 and 945-949, either in accord with its control subfield definition or as a locally-defined subfield" (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/controlsubfields.html#subfieldu).
Currently, only URIs in 856 subfield u act as active links. Users should be able to actively access a URI from any valid subfield u in both the record view and the metadata editor.

In Resource Management, there are options for creating a physical item using a template that list the MARC fields as their type, not like the field numbers in Metadata Editor. Such as, Title is listed with a field to enter this information, and Author and so on for the Resource Information. As a cataloger, I know the MARC field numbers and can easily catalog in Metadata Editor, but this is not the case for the acquisition coworkers I collaborate with to order new materials.

In the Add Physical Item function, you can create a brief record with only the title, but it also creates an item, so if you try to order a new item from this brief record in Add Physical Item, you create a duplicate item record.

It would be great if ExLibris added an option under Resource Management to Create a Brief Record (for the sake of ordering) WITHOUT creating an item record, that had the MARC fields parsed (like in Add Physical Item). This way, acquisitions personnel can easily create a brief record (ONLY a bib record) for ordering, and then click 'Order', instead of trying to create a brief record in Metadata Editor where you need to know the MARC field numbers for each field.

Please add this function! It will make workflow easier. It would also be great if you added a step to assign the brief record to a cataloger, so acquisitions can assign it to a cataloger without trying to open the brief record in Metadata Editor in order to assign it. Thank you!