Jesse Kruppa (UCR)
My feedback
27 results found
-
47 votes
-
23 votes
-
4 votes
-
5 votes
-
55 votes
-
21 votes
-
12 votes
-
343 votes
-
55 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
19 votes
-
41 votes
-
6 votes
-
259 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment +1 and this does seem like a bug fix.
-
305 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment As library staff and a patron, when I sort volumes I expect volume 9 to sort before volumes 12, 23, 38, 85, and 91.
Primo needs a better volume sort. Alphanumeric sorting does not play nicely with numbers. When numbers are stored and sorted as text, 12 will come before 3 because the sort is looking at the first character, not the whole value.
-
82 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment At my institution, I created a local field with just the 245c, labeled it "Responsibility" and added it to the full display on a new line. (Config > discovery > configure views > full record services > details)
SEE ATTACHMENT: I've attached some small screenshots to show our configuration and the result in Primo, as well as a potential alternate.
Local field: Add Local Field. DO NOT select any MARC21 fields.
Edit the normalization rule to the below:=====================
rule "Primo VE - Lds__"
when
MARC is "245"."c"
then
set TEMP"1" to MARC."245"."c"
create pnx."display"."lds__" with TEMP"1"
end
=====================(the blank varies depending on how many local display fields you have so far)
Save. Apply Rules.
That said: We shouldn't have to do this in the first place. The 245 c should be a default search/display field (All MARC fields and subfields should be able to display out of the box -- respecting indication rules-- without library staff having to specifically add them, frankly.) Institutions should only have to define the actual local fields. 69x, 79x, 9xx, etc.
(I wish the comment box here wasn't so tiny...)
-
145 votes
-
119 votes
-
112 votes
-
24 votes
-
22 votes
+1 (million)
As noted in the the page for MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data, 863-865 - Enumeration and Chronology
The following subfields should exist for use:
Enumeration: a-h
Chronology: i-m, v
Descriptors: n-q
Numbers and codes: s-w
Notes: x, z
Control subfields: 6, 8
Reference:
https://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/hd863865.html
https://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/
(Personally, I'd like to be able to make holding/item records in MARC format like in the MDE rather than only in the text form, so I can ensure the metadata is being structured properly)
These are all valid subfields and should be imported as such.
Libraries should not have to put in an "enhancement" request for access to, or proper use and display of, fields and subfields in the metadata standard online library catalogs have used for more than 40 years and that this ILS was built to accommodate.
The standards are the very foundation of the catalog, and their thorough, correct implementation are a core requirement for catalog functionality.