https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38336
--- Comment #20 from Mathieu Saby <[email protected]> --- Following an discussion with Laurence Rault : maybe we could get rid of 942 and use only 099, or get rid of 099 and use only 942 (by copying the 2 remaining fields in 099 into unused 942 fields, such as 942$A or 942$B). My choice was to keep both, as both are curently defined in default framework. Completely changing the way "Koha" information is managed in UNIMARC records would require a much heavier patch, and would be more complex to test. Maybe we could consider this one as a "fix" (since Koha in UNIMARC out of the box doesn't work properly...), and give ourselves the chance to rethink everything more deeply? In that case, we'd need to seek the opinion not only of the French-speaking UNIMARC community, but also that of other countries (Italy, Portugal, etc.), which could take a long time. The advantage of using 942 would be to simplify documentation and align UNIMARC with MARC21. But perhaps 942 is used by UNIMARC data providers, or for data specific to some union catalogs (in France I can assure it is NOT used by SUDOC union catalog). In that case, using 099 as a default field could be an idea. -- 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/
