https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603
--- Comment #9 from David Cook <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Magnus Enger from comment #6) > (In reply to David Cook from comment #5) > > But in any case... I think there's a difference between the Koha 001 and > > 003... and the original 001 and 003. > > Could you expand on this? I thought Koha left these alone, pretty much? > It does but it shouldn't 🤣. > > However, how likely is it for source MARC data to have the 001 and 003 > > properly filled out? > > In the case of Sweden and Norway: very. And I bet the Germans do it properly > too? I'm sure that's true, but I suppose I'm thinking about all the libraries (like all the ones I support) that don't use it. But I suppose if it's unused that doesn't really create a problem. And if the database columns were there, maybe we would more highly recommend them to use the 001 and 003... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://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/
