Because all norm rules can be edited by all staff with cataloger roles, there is great room for erroneous changes for rules that are applied to batch jobs. For example, the norm rule that is applied to records being brought in from Z39.50 targets can be edited by any staff member. A single error in the rule can break the z39.50 import process for all staff until the source of the error is identified. Likewise, if we have a rule applied to import profiles and a staff member inadvertently changes it and we load 50,000 records, that could cause huge data corruption. There needs to be a way to secure a norm rule to administrators such that normal staff with cataloger roles cannot change them.

Alma authority control does not handle cases where the bib heading is linked to an authority via a cross-reference, but the preferred and non-preferred terms are in different fields, e.g. preferred term is in authority field 130 and cross-reference in authority is in 410.

Alma should be able to handle this scenario. Currently when the bib heading matches the authority cross-reference, Alma won't correct these and instead puts them on this report: Preferred Term Correction - Bib Heading found no authorized term.

Example bib heading that Alma won't correct:

110/2_ $$a Allied and Associated Powers (1914-1920). $$t Treaties, etc. $$g Germany, $$d 1919 June 28.

The authority record that this heading links to (via its cross-reference)

130/0 $$a Treaty of Versailles $$d (1919 June 28)
410/2$$a Allied and Associated Powers (1914-1920). $$t Treaties, etc. $$g Germany, $$d 1919 June 28

The bib heading in 110 links to the authority via the cross-reference in the 410, but because the preferred term in the authority is in 130 (and not 110), Alma will not flip the heading.

It would be nice to be able to move up and down within a field using arrow keys in MDE. For example, when a lengthy 505 or 520 MARC field has many lines, the cataloger must now move to the desired line using either mouse or left/right arrow keys, since pressing up/down arrow causes the pointer to move to the previous/next field.

My suggestion is that the pointer should be able to move within the field using up/down arrows and move only to the previous/next field when the pointer is on the first/last line of the field.

Using up/down arrow keys when moving within a field would streamline cataloger’s work and help making the MDE more user-friendly.

Currently, after running a normalization rule on a set of bib records, the bib records display the 5XX fields out of order, e.g. 500, 546, 506 etc. This occurs even after running the CnmarcBibReSequenceTask as fields between 500 and 899 are not sorted, or sorted only by hundreds (this was the information given to us by a member of staff when we reported the issue on the ExLibris Customer Portal).

Having all fields in the correct order would ease any future cataloguing needed on these records, or when staff members view the record for work purposes.

I've attached an example screenshot.

Currently the only way to use records from NZ in an IZ is to search them in the NZ and perform an action like "order" or "link" on every single record one by one. There are, however, situations where an IZ wants to use a bulk of records. For this purpose we need a possibility to link records in bulk and create inventory for the linked records.

We imagine a linking job that takes as an input a logical or itemized set of records saved from a search in the NZ. The linking job can create physical and electronic (and digital) inventory, similar to current import profiles. The inventory operations for electronic inventory should include an option to specify the desired action if the record and a portfolio exist already in the IZ, out of the following choices:

• Add new portfolio.
• Update portfolio information (the URL).
• Don't do anything.

Use case:
The NZ loads monthly updates from e-book vendors where the IZs have purchased different packages. The workflows for group inventory aren't applicable here because the NZ doesn't possess the necessary information for determining who has rights to which portfolio. OAI is no option because this currently creates duplicate portfolios each time a record gets updated in the NZ. The workarounds currently in place involve sending files back and forth which is error prone and not very efficient.

I frequently consult the Simple Record View page of bibliographic records when working on the Authority Control Task List. This view, however, does not indicate which headings are linked to authority records and which are not. The only place in Alma to confirm this is through the Metadata Editor.

This proposal recommends adding a marker (such as the binoculars icon found in the Metadata Editor) to those fields in the Simple Record View with headings linked to authority records. This would save a step in the Task List review process, not to mention being helpful to any Alma user looking over a record in Simple View format.

Automatic dismissal of corrected authorities from the Authority Control Task List.
Improve the Authority Control Task List linking functionality so that when an authority is upgraded/corrected in the metadata editor, it is automatically dismissed from the Task List. Items are added to the Task List before an institution has had a chance to upgrade the catalogue record. Many of these authorities will routinely be upgraded at the cataloguing stage. The need to then manually remove substandard authorities from the Task List which no longer exist in the bibliographic records adds a huge burden of extra work, especially for large institutions. Could the system regularly check the Authority Control Task List by MMS ID and remove items no longer linked to a bibliographic record?