At present in the coverage tab, there are the global dates, local, and perpetual (if the collection has been identified as having some perpetual access) Some of these titles have free access, which is not technically perpetual but is also not part of a subscription. Could a new line be added to include these free years/volumes, with the option to display these dates (or not) ? It would allow us to reduce the number of Free collections we have which all take users to the same place, and identify why we have access to journal years outside of our subscription dates

Use case: we consider subscribing to a new database but want to know how it overlaps with ALL of collections we have access.

Current Problems:

Set Comparison
1. The source collection must be activated
2. Have to select ALL target collections by hand

Selected Titles:
1. Kinda works BUT it DOES NOT look at coverage info

tl;dr: please implement something similar to Overlap Analysis in SerSol's ClientCenter.

Credit
-----
Hi All,

Is there an easy way to compare all of our activated e-resource holdings in our Alma Institution Zone against one database we don’t have activated to determine overlap and unique titles?

I’ve been looking in the “Overlap and Collection Analysis” section and it requires the selection of individual collections for the target and source sets. It would be quite laborious to manually select all collections we have activated.

There’s also no clear explanation of what a “source electronic collection” vs. “target electronic collections” mean. Could anyone clarify this?

Also, is it possible run a comparison between two collections that we don’t have activated? I ask because I don’t see a Community Zone option under “Source Electronic Collection.”

I looked in the Knowledge Center and didn’t find answers to these questions in this article:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/040Resource_Management/070Advanced_Tools/010Overlap_Analysis

Thanks in advance.

CR

As an electronic resource librarian, I would like to see a better way to deal with rolling coverage dates. There does not seem to be a good way to deal with gaps in portfolio coverage when there's a moving target date involved. For example, if a title includes perpetual access from 2011-present, and issues 12 years or older are open access, unless you include a public note, what will display is:

Available from 2011 volume: xx issue: xx
Most recent 12 year(s) not available

This is confusing to patrons and librarians alike. It would be useful to have the option to select a rolling date within the "local date information" field, instead of having a separate field that displays rolling date information in a different manner than other coverage information. For example, with the proposed enhancement, you could have date coverage:

Available from 1923 volume: xx issue: xx to 2005 volume: xx issue: xx (or even "issues older than 12 years")
From 2011 volume: xx issue: xx

Currently electronic portfolios are generated from the 856 fields in the bibliographic record, but they appear in reverse order in ALMA and Primo. Vendors often have 856 for multiple volumes in their records and they often list URLs in the order of their importance. In my attached example, the vendor includes a link to browse the particle resource first, then links to search the collections which contains the resource. The links are listed in order of importance. It is confusing to the user to list v.2 before v.1 and less important searching options before the most direct way of access the material. This should be corrected.

Data elements that are set at a Electronic collection service level should cascade down and be applied/display at the electronic portfolio level.
While portfolios that are part of an electronic collection/package inherit the properties that are set at the service level, those inherited properties do not display in Alma in the individual portfolios. For example, the proxy value in the individual portfolios will always display in Alma as "No" even when the true value inherited from the electronic collection's service is "Yes." Similarly, a public or authentication note entered at the electronic collection or service level does not cascade down to the individual portfolio display in Alma either. Currently, the only service level information that appears in a portfolio is the Service Parse Params. Request: Data elements that are set at an electronic collection's service level (specifically, proxy settings and public/authentication notes) should cascade down to the portfolio level display. Staff shouldn't have to check two places to see the correct setting

Scenario: We manage some electronic collections in Worldshare Collection Manager. OCLC provides bibliographic records with the resource's url in the 856 $u. Sometimes the bib records will include multiple url's but we only want to select a specific one to create our portfolios in Alma.

For example, the Worldcat master record for OCLC 957128084 has 11 856 fields. (See attached screenshot.) Some are institution specific and others belong to different access providers. In such a situation, we want to be able to select the 856 $u url that begins with "http://www.jstor.org/stable" or "https://proquest.safaribooksonline.com".

In import profiles, the "File name patterns" use regular expressions to specify which Marc files are imported by an import profile. https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/040Resource_Management/060Record_Import/020Managing_Import_Profiles

Could similar functionality be added to the import profile's inventory tab to designate a "Url pattern"? So that only the url's that fit the pattern will be used to create portfolios. (See attached screenshot.)

Thank you.

When am in the MD Editor, looking at a record for an e-resource, I can "View Inventory" to display the portfolios. From that half of the screen, I can view or edit the portfolios. Within that view or edit, I can click on the "Linking" tab and "Test access". If I find that the link has expired and the portfolio needs to be deleted, I want to be able to delete it at this point. But I have to return to the bib. record, release it, exit the editor, click back as many times as it takes to return to the search results display, then click on the "More actions" ellipses, and "Delete" before I can finally delete that portfolio. If there is more than one portfolio, I might assume that they are displayed in the reverse order of the way they appear within the MD Editor, but I verify that--which requires several more clicks. It takes 23 Alma steps to open, view, backtrack, and finally delete an old portfolio.