...
| Page Properties | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recommendation
Local campuses should use local_field_1 through local_field_50 for display, search and faceting. Local_field_51 through local_field_100 should be reserved for centrally managed display, search and faceting.
...
There are 100 local fields that are available for customization (local fields 1-_field_1 through local_field_100).
Dependencies
Recommendation is dependent on whether there will be central management of local fields 51-100.
...
Would we want local fields 51-100 to be centrally managed in order to harmonize common fields used across campuses? If so, who should manage local fields 51-100 (RMFG?)? ? Use of normalization rules and ability to make changes in the NZ require expertise beyond Discovery.
Are MARC fields that are currently enabled for display, search and/or faceting by multiple campuses (as indicated on MARC fields document) candidates for centrally managed local fields?
...
Action/Point Person | Expected Completion Date | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
Assess already-Alma campus use of local fields for search & facet and identify needs of two new-to-Alma campuses (UCB & UCLA) / Lisa N. and Sharon S. | May 1, 2021 | Complete | |
Consult with RMFG | June 41, 2021 | ||
Approved by PPC |
|