What was decided upon? (e.g. what has been updated or changed?) Show Only, Date, Format, Library, Location, Language, Author/Creator, Subject, Journal Title, New Records, Collection
Why was this decided? (e.g. explain why this decision was reached. It may help to explain the way a procedure used to be handled pre-Alma) Notes from Subject Librarians:1. Availability–default; 2. Library—very important; 3. Resource Format—include data, peer reviewed options; 4. Date; 5. Subject—Note follow up comment from a librarian: “it occurred to me that maybe people confuse ‘Subject’ in DL with LC subject headings. The facet ‘Subject’ in DL is not subject headings and therefore isn’t as helpful … usually. In my experience, the subjects are too broad. For instance, the Subject facet, Jewish Identity, is not an LC subject heading. The LC subject heading is: Jews –Identity. So my argument would be to drop ‘Subject’ down the priority list.”; 6. Author/Creator; 7. Language; 8. Databases: Put at the bottom for staff use. Not useful for subject librarians. Agreed that the filters should be on the left side of the page.
Who decided this? (e.g. what unit/group) User Interface
When was this decided?
Additional information or notes. The results come up in alpha order by library name; there is still an empty library for items neediing this metadata. They will eventually correct all of these records.