Temporary Items Missing from XML View for Ares Addon

[lisahamlett]

The Reserves Team has pointed out that items in temporary locations aren't showing in the XML for the Ares Addon.

Here are their examples:

24HRES: https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/990021350650302486.xml - missing 000011077368 3DRES: https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/9936752865702486.xml - missing 010003041781 2HRES: https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/990022524880302486.xml - missing 10002294394 RESRV: https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/990033468600302486.xml - missing 050000087214 EXHIBIT: https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/9936632414702486.xml - missing 010003047011 The various new book categories (NEWBK,NEWACA,NEWNYT,NEWAC) e.g., https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/9937466499202486.xml - missing 300000511142 https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/9936598458402486.xml - missing 010003027998

[bwatson78]

Preliminary findings: AVAs that aren't temporarily located still have subfield[code="8"] that we iterate over to pull holdings. Temporary holdings seem to now lack that field. Documentation here doesn't say anything about temporarily located items lacking this subfield.

@lisahamlett Please let me know if we can bring that subfield back or if I have to write a workaround.

[lisahamlett]

Example MMSID: 990021350650302486

https://na03.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/oai/01GALI_EMORY/request?verb=GetRecord&identifier=oai:alma.01GALI_EMORY:990021350650302486&metadataPrefix=marc21 In the OAI, 000011077368 is listed in the 997 field:

<datafield tag="997" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
  <subfield code="d">24HRES</subfield>
  <subfield code="b">BOOK</subfield>
  <subfield code="a">000011077368</subfield>
  <subfield code="c">UNIV</subfield>
</datafield>

However, it is not at all in the XML for that MMSID. https://search.libraries.emory.edu/catalog/990021350650302486.xml

All physical items in the OAI have a 997 with the location, item type, barcode, and library. Can we use that to show the items in the XML? @bwatson78

[lisahamlett]

I previously commented about the 949, but I forgot that's a cataloger field and is unreliable and should not be used.

[lisahamlett]

I talked to Brad and he showed me there's a problem with the data from the bib API that is preventing us from pulling the holding information properly. I have submitted case 06559567 to Ex Libris about the issue.

[bwatson78]

PR made: #1309

[bwatson78]

@lisahamlett If you feel comfortable marking this Accepted, can you? Otherwise, @lovinscari or maybe @eporter23, can you check for acceptance?

[tclayton33]

Closing this issue. Jenni Vitti's tracking document registers this issue as completed in Jan 2023, and Lisa also says is good to close. [see enhancement #21 for tracking document]