Daniel Wyss
My feedback
56 results found
-
145 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
46 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
26 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
117 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
33 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
259 votes
Hello everyone, for those who raised comments about the correction of 830 $v, could you please provide a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the scenario in which this subfield gets overwritten?
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
30 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
207 votes
Hi Elizabeth, Katie, and everyone,
Thanks so much for sharing this idea!
From what I understand, it includes two main parts:
- Allowing institutions to edit the list of values in various fields, with a specific example being the “Implemented Authorization Method” field.
- Adding more fields and making them reportable in Analytics, along with a request for a flexible mechanism to support this.
Regarding the second point — adding a flexible mechanism is quite a complex change and could impact the timeline.
If you can point out around three specific fields that are most important to add first, it might be easier.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Thanks again,
Tamar
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
231 votes
-
128 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
115 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
195 votes
Hello all,
We are currently reviewing it to assess its technical feasibility and implications. We’ll follow up once we have more clarity.
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
73 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
65 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
69 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
145 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
89 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·
-
102 votes
-
107 votes
As you all know, the Community Zone content is shared among all Alma customers, each with different requirements. Therefore, I’m not sure this request would be acceptable to the wider Alma community. That said, if there were a consensus on a closed list of fields that CZ bibliographic records should be restricted from deleting per MARC profile, this capability already exists and is managed by the Ex Libris Content Operations team. Unfortunately, this is not available for authorities. Do you think such a consensus could be reached?
-
73 votes
Daniel Wyss
supported this idea
·