127 results found

1. automated import profiles - create log file with useful information if process fails

   We are finding Alma less than helpful in cases where the automated download fails due to a parsing error. Apart from actually creating a log file as suggested here, there would be other ways to improve this experience.

   This is what currently happens:
   - for automated import profiles, no log file is created when the process fails, the emailed report simply states that the import failed, there is nowhere in alma where I could find any further information
   - because of this, we then need to try and run the import manually, so we can see what the issue is
   - Alma fails again, this time logs a report stating 'The job completed with errors. For more information view the report details (or contact Support using the process ID).' We need to find the file details under 'Events' (instead of 'View file details'). No meaningful further information is included in the log
   - at this stage the file still hasn't been downloaded for us to look at
   - so we need to find the relevant ftp connection details and go and download the file ourselves
   - then we usually try and import the file again
   - at last Alma tells us there is a parsing error, but with no further details (if e.g. there was a duplicate LDR field, it should say so)
   - we open the file in marcedit which so far has always worked just fine (ExLibris even recommend this as a workaround)
   - because we use marcedit to open it and it copes with these 'errors' we cannot see what was wrong with the file in the first place and we cannot report back to the vendor that supplied the file

   Also, I am wondering as Marcedit can be programmed to cope with such things like stray special characters (I assume that's the issue with these files), then it should be possible in Alma too? I have compared both the recompiled marc file with the original file using notepad and I could not spot any differences.

   We are finding Alma less than helpful in cases where the automated download fails due to a parsing error. Apart from actually creating a log file as suggested here, there would be other ways to improve this experience.

   This is what currently happens:
   - for automated import profiles, no log file is created when the process fails, the emailed report simply states that the import failed, there is nowhere in alma where I could find any further information
   - because of this, we then need to try and run the import manually, so we can see what the issue is… more

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

2. Allow Correction of MARC21 Field Data in Metadata Configuration List

   In Config-->Resources-->Metadata Configuration-->MARC21 Bibliographic, Alma users can add a new MARC21 field not currently included in the suite of out-of-the-box MARC21 fields by using the "Add Extensions" command to upload a XML file that contains field definitions and prescribed indicator and subfield values. The values in that file trigger error warnings in the Metadata Editor if that field contains incorrect indicator values or unauthorized subfields in a given bibliographic record. However, it is currently NOT possible to delete a newly added MARC21 field or upload a revised XML field definition file without deleting the entire extension pack.

   What we're requesting is that Ex Libris enable users to delete a MARC21 field from the Profile Details list--AND/OR to upload a revised XML field definition file and replace the one currently in place--without deleting the entire field extensions pack. With the current setup, you're more or less stuck if you want to change a field setting (e.g. indicator values) or simply want to remove one MARC field and recreate it due to an error.

   In Config-->Resources-->Metadata Configuration-->MARC21 Bibliographic, Alma users can add a new MARC21 field not currently included in the suite of out-of-the-box MARC21 fields by using the "Add Extensions" command to upload a XML file that contains field definitions and prescribed indicator and subfield values. The values in that file trigger error warnings in the Metadata Editor if that field contains incorrect indicator values or unauthorized subfields in a given bibliographic record. However, it is currently NOT possible to delete a newly added MARC21 field or upload a revised XML field definition file without deleting the entire extension pack.

   What we're requesting… more

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

3. Overview of linked bibliographic records in chronological order

   When cataloging, it is beneficial for catalogers to view an overview of linked bibliographic records in chronological order, rather than solely in alphabetical order. This pertains to the presentation after selecting F3 - view - bibliographic records. Currently, there seems to be no option in Alma to change this presentation. While it is possible to search from authorities outside the Metadata Editor, this process is more time-consuming.

   Catalogers can work more efficiently if they can quickly determine whether an author/corporation, etc., is the correct one. Being able to promptly view the most recently published editions aids in this process.

   As a cataloger and metadata specialist, I WANT to be able to see the linked bibliographic records sorted by year when cataloging an authority, so that I can quickly verify if I have the correct person or organization.

   When cataloging, it is beneficial for catalogers to view an overview of linked bibliographic records in chronological order, rather than solely in alphabetical order. This pertains to the presentation after selecting F3 - view - bibliographic records. Currently, there seems to be no option in Alma to change this presentation. While it is possible to search from authorities outside the Metadata Editor, this process is more time-consuming.

   Catalogers can work more efficiently if they can quickly determine whether an author/corporation, etc., is the correct one. Being able to promptly view the most recently published editions aids in this process.

   As… more

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

4. Sorting results of non-English external searches performed through SRU.

   When performing external searches via SRU in languages other than English, the results are first sorted in English before being sorted in the respective language. We request that the results be sorted in the search language first.

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

5. Add ability to abort jobs when they are for information only, such as when exporting data or running overlap analysis

   Currently it is more common than not for jobs in Alma to be missing an option to Abort them under Monitor Jobs > Running.
   This is a highly frustrating situation where the only option is to open a Support case to request for the job to be aborted, and wait days for response.
   In the meantime, staff work is completely halted for this while we wait for Support.

   It is understandable that the Abort option is not present in cases where there could be negative impact on records, such as initiating an job update to change the records.
   But it is not reasonable to not have an Abort option when the jobs are for scenarios such as an export from the CZ Update Task List and by Overlap and Collection Analysis.
   In such workflows, the jobs may stall when extremely large, and with an Abort option the user could start again with a smaller export or smaller data set comparison.
   But instead right now we have stuck Overlap job for 3 days and have had cases when the CZ export was running for several weeks.

   This request would save on both library staff time and Support analyst time, to give control to the library to abort such information-only jobs in no-impact scenarios when the jobs are clearly stalled, and ensure that library work can continue.

   Currently it is more common than not for jobs in Alma to be missing an option to Abort them under Monitor Jobs > Running.
   This is a highly frustrating situation where the only option is to open a Support case to request for the job to be aborted, and wait days for response.
   In the meantime, staff work is completely halted for this while we wait for Support.

   It is understandable that the Abort option is not present in cases where there could be negative impact on records, such as initiating an job update to change the records.
   But it… more

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

6. convert bib. records to sub collections in bulk

   We discovered in Alma the possibility of creating collections of archival materials, which gives us the opportunity to create a hierarchy of collections and subcollections. Visually it also looks good. We do not yet have DIGITAL ALMA, we cannot load materials themselves, but a reader receives comprehensive and detailed information about library collections.
   At the same time, we encountered a problem: we have collections with dozens of subcollections, and each subcollection needs to be edited separately. It takes precious time and a feeling of wasting energy on creating records of subcollections, when we have their bibliographic records ready with all the information.
   An option of creating subfields in bulk for the number of bibliographic records, just as there is the possibility of loading bibliographic records for a specific collection.

   We discovered in Alma the possibility of creating collections of archival materials, which gives us the opportunity to create a hierarchy of collections and subcollections. Visually it also looks good. We do not yet have DIGITAL ALMA, we cannot load materials themselves, but a reader receives comprehensive and detailed information about library collections.
   At the same time, we encountered a problem: we have collections with dozens of subcollections, and each subcollection needs to be edited separately. It takes precious time and a feeling of wasting energy on creating records of subcollections, when we have their bibliographic records ready with all… more

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

7. OAI publishing profile

   At the moment Alma can have only one OAI publishing profile. However this doesn't always meet customers needs.
   We already have one OAI profile which we use with RapidILL to control books and is restricted to our main library via the set rules. However we have now been asked to set up another OAI profile to link to a service which would use books in two of our other libraries. At the moment this is impossible.
   Could this functionality be added? I imagine it would be of benefit to other Alma users.

   0 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Resource Management - General  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close