Erin Grant
My feedback
15 results found
-
3 votes
-
404 votes
-
207 votes
-
350 votes
Hi all,
This is to update that we plan to develop this option in the future. It is not in the current roadmap for this year, and we will update as soon as we have more details about the development planning.
Best regards,
Yael.
An error occurred while saving the comment -
431 votes
-
64 votes
-
45 votes
-
105 votes
-
99 votes
-
67 votes
-
221 votes
We have added it to our plan. We will share more details as part of the design phase
-
108 votes
-
90 votes
-
66 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment That's a good point, Luigi. I have a few cases open about publishing profiles, and will add that detail to one of them. In the past at a prior institution when we had a similar problem exporting bibs that exceeded the maximum MARC record file size, the case was closed and we were told that this would need to be an enhancement (link to idea: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/18740719-add-validating-marc-field-and-record-character-lim).
-
88 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment For more context, when a work order is created, the Item Record History tab tracks the date the item was scanned into the work order and the date the work order was removed (“doned”). However, the Item Record History tab does not:
1. Indicate the name of the work order type and status that was used. (All that shows is the generic “In Process”)
2. Track when the item was moved from one status to another within a work order.
We use work order statuses to advance items in a workflow within a department, changing the status as appropriate. For example, we might change the status from “In Acquisitions” to “In Copy Cataloging” or “In Original Cataloging”. It would be helpful if the Item Record history tab a) recorded what department work order was used and b) reflected the date the work order status was changed, so that if an item goes missing within a department, we can track when the status was changed.
There are so many different kinds of links - some useful/some not, some institution-specific/some not, etc. - in 856 in both P and E records. A greater ability for customers to customize their display at the IZ level using indicators (especially 2nd), regexp, or (preferably) a mix of both is absolutely CRUCIAL for user experience. We can't just throw 4-8 links of varying usefulness and applicability to users for every resource. There are some links (e.g. to archival finding aids on P records) that we need to display to users, but we don't want them lost in a sea of other links. An all-or-nothing link display approach is just not robust enough for most institutions in this regard. Please, please, please develop a way for institutions to more selectively display these links.