Skip to content

Alma

← Have an idea for Ex Libris?

Your feedback matters to us. Help us improve Alma by telling us what you’d like to see using the message areas below. You can also can support something already posted.

We would love to be able to respond to every idea that is submitted, but this is not feasible. We are, however, committed to responding to the most popular ideas—those that have received the most points.

For more information please review our FAQ and guidelines. Thank you.

How can we improve Alma?

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

  • When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.
  • You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.
  • To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".
(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

52 results found

  1. Re-sequence MARC fields by each tag when running a normalization rule

    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…

    260 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →
    Completed  ·  AdminErez Shabo (Product Manager, Ex Libris) responded

    Alma now supports XSL normalization rules, enhancing its capabilities beyond the existing DROOLS-based rules. This new functionality enables more advanced and sophisticated data normalization processes.

    A blog post has been published demonstrating how to use an XSL normalization process to address the request described in this idea. You can find more details in the blog: https://developers.exlibrisgroup.com/blog/alma-xsl-normalization-rule-examples/

  2. Include authority cross-references in Browse Bib Headings

    The very useful Browse Bib Headings tool includes only information from bib records. It would be extremely useful if it also included authority cross-references for controlled headings, similar to how the Primo browse works. This way, if a user tries to use the Browse Bib Headings and enters the non-preferred term, the cross-reference will let them know that they need to search on the preferred term.

    194 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Completed  ·  6 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →

  3. Authority control task list - ability to exclude certain MARC fields and authority vocabularies

    We would like to be able to configure or filter the Authority Control Task List so that only the vocabularies that we authorise are included in the list. Also, it would be useful to be able to exclude or filter out selected MARC fields from the list to make the list more manageable. At present the only way to filter the list is to export it to Excel, which means that you can't work on records directly from the list. A configurable or filter-able list would be much more user-friendly.

    136 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Completed  ·  4 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →

  4. Authority jobs & authority control task list - ability to exclude certain categories of records from authorisation

    Some records are necessarily brief and are not fully catalogued, for example records for Resource Sharing requests, and new records for items that are On Order and haven't yet been catalogued. We would like to exclude such records from the authority linking process and from the Authority Control Task List, to ensure that the Task List only includes records that we really do need to check. If the authorisation process could be configurable to allow us to exclude categories of records, the Task List would be a much more usable feature in Alma.

    241 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    12 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →
    Completed  ·  Dana Moshkovits responded

    The Authority Control task list is used to monitor and manage the authority control process in relation to the institution’s bibliographic records. It is now possible to facet authority control messages related to bibliographic records that are linked to the Community Zone, which is helpful when you do not want to monitor the authority control process for these records. See Using the Authority Control Task List for more information.
    Ability to define events that should be reported separately is planned and will be supported in future release.

  5. “Pushing” sets of records from an Institution Zone to the Network Zone (consortial environment)

    In some cases (actually quite regularly) we are facing the following problem in our Alma Network configuration. Using a normalization rule, we want to make bulk changes to a set of bibliographic records (stored in the Network Zone) where this set can only be built in the Institution Zone because the query uses search criteria from either localized fields in the bibliographic record or from the inventory (holdings, items, portfolio, …). Building the query and saving the set in the IZ is obviously not a problem but running normalization rules on NZ bibliographic records from within an IZ is. Non-localized…

    69 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →

  6. Edit an authority record when cataloging a bibliographic record

    Here is an enhancement request concerning authorities.

    Currently, when cataloging a bibliographic record in the metadata editor, we can press F3 in a field to choose an authority.

    Example :
    MARC21 field 100 -> F3 to choose an author authority.

    When pressing F3, the cataloger can :
    - select an authority
    - view an authority

    I would like ExLibris to add a third option :
    - edit authority

    (for example : after clicking on "view" an autor authority, I want to be able to edit it to add a field 4xx)

    Thanks for taking this into account!

    204 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →

  7. Add the possibility to open more than one record in MD editor

    On a search result list, I can click on 'edit' to open a record in MD editor. If I want to open more than one record in MD editor, I need to click 'edit' for the first record, click 'Back' on the MD editor screen, click 'edit' of the next record an so forth.
    I would be nice if more than one record could be selected to open in MD editor.

    119 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Completed  ·  7 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →

  8. controlled vocabulary list upload

    Hi,

    Instead of create term by term when working with controlled vocabulary, enable the option of upload an excel file or any csv file that will do that.

    186 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →
    Completed  ·  AdminLiza Voloshin (Product Owner, Alma Resource Management, Ex Libris) responded

    Hi all,

    As of November 2025 release, Users can efficiently create controlled vocabulary lists by uploading them directly from a file, significantly reducing manual effort and time.

    Read more on the Alma Release Notes: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2025/Alma_2025_Release_Notes?mon=202511BASE#:~:text=Enable%20Upload%20of%20Controlled%20Vocabulary%20List%20from%20a%20File

    Thanks for supporting this great idea!

    Best, Alma Product.

  9. Authorities ordered according to the correct order rather than subfield alphabetical

    Alma organizes the name/title results in MARC subfield order, rather than RDA/MARC order.
    For example, instead of this expected order:
    700 |a Rolvaag, O. E.,|q(Ole Edvart),|d1876-1931.|tWorks.|kSelections.|f1936

    you instead get the subfields in alphabetical order, like so:
    700 |aRolvaag, O. E.,|d1876-1931,|f1936|kSelections.|q(Ole Edvart).|tWorks.

    Please fix this so subfields are ordered properly which will allow the new browse feature to work properly.

    4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →
    Completed  ·  Dana Moshkovits responded

    Subfields of MARC 21, UNIMARC, and CNMARC authority record fields used to create display, sorting, and search elements, were extracted in alphabetical order rather than in cataloging order. This was fixed. As a result, additional bibliographic record elements were created. For MARC 21 display elements, this includes 5XX note fields excluding 59X, 520 and 505; 59X local note fields and 69X local subjects. For MARC 21 search elements: this includes 59X local notes, 9XX local fields, 09X local call numbers, and 69X local subjects. For UNIMARC and CNMARC, display elements include 69X local subjects. Search elements include 69X Other Classification Number, 3XX notes, 9XX local fields, and 69X local subjects.

  10. Add full browse functionality to the F3 authority search in the metadata editor

    The recent browse of authority headings found in the bibliographic catalogue is very useful, as is the further enhancement to edit records associated with a heading.

    If similar functionality was added to the F3 search in the metadata editor, this would be a great improvement. The current search is very prescriptive and contains a list of headings that contain an exact match on what has been entered. This makes finding the correct heading difficult, especially for complex author/title authority records or headings. We are finding that our cataloguers are searching Connexion or LC Authorities Online, then having to type the…

    71 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Completed  ·  4 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →

  11. When editing a normalization, merge or indication rule there is only an option to preview and save. There should also be a "save as" option

    What happens now is user edits his rule, is happy with it, then he must copy it to his mouse, create a new rule, and paste it into the new rule. A "save as" would be much more logical. User would do "save" as he does today to change the existing rule, and "save as" to save his changes to a new rule.

    3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Completed  ·  1 comment  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →

  12. There should be a way for institutions to share normalization rules amongst each other.

    Currently each institution makes his own normalization rules and no one else can take advantage of the "cool tricks" and "advanced formulations" done. There should be a method similar to the very useful and popular one done in analytics, where there is a "community" folder in which institutions can share. In analytics reports are shared among all of the live institutions, saving time and effort. Something similar should be done for the normalization rules. We now have a huge pool of existing reports libraries share. Libraries copy reports from other libraries and then when necessary make local changes. This would…

    19 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Completed  ·  5 comments  ·  Metadata Management  ·  Admin →
1 3 Next →
  • Don't see your idea?

Alma

Categories