Thank you to Clarivate for the chance to discuss this problem today. I have contacted the metadata experts in my institution who specialise in cataloguing with Alma, requesting clear examples which demonstrate the problem in various ressource types. I will post these as and when I receive them.

I'll go collect more examples, for now here's the list of fields for which this change should be made. Others please add if something is missing.

MARC 21:

773 for analytica
- my example from July 12, 2024 on this page
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972771758805504&lang=en&context=L
- Alice Robinson's example from April 2, 2022 in the older idea exchange entry
https://uzb.swisscovery.slsp.ch/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UZB:UZB&docid=alma990047977300205508&lang=en&context=L

800 when the parent title has an author in field 100
- the Brecht example in post 1
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma993707790105504&lang=en&context=L&isFrbr=true

810 when the parent title has a corporate name as author in field 110

811 when the parent title has a congress name as author in field 111

830 when the parent title doesn't have a 1xx field. This is the most common case = Series
Example https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma991036390105504&context=L

---

From the older thread (https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42926031-number-and-sort-the-volumes-in-multi-volume-works), posted May 28, 2024:

CNMARC field 200 subfield $h

Dear Alice,

Since we also agreed that the issues perfectly described by you are rather bugs in the sense of lacking basic functionality than some problems that suggest an enhancement subject to community voting we submitted a meanwhile already escalated case (reference for Primo Product Management: #07188268) for them. As of Sep 24, 2024 Ex Libris told us:
"Unfortunately, after additional examination and prioritization, we have decided that a fix for this issue will not be part of our current development work plan."
In response to that we pointed our support analyst to both Manuela's earlier and this idea and hopefully made clear that the community obviously feels an urgent need for "a fix for this issue".

Hope this helps
Mathias

Here's another exmple
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972771758805504&lang=en&context=L

How it looks:

Related titles
Units : Construction
Units : Decoration
Units : Fashion
Units : Interiors
Units : Resources
Units : The plant-based issue

[as long as it's alphabetical, "The" should not be used for sorting]

How it should look:

yr: 2021, no: 4 The plant-based issue
yr: 2021, no: 5 Decoration
yr: 2022, no: 6 Resources
yr: 2022, no: 7 Construction
yr: 2023, no: 8 Fashion
yr: 2023, no: 9 Interiors

Or:

No. 4 (2021) The plant-based issue
No. 5 (2021) Decoration
No. 6 (2022) Resources
No. 7 (2022) Construction
No. 8 (2023) Fashion
No. 9 (2023) Interiors

NERS 8869, open for voting now.

Rephrased for better understanding:

Related titles in Primo VE bib display: sort by enumeration

When records have bib-to-bib relationships via 76X-78X and 8XX, the list of related titles is displayed in the Details section of the series/host record. The list is currently sorted alphabetically by the title of the related bib.
Instead, we would like to be able to configure Alma so that Related Titles are sorted logically by sequence or volume.

For example, the current display is:
Analyzed Title A vol. 3
Analyzed Title B vol. 1
Analyzed Title C vol. 2.

We would like this sorted by volume instead:
Analyzed Title B vol. 1
Analyzed Title C vol. 2
Analyzed Title A vol. 3

When related via field 773, titles should be sorted by $q (enumeration).
For all other related fields 76X-78X, titles should be sorted by $g (related parts).
8XX fields should be sorted by $v (volume/sequence).

How it looks at the moment:
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma993707790105504&lang=en&context=L

How it should be looking:
https://www.suhrkamp.de/werkausgabe/bertolt-brecht-werke-grosse-kommentierte-berliner-und-frankfurter-ausgabe-30-baende-in-32-teilbaenden-und-ein-registerband-leinen-w-17

NERS 8160, open for voting now.

As library staff and a patron, when I sort volumes I expect volume 9 to sort before volumes 12, 23, 38, 85, and 91.

Primo needs a better volume sort. Alphanumeric sorting does not play nicely with numbers. When numbers are stored and sorted as text, 12 will come before 3 because the sort is looking at the first character, not the whole value.

Thanks to everyone who has voted here: please pass the word around for further support. Very gratefully yours, Alice

> basic requirement

I completely agree.

The only reason that I didn't post this as a NERS entry this year is that I never would have expected Ex Libris to consider https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42926031-number-and-sort-the-volumes-in-multi-volume-works as completed with alphabetical sorting.

Nota bene: This problem is not confined to analytical bibliographic data (MARC 773): it would appear to be a "bigger" sorting issue with PrimoVE as demonstrated in the Brecht example.

Couldn't agree more!

This was the first attempt at this request:

https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42926031-number-and-sort-the-volumes-in-multi-volume-works