Comment 1 for bug 932109

In general , a +1 to this idea. However, I'm wondering if there is a way we can extend this idea. If I'm understanding your proposal correctly, the locally-defined format would mostly be used to help with staff workflow issues, which is a definite plus. But we also see a potential issue for records added through the brief record UI where the public can't really see what the format of the item is.

Unlike the New MARC Record form, there is no MARC coding that can be added through a template to correctly identify the item's format. Therefore, acq records added this way do not display the format icons in the public catalog and do not appear in the results of format-limited searches. Since acquisitions orders can happen far in advance of a record overlay process, those records may be sitting in the database and collecting holds for quite some time before the public can get this format information. Is there a way we could extend these locally-defined formats to display the correct format icons in the catalog? And maybe even use them to get these records to display in the results of formatted-limited searches?

Thanks for bringing up this idea for discussion Bill!