Skip to content

Tom

My feedback

7 results found

  1. 288 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    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  · 
  2. 9 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Tom supported this idea  · 
  3. 61 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Tom supported this idea  · 
  4. 11 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Tom supported this idea  · 
  5. 8 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Tom supported this idea  · 
  6. 115 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    6 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Tom commented  · 

    Here is the attachment

    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  · 
  7. 64 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Tom supported this idea  ·