Elizabeth York

My feedback

31 results found

  1. 23 votes
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    I want to strongly suggest that if this were to be implemented, this would need to be an option where libraries could select to either create portfolios before or after the normalization process.

    There is a very good reason for portfolios to be created before the normalization process--when we import bibliographic records for electronic resources, we want their portfolio links to be created or updated, but we do not want to create 856 fields in our bib records. So, we have a norm rule to remove 856 fields from bib records, and this rule goes into effect nicely after portfolio creation/update. In Alma, access to e-resources is provided via portfolio links, not 856 fields. The portfolio link is what should be maintained and updated to provide consistent access, and Alma gives us great tools to manage our portfolios in batches in our electronic collections. We don't want to be creating 856 fields on our bib records, which would unnecessarily duplicate our portfolio links and be hard to maintain--we want to maintain our links to e-resources in our portfolios alone!

    So, I ask Ex Libris, if you implement this, please do not make this a global change so that norm rules are applied before portfolio creation for all customers. If you do implement this, please allow customers to choose whether norm rules should be applied before or after portfolio creation.

  2. 32 votes
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    I voted for this request, but I'd like to note that many libraries do not use Cloud Apps due to security concerns or technical limitations of the apps, so as part of implementing this idea, I suggest the option to update electronic-collection level linking parameters should also be built into the Change Electronic Collection Information job in Alma.

    For context, I'd like to share the link to the November 2024 release notes that made it so customer linking parameters are configured at the electronic collection level for CDI database collections: Possibility to Define Linking Parser Parameters for Database Collections in Collection Level to be Used by CDI Direct Linking: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/2024/Alma_2024_Release_Notes?mon=202411

  3. 88 votes
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    In response to the Anonymous comment on what should be done if multiple licenses apply to a book (i.e. a book is both owned and in an EBA)--following the precedent of the ProQuest Ebook Central autoholdings integration, there should be a series of checkboxes in the portfolio, one for each access model (owned, subscribed, in DDA, etc). If a book is in multiple categories, multiple checkboxes should be checked.

  4. 7 votes
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    I support this idea as a way to expand the use of local extensions and encourage libraries to create local extensions instead of putting local metadata in CZ records. I think there are a couple steps Ex Libris would need to implement: 1) allow templates in the metadata editor to include local extension fields; 2) allow Alma users to apply local extension templates to CZ records.

    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
  5. 231 votes
    4 comments  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
  6. 172 votes
    3 comments  ·  Alma » Other  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
  7. 11 votes
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York shared this idea  · 
  8. 40 votes
    1 comment  ·  Primo » Primo VE  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York shared this idea  · 
  9. 53 votes
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    I support this idea, as it would help address the confusing cases where a resource is available OA on one platform, but it is behind a paywall on another platform. The portfolio-level indication would accurately show whether that specific portfolio is available openly or not.

    This idea would also help address cases where some (but not all) of a journal coverage range is OA. The bibliographic record OA indicator is not granular enough, as it does not show which parts of the journal are OA. A portfolio-level indicator could show whether that specific portfolio and its coverage ranges are OA or not.

    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
  10. 45 votes
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    This is a good idea! Here is another use case: sometimes, a provider updates their parser parameters but fails to update their service parser, so all the parsers break. As a temporary fix, we need to locally override the service parser parameters to work with the new portfolio parser parameters. At present, we have to manually edit every affected service's parser parameters. With this job, we could manually override all the affected collections' service parser parameters in bulk.

    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
  11. 1 vote
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York shared this idea  · 
  12. 22 votes
    How important is this to you?

    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

    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
  13. 1 vote
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    I just wanted to add my support for the addition of Refugees, Relief, and Resettlement: The Early Cold War and Decolonization Digital Archive, which we just purchased (and contains records held by our university).

  14. 41 votes
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    It's important to remember that the collections used for Autoholdings aren't just used for Autoholdings—they're often the vendor's "All Titles" collection, so institutions that don't use Autoholdings are often using them too.

    So, if this idea is implemented, please don't just add a fixed "autoholdings" label onto every CZ collection that can be used for autoholdings, as that would be confusing to all libraries that are not using autoholdings. Instead, if an institution has set up autoholdings, part of the autoholdings setup could be flagging the collection in which the autoholdings are deposited as a collection where autoholdings is in use. This flag would only appear if a library had set up autoholdings for a collection.

  15. 7 votes
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
    Elizabeth York shared this idea  · 
  16. 7 votes
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York shared this idea  · 
  17. 14 votes
    4 comments  ·  Alma » Analytics  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    Thanks to Lesli for the instructions in her comment of July 28, 2022 on how to create repropt buttons when there are or aren't any results; I was able to follow the instructions and create the buttons!

  18. 36 votes
    3 comments  ·  Alma » Link Resolver  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Elizabeth York commented  · 

    I'd like to note that it is possible to make many linking parser parameters changes for multiple collections at the same time using the Change Electronic Collection Information Job, including setting the parser and parser parameters. That being said, the example given in the Idea Exchange Request, swapping out the ProQuest ClientID is not one of them (probably because the job only includes fields common to all collections, and different services require different IDs). I'm not sure if Ex Libris could make it possible to batch edit the ID fields that are not common to all collections/services. If they were to implement such a feature, I would hope they would add it to the Change Electronic Collection Information Job too.

  19. 4 votes
    How important is this to you?
    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
  20. 20 votes
    How important is this to you?

    Thank you for your suggestion. The Rialto team is reviewing this idea to determine how it might fit into our future plans. We cannot provide a timeline for these ideas, but be sure to check back often and vote for the ideas you support to receive status and comment updates.

    Best,

    Heidi Whitehead

    Rialto Product Manager

    Elizabeth York supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base