Tom
My feedback
7 results found
-
288 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The difference from option 1 is that when an item…
Tom
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
Tom
supported this idea
·
-
61 votes
Tom
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
Tom
supported this idea
·
-
8 votes
Tom
supported this idea
·
-
115 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment
Tom
commented
Hi Manu, here is an example from our catalogue. All the Romanised forms are displayed and then the non-Latin script, so the links between the 700 and 880-700 fields are lost. I also attached the relevant MARC fields.
https://find.slv.vic.gov.au/permalink/61SLV_INST/1sev8ar/alma994486183607636
Tom
shared this idea
·
-
64 votes
Tom
supported this idea
·
Here is the attachment