Erin Grant
My feedback
20 results found
-
Display related holdings for monographs only for the 773 $w relation and not for the 8xx $w relation
666 votesHi all,
We are currently reviewing this idea together with Alma.
We will update with any new information we have.
Best regards,
Yael.
-
83 votes
-
120 votes
-
118 votes
-
235 votes
-
46 votes
-
93 votes
-
3 votes
-
408 votes
-
206 votes
-
430 votes
-
65 votes
-
46 votes
-
105 votes
-
99 votes
-
65 votes
-
108 votes
-
90 votes
-
64 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
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.
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).