An overview of the local parameters that have been mapped from the Madison Alma Institutional Zone (IZ).
Currently Mapped Parameters
Local Parameter 01: 950 field
Content: This field contains Localized IZ staff-only notes.
Reporting Purpose: Enable Cataloging staff to create reports related to workflows and cataloging capacity.
See also: (Madison) 9XX Field Usage
Parameter 01: 583 field
Content: This field contains action notes such as shared print commitments.
Reporting Purpose: Enable collection managers to create reports related to shared print commitments.
Parameter 02: 843 field
Content: This field contains action notes for microform descriptions.
Reporting Purpose: Enable preservation for to review these descriptions to help in cleaning up microform collections.
Requester: Wayne from Preservation
Process for Proposing New Parameter Mappings [Draft]
Each Alma zone can only map 10 bibliographic fields and 10 holdings fields in Alma Analytics. Due to the limited number of fields that can be mapped the UW-Madison Libraries will require the following process to add mappings.
- Proposals for mapping a field should be submitted to the Library Services Platform Team (LSPT)
- LSPT will discuss any proposals received and also forward them for review to:
- Cataloging Review Group (CRG)
- Collection Management Reporting Group (CMRG)
- If approved by all three groups the Shared Systems Manager will submit the change request to Ex Libris (this change cannot be made by local Alma System Administrators)
Any staff with access to Alma Analytics may propose a new field be mapped and should include a description of the data needed, the field it is contained in and a justification that describes how reports that include the local parameter will be used.
Criteria for Approval
All three groups should consider proposals using the criteria such as the following:
- Does the field in question:
- Have general applicability to a wide range of reporting needs?
- Provides access to data that is not otherwise available in Analytics?
- Significantly simplifies reporting functionality?
- Is likely to be used in a large number of reporting cases?
- Is likely to be used for regular (i.e., annual or semesterly) reports?
- Is the data contained in the proposed field accurate, current and/or commonly used?
- Does the data describe something for all materials or a specific class of materials?
- If the data related to a UW-Madison workflow, is that workflow still in common practice?
- Is the overall set of fields presently mapped distributed equitably by the various functional areas?
Note that these are recommendations for review and it is not expected to be treated as a checklist for reviewing every proposal.