Manu_Schwendener
My feedback
143 results found
-
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedhttps://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Knowledge_Articles/NERS
Status 15.1.2024: Design phase
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commented+1
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment -
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
147 votesManu_Schwendener supported this idea ·
-
98 votesManu_Schwendener supported this idea ·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment -
24 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commented+1
-
37 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedGTI, within Rapido
https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Rapido/Product_Documentation/08_Glossary
"Global Title Index (GTI)
Index of records from institutions that are Rapido members. When selecting the global index, you are actually searching in the Discovery Rapido Global Title Index + CDI."
The problem is that the titles can't be suppressed when the patrons have no way to get to the full text.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedI agree that the display of the active Resource Type Filter needs to be more obvious.
I do not agree that it should revert to All when switching the search scope, though.
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedIf you haven't already, you might want to ask about this in the Primo mailing list.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commented+1
-
47 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedThis is not about Collection Discovery *, but about the hierarchical presentation of for example a collection of letters, correct?
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedCould somebody maybe add an example of how it looks at the moment in their catalog and what they would want to change?
Thank you
-
38 votesManu_Schwendener supported this idea ·
-
206 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commented+1
-
56 votesManu_Schwendener supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commented+1
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedDo you know that you can show the locations as a facet already, at least in Primo VE?
Example https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/search?query=any,contains,vincent&tab=UBS&search_scope=UBS&vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&lang=en&offset=0 -> facet "Location"
(I won't see your reply automatically, sorry.) -
47 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedMaybe to help understand our situation at the moment:
1) Books from the open stacks have to be fetched by the patrons themselves, they can't be requested to a pickup library
2) Our IZ has a free local courier service; our libraries are placed all over the city
3) When we have a second copy in the closed stacks of an item in open stacks, the second copy can not be requested via the local courier (= with another pickup library in our IZ than the one owning the books), although the item policy would allow it.We would like to be able to change 3).
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedDear Moshe
Maybe I misunderstand your reply.
> This option means that no item under the BIB record can be requested when in
> all holding records there is an item available on shelfThis is what Renaud describes and where we are missing an additional option to _enable_ requesting the items from the closed stack, no matter if there is one on a shelf somewhere or not.
Manu_Schwendener supported this idea · -
320 votes
Thank you for this idea.
We are currently examining it and will update once we have more details.
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedFor comparison see https://swisscollections.ch/Record/991057940819705501?sid=126841 (Alice's example), scroll to and open "Hierarchy / Context"
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedList of fields for which this change should be made. Others please add if something is missing.
MARC 21:
773 for analytica
- my example from July 12, 2024 on this page
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972771758805504&lang=en&context=L
$gNo. 8 (2023) $gyr: 2023 $gno: 8Add the first $g in front of the title of the child entry:
No. 8 (2023) FashionUse the more normalized $g subfields for sorting
- Alice Robinson's example from April 2, 2022 in the older idea exchange entry
https://uzb.swisscovery.slsp.ch/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UZB:UZB&docid=alma990047977300205508&lang=en&context=L=> If there is a $q, use that for sorting (but the first $g for display)
Example
$gVolume 12, Number 2 (2020), 60 $gyr:2020 $gno:12 $q12/2/2020/60---
800 when the parent title has an author in field 100
- the Brecht example in post 1
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma993707790105504&lang=en&context=L&isFrbr=true
- from an inquiry I got today:
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma996830890105504&lang=en&context=L---
810 when the parent title has a corporate name as author in field 110
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma9970764540105504&lang=en&context=L---
811 when the parent title has a congress name as author in field 111
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972827070905504&lang=en&context=L---
830 when the parent title doesn't have a 1xx field. This is the most common case = Series
Example https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&tab=UBS&docid=alma991036390105504&context=L---
From the older thread (https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/42926031-number-and-sort-the-volumes-in-multi-volume-works), posted May 28, 2024:
CNMARC field 200 subfield $h
An error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedHere's another exmple
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma9972771758805504&lang=en&context=LHow it looks:
Related titles
Units : Construction
Units : Decoration
Units : Fashion
Units : Interiors
Units : Resources
Units : The plant-based issue[as long as it's alphabetical, "The" should not be used for sorting]
How it should look:
No. 4 (2021) The plant-based issue
No. 5 (2021) Decoration
No. 6 (2022) Resources
No. 7 (2022) Construction
No. 8 (2023) Fashion
No. 9 (2023) InteriorsAn error occurred while saving the comment Manu_Schwendener commentedNERS 8869, open for voting now.
Rephrased for better understanding:
Related titles in Primo VE bib display: sort by enumeration
When records have bib-to-bib relationships via 76X-78X and 8XX, the list of related titles is displayed in the Details section of the series/host record. The list is currently sorted alphabetically by the title of the related bib.
Instead, we would like to be able to configure Alma so that Related Titles are sorted logically by sequence or volume.For example, the current display is:
Analyzed Title A vol. 3
Analyzed Title B vol. 1
Analyzed Title C vol. 2.We would like this sorted by volume instead:
Analyzed Title B vol. 1
Analyzed Title C vol. 2
Analyzed Title A vol. 3When related via field 773, titles should be sorted by $q (enumeration).
For all other related fields 76X-78X, titles should be sorted by $g (related parts).
8XX fields should be sorted by $v (volume/sequence).How it looks at the moment:
https://basel.swisscovery.org/discovery/fulldisplay?vid=41SLSP_UBS:live&search_scope=UBS&tab=UBS&docid=alma993707790105504&lang=en&context=LHow it should be looking:
https://www.suhrkamp.de/werkausgabe/bertolt-brecht-werke-grosse-kommentierte-berliner-und-frankfurter-ausgabe-30-baende-in-32-teilbaenden-und-ein-registerband-leinen-w-17Manu_Schwendener supported this idea · -
114 votes
Should this be closed as 'Done' to release the votes?