http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10662
--- Comment #63 from David Cook <[email protected]> --- Finally, I don't know how much sense it makes harvesting MARC holdings records via OAI-PMH. I can understand harvesting MARC authority records and MARC bibliographic records, as both are theoretically very universal and interchangeable. You might need to change the system numbers, but that's about it. However, with holdings records, you're describing something that is local to your particular library. In theory, wouldn't you want to be uploading holdings records to a union catalogue, rather than downloading holdings records from it? I believe that's how it works with the National Library of Australia. We do some automated exports for the National Library of Australia union catalogue. I think some bibliographic details are included for matching purposes, and then we export all the item data so that they can update the holdings in the union catalogue on a regular (I think it's nightly) basis. -- In the case of LIBRIS, it appears minimal information about "items" is included in a holdings record. Really just the sublocation/collection and the call number. I haven't seen any indication as to the number of items, their barcodes, or really anything specific about "items". So I think it would be difficult if not impossible to use the data I've seen to add/update items in Koha. That said, the data in 866 does certainly seem valuable regarding holdings, and I can see the utility in adding that to the local catalogue. Part of me wants to add support for MARC holdings records in Koha, although I imagine there would be resistance to that, as it further entrenches our use of MARC. The problem with adding OAI-PMH support for holdings is that merging holdings data in to bibliographic records would be tricky. Easy to add it initially, but difficult - if not impossible - to reliably update later. But it would be trivially to import the holdings records into a table and link them to an existing bibliographic record. We could then embed holdings records into bibliographic records at index time (like we already do with item records), so that data from holdings records would be searchable and displayable on the detail page and search results page. That would make it rather easy to "merge" MARC holdings records into MARC bibliographic records for search/retrieval and display. It wouldn't help with "items" but at least the holdings data would be in Koha. We could also consider linking items and holdings records... although I think we'd want to think about the long-term implications of that in a non-MARC environment. It probably would be OK... because "more_subfields_xml" really is filling that gap at the moment, and "items" could just be used for more transactional data while additional data could be offloaded to a XML record (like we do for authorities and bibliographic records... and how we probably would with RDF records anyway). Mind you, it would be more complex with holdings, because holdings records can still refer to multiple items... the idea of linking "items" and "holdings" still seems like it's very specialized and ILS-specific which is no good at all... -- Anyway, hopefully these 3 epic-length comments help further the conversation around harvesting MARC holdings records via OAI-PMH. I think it's a very difficult thing... and provides us with challenges not necessarily in terms of "logic" but rather with "data", links, and relationships. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
