Allow institutions to exclude the 776 from the CDI holdings file
Proposal: allow institutions to exclude the 776 from the CDI holdings file
Problem: sometimes local services for book title X in a series get matched to CDI records for book title Y (a different title in the series). Users click on the service and are taken to the wrong book, which is frustrating. According to Ex Libris, Alma uses the 776 field to generate the holdings file that is sent to CDI to calculate availability, and this is what causes the incorrect matching.
The solution of removing identifiers from the 776 as outlined in this Knowledge Article is not feasible, because it goes against correct cataloging practice. Even if we were to remove the 776 in our local bib, it would get overwritten with the next bib update.
Why Do CDI Records for Book Series Titles Appear Incorrectly as "Full Text Available"? How Can I Correct This? - Ex Libris Knowledge Center https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Knowledge_Articles/Why_Do_CDI_Records_for_Book_Series_Titles_Appear_Incorrectly_as_%22Full_Text_Available%22%3F_How_Can_I_Correct_This%3F
The 776 should not be used to calculate availability, as it is not an indicator of whether a particular institution has access to the alternative format, only that the alternative format exists. Therefore, institutions should have the ability to exclude the 776 from the holdings file published to CDI.
Karen Spence
shared this idea
-
Stacey van Groll
commented
I have concerns that this suggested change would do more harm than good, given the known and observed situation of many CDI records only containing the physical identifiers. I believe a better option is to push Ex Libris to improve their metadata, which would require cooperation with providers providing this data for the index also.