Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

Legend: NOT STARTED IN PROGRESS STALLED DECIDED

Status

IN PROGRESS

Scope

Go Live

Description

Determine whether to harmonize local fields for display, search, and facet in Primo VE.

Decision

Local campuses should reserve local_field_51 through local_field_100 for harmonized display, search, and faceting in the future. This decision should be revisited within 6 months of go live.

Owning group

Discovery FG

Approver

PPC

Stakeholders

R = Discovery FG, RMFG
A = PPC
C = RMFG
I = ICs

Decision-making process

Priority

Mandatory before Go-live

Due date

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.

This decision should be revisited within 6 months of go live to identify potential targets for harmonization.

Reasoning

Central management of local fields 51-100 in the NZ allows distribution of the fields to the IZ; at the point of distribution, any local customizations that use local fields 51-100 may be overwritten. (See ExLibris Central Management in Collaborative Networks documentation).

Background

Primo VE allows for local configuration to allow MARC fields to display in brief and full displays and indexed for search and facets; this is done through defining local fields via the MARC21/UNIMARC Fields Method, or by using the Normalization Rules Method, which requires creating a custom normalization rule. 

There are 100 local fields that are available for customization (local fields 1-100). 

Dependencies

Recommendation is dependent on whether there will be central management of local fields 51-100. 

Questions to consider

  • Would we want local fields 51-100 to be centrally managed? If so, who should manage local fields 51-100 (RMFG?)? 

  • 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 Log

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

MARC facet, search, display spreadsheet

Complete

Consult with RMFG

June 4, 2021

Approved by PPC

  • No labels