It would be nice to be able to mark a bibliographic record that would protect it from being overlaid when "matched" on import. For example we have records that are for a book club kit, so there is an ISBN in the record that puts it available for match when importing records. We would want to indicate in some fashion that this record will not be available to attach items on import, nor be available to be overlaid if that was the choice made on import.
It might be nice to build this into the matching rules somehow. If I understand the current rules correclty, we can only check for records matching certain criteria by comparing fields on the incoming record with the existing record, but cannot define a negative rule. I was thinking of something like: existing record doesn't contain: 942$9nomatch
I was excited about the matching rule idea, so I tried it in the current version 21.05 (though probably would work with earlier records). I edited an existing record and added a 942$9 subfield with yes and a description of protect this record. Although I think any data would work. I exported the edited record, then deleted the 942$9 subfield (which would be how our vendor and migration records would appear). I then tested against two matching rules. One with just isbn as match point. The other with isbn as a match point, but made the 942$9 as required match point. The one with just isbn as match point matched. The one with the additional match point of 942$9 did not match. Therefore, I think this would work for protecting a bib record from overlay on migration records(though it wouldn't protect from overlay of z39.50 search). Thanks for the match point suggestion! For us, this would meet our needs without further development.
Thx for the reply and taking my idea further! Could you share your matching rule setup maybe as a screenshot? I always had a bit of trouble with the match points.
Created attachment 128879 [details] match rule This is the match rule I used.
Thank you, that makes sense! *files for later use*
Does this work well enough, so this bug could be closed as "WORKSFORME"?
Yes, I think it can be closed - do I do that?