https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19893
--- Comment #97 from David Gustafsson <[email protected]> --- (In reply to David Gustafsson from comment #95) > (In reply to Ere Maijala from comment #91) > > If the fields don't belong together, you can always define them alone as is > > currently done in many cases. It's just that you should also be able to say > > that you want 245ab as a whole. > > Sure, I can buy that. But that is not the way the mappings are currently > defined in most places. For example Personal-name is mapped to > "100abcdefghjklmnopqrstvxyz" and would have to be split up into one mapping > for each subfield, like 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d etc, or all the information > will be join into a string that does not make much sense. This will make > search behavior harder to predict, potentially cause unexpected > exact/proximity matches and thus more difficult to optimize. I just realized that splitting up the fields would not make any difference with the Koha-specific implementation, it makes no distinction if subfield mappings are defined together in one mapping or separately. I would guess that it would be much more efficient to introduce concaternation as an exception, with special syntax (as there appears to be only a few mappings that have use for it), and keep default behavior as it is. -- 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/
