We have successfully reached an agreement with the provider and are now working together to analyze the content for ingestion.
Thank you for your contribution!
I support this very much!
Several messages related to this topic were posted on the Alma list in January 2018.
Subject: "ACQ: Interested In letter for e-books -- way to include URL?"
Some customers added a URL to their Interested In letter. It might not be exactly what you need, but it takes a user to the appropriate MMS ID in Primo (deep link). The MMS ID was added in the XML outpout some months ago.
Example for the Classsic UI:
<a><xsl:attribute name="href">https://<BASE_URL>.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/search?tab=default&vid=YOUR_VIEW_ID&query=any,exact,"<xsl:value-of select= '/notification_data/mms_id' />"</xsl:attribute> <xsl:value-of select="notification_data/title"/></a>
Example for the New UI:
<a><xsl:attribute name="href">https://<BASE_URL>.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?fn=search&ct=search&initialSearch=true&mode=Basic&tab=default_tab&indx=1&dum=true&srt=rank&vid=YOUR_VIEW_ID&frbg=&vl%28362751202UI1%29=all_items&vl%281UI0%29=contains&vl%28freeText0%29=<xsl:value-of select= '/notification_data/mms_id' /></xsl:attribute> <xsl:value-of select="notification_data/title"/></a>
We sometimes face this problem as well, but not very often because we usually order only one copy. I agree that an alert (like a popup message) would be fine if there is a discrepancy between "quantity for pricing" and the number of items.
But I would not be in favor of an automatic update of any of these two fields. There are some cases where a difference is normal, eg. when ordering a set (of two volumes):
Quantity for pricing = 1
Number of items = 2
Note that claiming will be improved with the Alma January 2018 release. From the list of new features that are planned for the next release:
"Update the PO Line’s Expected Receipt/Activation Date When Claiming – New functionality will recalculate the PO line’s expected receipt/activation date after a claim is sent. In this way, additional claims can be sent at the time of the new expected date."
Very nice that this is already effective! Thanks for updating, Myriam.
I had a look at your SF case. Support should not have advised you to put it on Idea Exchange if this was already planned for the December release. Weird...
In the December 2017 release notes, we can find under Administration and Infrastructure - December 2017 Enhancements:
"For non-repository searches (PO lines, funds, and so forth), which do not use the new UI's enhanced recent searches feature, you may now be able to select a previous search string using your browser history. The enhanced recent searches feature is still available for repository searches."
This is not exactly the same way it works for repository searches (not area specific), but this December 2017 enhancement is a nice step forward.
Very nice idea! Unfortunately, I'm out of votes :-/ However, I will promote it internally.