Jesse Kruppa (UCR)
My feedback
21 results found
-
235 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
47 votes
-
5 votes
-
58 votes
-
20 votes
-
20 votes
-
55 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment +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, 8Reference:
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.
-
19 votes
-
41 votes
-
6 votes
-
262 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment +1 and this does seem like a bug fix.
-
317 votes
Thank you for this idea.
We are currently examining it and will update once we have more details.
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.
-
85 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
-
115 votes
-
111 votes
-
430 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment +3, this is an issue at the UC Library system as well.
-
19 votes
-
110 votes
-
89 votes
As a user of the View It interface, I want to see services with current access prioritized at the top of the list, so that I can quickly identify available resources without being overwhelmed by those that only provide archive access.
Acceptance Criteria:
- A configuration option is available to prioritize services with current access (where the Until Year/Until Month/Until Day/Until Issue fields are empty) at the top of the list.
- The list of services is sorted by:
- - Accessible to the user:
- - - Current Access
- - - Archived Access
- - Not Accessible to the user (if applicable)
- The sorting is consistent regardless of interface, electronic collection name, or whether the service is held in IZ or NZ.
- Users can easily distinguish between services with current access and those with only archival access.