Linas Salelionis
My feedback
11 results found
-
183 votes
Linas Salelionis supported this idea ·
-
39 votes
Linas Salelionis supported this idea ·
-
79 votes
Linas Salelionis supported this idea ·
-
93 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This idea is related to another one - https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173/suggestions/48370850, which 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…
Linas Salelionis shared this idea ·
-
82 votes
Linas Salelionis supported this idea ·
-
266 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…
An error occurred while saving the comment Linas Salelionis supported this idea ·
-
160 votes
Linas Salelionis shared this idea ·
-
101 votes
Linas Salelionis shared this idea ·
-
86 votes
AdminTamar Ganor
(Admin, Ex Libris)
responded
Hello,
This idea has been closed by mistake, I apologize for the inconvenience.
It will be reviewed and addressed according to the regular workflow of content requests.
My sincere apologies.
Kind regards,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Linas Salelionis supported this idea ·
Linas Salelionis shared this idea ·
-
63 votes
Hello,
We will reach out to this provider, and ask for the metadata for this collection.
Thanks,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Linas Salelionis shared this idea ·
-
56 votes
Hello,
We will reach out to Linas Salelionis, and ask for the metadata for this collection.
Thanks,
Tamar Ganor
Content Product Manager
Linas Salelionis shared this idea ·
Currently, the item location can be of type "unavailable", but items are still shown as available in Alma. Please make the location type "unavailable" fully functional: if an item is in the location type "unavailable", Alma must display that item as unavailable.
The related idea: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/46262368-make-location-type-unavailable-functional-items. Ex Libris advice is inappropriate here because neither a process nor a process-related request is required here.