Citation Processing rules to use same Leganto real time availability merge rules for purchase requests
Hi,
Ideal Scenario:
We currently have a citation processing rule set to automatically trigger a purchase request, if a book has a particular tag, and there are no E versions of the P available in repository. If there is an E copy available then the purchase request should not be triggered. If no E version is available, but the citation meets all other parameters in that particular citation processing rule, then a purchase request should automatically be triggered
Issue:
The problem at the moment is that, Leganto is not relating our E version to our P, and so is still triggering a purchase requests even though an E version is available. This is due to our institution cataloguing E and P as 2 separate Marc records, and many of these do not have a linking ISBN in the 020 field. This would be similar to a lot of other institutions who don't merge the marc records together, as keeping them separate is considered to many as cataloguing best practice.
Solution:
To display real time availability for citations, Leganto does however use merge rules for records in Alma (and their related records) and records in Primo, including dedup'd records (see attached image). This therefore displays P and E versions of the same title together. Can we request for this same 'Merging repository availability' rule to be used as the basis for citation processing rules. It proves to be more successful in linking P and E versions of the same title together.
Amin Hussain
shared this idea
-
Chris Jones
commented
Do we know whether this is moving forward/on what basis?
The OLH has more documentation on availability from Alma vs Primo in Leganto in this context, but perhaps not fully in terms of the knock-on effect for citation processing rules:
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Leganto/Product_Documentation/Leganto_Online_Help_(English)/Leganto_Administration_Guide/Configuring_Leganto_UI_Elements/05_Configuring_Leganto_UI_Elements#Configuring_Primo_Availability_for_Citations_Added_from_PrimoI wondered what settings you have for;
i) Primo availability (Leganto/primo settings/primo_availability_for_citations_added_from_primo)
ii) related records (Leganto/primo settings/related_records)It can be quite confusing understanding what the 'locate and resolve' behaviour in the front-end is (Alma related records -e.g. 020- not obvious, even if the Primo availability (Dedup/FRBR) can be seen in the UI.
It's interesting because the Primo availability/related record leave a reporting gap if Print may be attached and reported on in Analytics, but the primo availability?/uresolver look-up for electronic is not reportable, just present, although suppose the preference is likely electronic.
The OLH notes here are important:
A) that "When both flags are on, if an item is added from Primo, the related_records flag will not be used. Thus, if two items are related in Alma but not in Primo, and both flags are on, if you add an item from Primo, it will not be related to the other item." could argue for turning off related records and sticking with the primo availability, but comparing how Item request questions and answers 'availability' works with the Citation processing rules e-availability makes this confusing, especially depending on how the citation has been added, hence:B) Citations added using the Alma search scope or using Cite It! always use Alma availability.
Practically I suppose we're talking Books Journals and Articles in most circumstances. Turning off related records you can change the display in Leganto immediately, but still see the outcomes you might expect from what you see from an inline search.
-
Ian Hey
commented
This is a good idea :-)