Stacey van Groll

My feedback

  1. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    It's my understanding that Ex Libris does edit the collections to change them from Link in Record to Link Resolver, when possible, such as when a provider gives better data later.

    They only use Link in Record when they have to ie "The Link in Record availability type is usually provided when the vendor cannot supply sufficient metadata for matching against holdings, or when it is the only way to reach the full text (for an image collection, for example). PC prefers to use the Link in Record method for free for delivery collections and for subscription collections when holdings matching cannot be used."

    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Content_Corner/Product_Documentation/PC_Index_Configuration_Guide/010Overview/040Availability_and_Delivery_for_Primo_Central_Index_Records_in_Primo

    I would think that the issue with the example provided of Oxford Research Encyclopedias is that the citations don't have good data for Link Resolver matching eg ISSNs, so they've fallen back to Link in Record as the only option.

  2. 11 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi, This is possible in Primo Back Office by using the AVA in a normalization rule to create a new facet. Are you perhaps on Primo VE?

  3. 40 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  4. 37 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Interesting! I hadn't noticed this before, and it's not very good :(
    I agree that Alma changes are undesirable and I would think PCI data changes are unlikely given the scale, so the best option would seem to be to adjust the search index behaviour.
    I found an example in our instance, and you're on the money that the PCI record includes the initial article in Sort, whereas Alma OTB norm rules strip it.
    PCI
    <display>
    <title>The Power of Cities in Global Climate Politics: Saviours, Supplicants or Agents of Change?</title>
    <sort>
    <title>The Power of Cities in Global Climate Politics: Saviours, Supplicants or Agents of Change?</title>
    Alma
    <display>
    <title>The power of cities in global climate politics : saviours, supplicants or agents of change? / Craig A. Johnson.</title>
    <sort>
    <title>power of cities in global climate politics : saviours, supplicants or agents of change? /</title>

    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  5. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi - Isn't this already available by clicking on the title after doing a search? That is a view only mode of the bibliographic record.

  6. 6 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi - This option is already in place in Primo BO as of the May 2016 release, irrespective of UI.
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/030Highlights/047Primo_May_2016_Highlights#Ascending_Date_Sort_Option
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  7. 11 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Luigi,
    Thanks for providing more detail as to how you would like to see this working in practice. It helps to conceptualise it.
    I'm stuck on the fact that local norm rules are for your own Primo database of millions at most, whereas PCI records are billions. Our expanded search is over 950,000,000. At the moment there is only one PCI server globally, with another coming on board hopefully soon. I would hazard a guess that part of the reason for only one / two is due to sheer size. But this idea has an outcome of every site locally storing a copy of each activated PCI record in their own Primo database. I can maybe see the Dedup / FRBR portion working on the Primo VE model, where these are dynamically grouped at query time, but I don't see how it would be possible for the Primo Back Office model where these are grouped at index time.
    But this is definitely an IMHO response, and I could be way off the mark with my understanding of the underlying infrastructure and capacity variables in play.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Wow! That would be a big undertaking! Wouldn't that mean that each site is doing the work of the Ex Libris Primo Central Team individually? Would you have a pipe and a norm rule set for each collection? The mind boggles at the thought of how this would work in practice!
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, Discovery and Access Coordinator

  8. 6 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Note to Ex Libris - If this submission is accepted and developed, I would like to emphasise the aspect of this being a new specific targeted permission that sites can request be removed from the Catalog Manager role. We would not want this level of configuration access for staff who are not Administrators, with oversight and responsibility for records globally.
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  9. 69 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  Primo » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  10. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    You may have figured this out already, given when the idea was submitted, but you can remove the ability to Delete in the OBIEE directly under More and Permissions.
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  11. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi James
    Could you clarify if you referring to the ispartof field for PCI results, in the Brief Results and the Full Record Display?
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  12. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I'm a bit confused by this one, as I would expect them all to be 'Full text available', and then the preferred record becomes irrelevant. If the preferred record has insufficient or uncorrect metadata, so that it fails to connect as expected via the Alma Link Resolver, that could be a problem. But I imagine that would be difficult to cause a change in the ranking as that may come into play later in the process for delivery. But I may be misinterpreting.
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  13. 11 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi,
    Can you advise what site your director was referring to? As far as I'm aware, it's not possible to run a blank search on Classic Primo.
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  14. 14 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi,
    I agree that’s not ideal at all. Adding the 245 c to the Title is one of the first things we configured locally during our Primo BO Implementation. I see from the guide that it is indeed hard coded and I believe the only option for adding MARC fields in VE at the moment is to create a whole new local field, which is obviously only useful in practice for completely new MARC fields not already hard coded, and especially not Title which is such a key one. This seems like a pretty clear cut use case for VE sites to be able to customise display. Out of curiosity, did Ex Libris suggest this Idea Exchange submission, Lori?
    Cheers,
    Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi Lori, I added the 245 subfield c to Display in our Alma normalization rules in the Primo Back Office. If you are not Total Care, you should be able to do this also, otherwise I believe Total Care sites can open a SalesForce case to ask for it to be done.
    Cheers,
    Stacey van Groll
    University of Queensland

  15. 173 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  16. 57 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Good point, Ann, as it is a bit cumbersome to muck about with accounts. The ability to masquerade easily would be a nice one for staff to have. I wonder how that could be implemented just for staff though, as I wouldn't think it'd be something you'd want to make available for users. A snazzy concept for admins though, so I've added a vote :)
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Sorry if I am not understanding this correctly, but can you not set up test accounts for this sort of display and functionality configuration testing?
    Or briefly change your account to the different user group? Obviously that’s predicated on your role privileges in Alma, but I would assume you would have this level given the nature of the question and the work?
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  17. 58 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Stacey van Groll supported this idea  · 
  18. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    I can’t recall the exact release (sometime around May or June 2018, I think), but this functionality is in Alma now, so this one should be set to Completed so everyone gets their votes back.
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Yes please! Excellent submission. This is such a small thing but very frustrating.
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  19. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hopefully I’m reading this correctly, as this functionality was added in the Alma May 2018 release to configure whatever fields and subfields you’d like.
    I just tested it in our Sandbox to add Holdings MARC 562, specifically the a subfield, and it correctly displays in the Primo Get It.
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/010_2018/08_May_2018/Alma_May_2018_Release_Notes/04Fulfillment_-_May_2018_Enhancements#Holdings_Configuration_in_the_Get_It_Tab
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

  20. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stacey van Groll commented  · 

    Hi - to cover the configuration question aspect, this option is not currently configurable and is set to 60 minutes, as described here: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/010Getting_Started/050Alma_User_Interface_%E2%80%93_General_Information/030Logging_Into_and_Out_of_the_User_Interface#Alma_Session_Timeout
    Cheers, Stacey van Groll, University of Queensland

Feedback and Knowledge Base