Find records by record numbers
It would be nice to be able to search for records by a record number. Such numbers are usually noted in the 035 Fields. for example: an OCoLC number such as o3639596 or the institution number (CLSU)966634-01, or any other number that might be in the 035 that is useful.
Marilyn Taylor commented
Our request has more to do searching by OCLC number. however, I think the overall gist of the request is similar. As such I am adding to this idea.
While we can run a norm rule to add an extra 035a with the appropriate prefix to every record, this impacts millions of our records; and may not wholly accommodate CZ records. Many of our library faculty, amongst others, at our institution sometimes prefer to do OCLC number searches in Discovery. They are often dismayed when a title they think should be there isn't found via an OCLC number search in Primo VE. Additionally, WorldCat.org users may not find our holdings for the same reason. Our WorldCat.org to Primo Discovery search setup excludes prefixes, but Primo VE still does not return a result, if the record does not have an "(OCoLC)" prefix in the 035. In any event, we were advised that there is currently no plan to update Primo VE searching in this area. As such, Ex Libris Support recommended that we share this request via the Ideas Exchange.
The specific issue is the ability to search by OCLC Number in Primo VE/Discovery for records that do not have the "(OCoLC)" prefix in any of the 035a tags?
In testing, our results were as follows - per interface:
1. Alma = OK (i.e. results retrieved) with records that have an 'ocm', 'ocn', 'on', '(OCoLC)' prefix in the 035a as long as the number in indexed in Alma/Analytics (see new 035a, 035z, 035a+z search indexes).
2. Analytics= OK with 'ocm', 'ocn', 'on', '(OCoLC)' in 035a as long as the number in indexed in Alma/Analytics
3. PrimoVE= NOT OK (i.e. record not retrieved), unless an 035a in the MARC record contains the "(OCoLC)" prefix , even though the ocm, ocn, on prefixes are indexed in Alma/Analytics.
Thank you for your consideration.
m schwendener commented