Laura Akerman
My feedback
20 results found
-
58 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
42 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
49 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
145 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
750 votes
This improvement is planned for the 2024 Roadmap.
Laura Akerman supported this idea · -
47 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
24 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
45 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
16 votesLaura Akerman shared this idea ·
-
39 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
32 votesLaura Akerman shared this idea ·
-
61 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Laura Akerman commentedAgree with Steve McDonald. A job to match and convert LCSH in 655 to LCGFT if desired by the customer and if an appropriate match can be found, would need to change the vocabulary indications - this could be a desirable enhancement, but the current behavior is a bug. Keeping the vocabularies straight is crucial as we look toward linked data conversion
-
83 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
28 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
77 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment Laura Akerman commentedOops, I'm out of votes but let me lend support for this.
I'd like it to be something we could handle in normalization rules and something we could control on the individual record basis if need be.
We did all kinds of extremely time-wasting workarounds to get, for example, our print serial records to come out on tip of the skimpy SFX serial records (basically, by adding 856's to them so they would become "electronic").
Now that we're no longer using SFX, and Alma Community Zone records are "better" for the most part, we still occasionally see dedups where the choice of preferred record is unfortunate. Nothing we can do....
I could swear that at one time, I saw a configuration for choice of preferred record for dedups... in some odd place like the General Configuration maybe... but I can't find it now.
-
118 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment Laura Akerman commentedAh, that is a problem! Sorry I missed looking at the attachment.
An error occurred while saving the comment Laura Akerman commentedI don't understand this request - can't you just add the subfield p to your normalization rules for diplay/title? It seems to be in the ALMA MARC template for Primo so I'm assuming you lack it because your rules have been around awhile and don't have it.
Our subfield p's are displaying - including in the e-shelf. Here's an example:
http://discovere.emory.edu/discovere:default_scope:01EMORY_ALMA21159316240002486
This shouldn't need to be an enhancement. -
205 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
80 votes
Hi all,
This is to update that this is currently not planned to be developed. We might evaluate it again in the future.
Therefore we are removing the "Under review" status for now.
Best regards,
Yael.
Laura Akerman supported this idea · -
37 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
-
21 votesLaura Akerman supported this idea ·
This is available in Primo publishing; it should be available for all other kinds of publishing for other purposes, not just OAI publishing