https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24544
--- Comment #20 from Marcel de Rooy <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #19) > I was trying to follow the discussion here a bit, if I understand correctly, > the difference between the PID and the fields you list would be that the PID > is supposed to be exported via Z39.50/SRU etc. - so if not included in the > MARC file, it would make things much more complicated? Thx for asking. For me frameworkcode or metadata format are quite different from the persistent identifier. The frameworkcode is bound to the MARC view/representation. Which may not stay the only view. The reason we made metadata format. That field is repeatable and belongs to the corresponding view. The PID on the other hand is a unique identifier that does not belong to a particular view but imo c/should be shown in each view. MARC21 and UNIMARC also added fields for such identifiers (auth 024, unimarc 003, etc.) Although we could save the field outside MARC and just copy it in at export time or display time, I dont mind adding it in MARC as a technical optimization. See comment18. Strict formally, the PID has been generated outside Koha and can be dereferenced outside Koha. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ 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/
