Browses: add See Also and Usage info from authority headings
Primo supports display of See references (not same as See Also) in browse headings, if those cross-references are in the bibliographic data ingested by Primo. There is no capacity to display See Also and Usage info from authority records, which are important so that users understand how and why certain terms, especially subjects, may be used.
We propose that See Also and Usage info display in the Browse headings.
Example headings and See Also and Usage info that does NOT currently display in Primo:
Search also under: subdivision Blacks under individual wars, e.g. World War, 1939-1945--Blacks; and headings beginning with the word Black
Here are entered works on blacks as an element in the population. Theoretical works discussing the black race from an anthropological point of view are entered under Black race.
It's possible this enhancement could be achieved through application of an API that interacts with Library of Congress systems. Display of narrow/broader terms would also be highly valuable.
Manu Schwendener commented
Steven Bernstein commented
Anonymous is 100% correct. The way in which Primo currently handles See and See Also references is perilous. Authority records should be kept separate from Bibliographic records, not shoehorned onto them.
I support any improved utilization of the detailed and useful information in LC authority records.
Rich Robertson commented
Hopefully this would this include 'See also' for names in Browse search.
I support the inclusion of usage information (MARC 680) for display in association with a browse heading in Primo, but See Also references are problematic. The transfer of authority data from Alma to Primo is currently managed by having Alma bundle data from authorities into each PNX record that the authority is linked to. This would have the effect of making broader and related terms which may not be relevant to the bib item access points in Primo for that bib item. The intent of See Also references is that they should be represented as relationships between the topical terms themselves. Primo has to be able to harvest See Also references as something other than an extension for every PNX record's access data, and that requirement needs to be specified in the proposal. I'm very supportive of including See Also references in Primo--I just see perils in the easy path to implementing them.