Content

← Have an idea for Ex Libris?

We welcome your ideas for new content (metadata) to add to the Knowledge Bases (KBs - Alma CZ, SFX, 360) and Discovery services (CDI - Central Discovery Index whose data supports Primo and Summon).

How to increase your idea's visibility and get more votes:

Check if your idea has already been posted and vote for it before posting a new idea.
Choose the right category: "New Provider" for content from a provider that has no available content in the KBs or CDI, or "Existing Provider" for content from a provider that already has content available in the KBs or CDI.
Add a direct link to the provider/resource you suggest, and a contact person if possible.
For enrichment requests add the relevant collection ID(s).
Make sure you mention any specific added value your idea has to the community such as language or supporting diversity.
Did you find errors in an existing collection? please open a case.
A new year has begun but no corresponding annual collection? post an idea in Idea Exchange, make sure to mention if it is an existing provider.

The categories for new content ideas are:

Existing Provider - if your idea is for a new collection from a provider that already has content available in the KBs and CDI or enriching records for an existing collection, use this category. No voting is necessary, ideas for existing providers will be handled regardless of voting.
New Providers - if your idea is for content from a provider that does not have any content available in the KBs and CDI, choose this category. The ideas for new providers will be annually prioritized via the CERV process.
Other - for non provider specific ideas

If you want to add an institutional repository, please open a case and follow the documentation here:

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Content/Knowledge_Articles/Primo/Knowledge_Articles/CDI%3A_Institutional_Repository_Program

**Please be aware that ideas with no comments or votes for the past three years, and have less than 30 votes, will be closed. The closed ideas will still be available for review, and the votes will be freed up for supporting other content ideas.

**If you are a content provider, please review the submission guides for more information on how to reach out

https://exlibrisgroup.com/community/content-providers/

How can we improve Content?

You've used all your votes and won't be able to post a new idea, but you can still search and comment on existing ideas.

There are two ways to get more votes:

When an admin closes an idea you've voted on, you'll get your votes back from that idea.
You can remove your votes from an open idea you support.
To see ideas you have already voted on, select the "My feedback" filter and select "My open ideas".

Enter your idea

(thinking…)

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

If a similar idea already exists, you can support and comment on it.

If it doesn't exist, you can post your idea so others can support it.

Enter your idea and we'll search to see if someone has already suggested it.

Make Article-level Linking Immune to Provider Changes in Consortia Collections

At least in the German-speaking market (feel free to comment below if this is true for your country as well!) it is very common for consortia contracts on e-resource collections that the subscription for any title contained in the collection persists even if that title is subject to a provider change. So, typically, at the very beginning of the contract all titles of the particular collection are hosted by one and the same provider and over the time several titles get acquired by other providers without causing them to drop out of the collection - at least in terms of the subscription.
However, we currently see Ex Libris Content Operations drop such titles out of the corresponding consortia collections in the Community Zone because their quality assurance rules during the ingest of updated title lists follow a logic that is valid only for vendor collections: If a title's base-URL does not match the base-URL of the collection the title does no longer belong to the collection.

Proposal: Ex Libris, please, use your huge amount of knowledge in your Central Knowledge Base / Community Zone and try to determine automatically which vendor-specific target parser can still provide article-level linking for the title with a base-URL no longer matching the base-URL of a consortia collection!

Example: Let's assume we have a consortia collection of e-journals originally purchased from Wiley and hosted on wiley.com (= domain in the base-URL of each title). Of course, target parser Wiley::WILEY provides perfect article-level linking for all these titles. Now let's assume a title T contained in this collection is acquired by Sage. Hence, the consortium provides Ex Libris with an updated title list. For title T this list contains a new base-URL with domain sage.com. Instead of just dropping title T we would like you to match the new domain against the Central Knowledge Base / Community Zone. You'll find at least one collection hosted in that domain and, thus, can determine that target parser SAGE::Journals was the right choice to continue article-level linking for title T. The ingest process just needs to place an according target parser overwrite in the portfolio of title T.

Matching domains against the Central Knowledge Base / Community Zone could be rule-based or AI-based. If several matches are found an AI-based algorithm could take the "best" one. If no matches are found you can still place Bulk::BULKdoi as target parser overwrite on the portfolio level instead of dropping the title fro the collection.

At least in the German-speaking market (feel free to comment below if this is true for your country as well!) it is very common for consortia contracts on e-resource collections that the subscription for any title contained in the collection persists even if that title is subject to a provider change. So, typically, at the very beginning of the contract all titles of the particular collection are hosted by one and the same provider and over the time several titles get acquired by other providers without causing them to drop out of the collection - at least in terms of…

274 votes

Vote

We're glad you're here
Please sign in to leave feedback

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

You have left! (?) (thinking…)

10 comments · other · Delete… · Admin →

Planned · AdminTamar Ganor (Admin, Ex Libris) responded

Hello,
We are planning to roll out the development during December.
We will reach out to Dr. Kratzer and test several collections before marking this as complete.
Kind regards,
Tamar
CZ: Keep contributions from Community to bibliographic records, where possible

The Community Zone is open for contributions by editing bibliographic records in the Community. However, as soon as Ex Libris uploads the same bibliographic records again from the provider, the contributions by the community are overwritten, if the provider sends an identical field. In some cases this is OK (if the providers version is better) in others it is not (when the contributed field was more complete).
I propose therefore, that the rules for importing updated bibliographic records into the Community Zone by Ex Libris are changed in the following points:
• If not present, 040 field is added with IL-JeEL in $a. If present, IL-JeEL is added in $d. Alternatively the code of the publisher (according to MARC Code List for Organizations (https://www.loc.gov/marc/organizations/)) can be used.
• To the fields 1xx and 70x-75x, 20x-24x, 25x and 6xx the following rule applies: Fields are added, if no field with the same content in $a is present. If a field with the same content in $a is present, the field with more subfields is retained.
• 26x fields: Always the field with more subfields is retained.
• 4xx fields: Fields 400, 410, 411 are changed to 700, 710, 711 respectively (rule for fields 1xx etc. applies). Field 440 is changed to 490 (rule for fields 1xx etc. applies).
With those changes, we do not reach a perfect retainment of the Communities contributions, but major backsets are prevented.

The Community Zone is open for contributions by editing bibliographic records in the Community. However, as soon as Ex Libris uploads the same bibliographic records again from the provider, the contributions by the community are overwritten, if the provider sends an identical field. In some cases this is OK (if the providers version is better) in others it is not (when the contributed field was more complete).
I propose therefore, that the rules for importing updated bibliographic records into the Community Zone by Ex Libris are changed in the following points:
• If not present, 040 field is added with…

157 votes

Vote

We're glad you're here
Please sign in to leave feedback

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

You have left! (?) (thinking…)

Planned · 5 comments · other · Delete… · Admin →

Don't see your idea?

Content

How can we improve Content?

There are two ways to get more votes:

Make Article-level Linking Immune to Provider Changes in Consortia Collections

CZ: Keep contributions from Community to bibliographic records, where possible

Feedback

Content

Feedback and Knowledge Base

Searching…

Contact support

Give feedback

Knowledge Base

Ex Libris

How can we improve Content?

There are two ways to get more votes:

We're glad you're here

Make Article-level Linking Immune to Provider Changes in Consortia Collections

We're glad you're here

CZ: Keep contributions from Community to bibliographic records, where possible

We're glad you're here

We're glad you're here

Content

Categories

Searching…

Contact support

Give feedback

Knowledge Base

Ex Libris