https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40300
--- Comment #15 from cgresser <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Alexander Wagner from comment #14) > (In reply to cgresser from comment #13) > > > At the moment Koha seems to fix globally punctuation "problems" which are > > not a problem for a cataloguer who does use Marc21 rules! I had previously > [...] > > If the record is AACR2 > > as opposed to RDA, then I believe that every 300 field should end in a > > full-stop. Always! > > I think this is one of the examples where you could not (easily) do the > punctuation automatically in general. It's a bit along my argument: I > perfectly agree that IT people would have written cataloguing rules > differently, but as you say, they are as they are. Thank you for backing me up on this one, and hopefully you having explained his better than me. If a human being creates catalogue records they might (!) have used the right syntax/punctuation/coding in the Marc record. At least that is a likely possibility, as opposed to Koha believing that the punctuation has to be a certain way, and changing punctuation globally, not in a case by case/record by record basis. > > [the full-stop removal is less of an issue, as most > > people looking at our records do not know what should be there, but it is a > > point in case for Koha globally changing the display of records it doesn't > > understand the full syntax of!) > > IMHO _in general_ one _can't_. There are too many exceptions. Sometimes, > it's hard for me to get cataloguing and rules into one sentence. In some > areas it sounds more like a list of exceptions. Like German grammar ;) I agree that globally changing punctuation in records which might or might have the correct punctuation is impossible. > > I love KOHA a lot, but for Koha globally to chop punctuation off for end of > [...] > > adding things (the semi-colon), where we human beings do a good job of > > following syntax. This doesn't make sense. > > I'd see a few more nuances here. In Marc there _is_ actually a mechanism to > tell if you should add punctuation or not on a per record level. This is > said leader (cf. https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdleader.html): > > 18 - Descriptive cataloging form > # - Non-ISBD > a - AACR 2 > c - ISBD punctuation omitted > i - ISBD punctuation included > n - Non-ISBD punctuation omitted > u - Unknown > > I would argue, that if you set the leader 18 to `c` or `n` explicitly, then > you as a cataloguer say: "I don't bother about punctuation. Dear computer do > it for me as best you can." And it's your cataloguers conscious decision. > So, IMHO in these cases Koha should try as best as it can to add punctuation. That's a good point. I would never have thought of this! We only ever use a or i - in both cases punctuation _is_ included in our records (I'm aware that some libraries omitt [m]any bits of punctuation, and we add punctuation when we importa such records). Koha shouldn't try to fix the punctuation in records, even if some records don't have the correct punctuation, as a lot _will_ have the right punctuation. > OTOH, it's better to leave the stuff _as is_ as our cataloguer told the > system "don't touch the punctuation, I already did it". Yes! > And if the display is still wrong IMHO it's time to _fix the record_. (By > setting the leader appropriately and/or fixing the punctuation.) Indeed. > > If some Marc data has "mistakes" in them, either a diligent human being > > needs to deal with them individually, or if desired with a global change for > > _their_ catalogue/data. > > The Marc-approach seems to me even better than a global default as it is on > the _per record_ level. This would be very helpful. > E.g. one may ingest data from various sources via Z39.50, SRU, harvesting > etc. So it may well happen that the source systems approach to punctuation > differs. I learned that the union catalogue we use as our main source adds > punctuation automatically so "non in the record" all the time, while my > impression is that LoC _adds_ the punctuation to the records "all the time". OCLC's data also adds a lot of stuff automatically, which then the cataloguer can review (thinking of my Library's most-common approach: individual records and physical books, rather than a bundle of records in one go); I'm aware that a lot of libraries get, say, ebook packages, and then the records in big bundle of records. However, if such a bundle shows signs of missing (or unwanted punctuation), it would make more sense for this imported data to be changed, according to local needs, forcing a certain idea of punctuation onto all Koha Marc records. > Now we ingest from LoC if our union catalogue can't deliver => in general I > end up with per record rules wrt punctuation. Without obeying the leader my > fellow colleagues have to check punctuation in every record and fix it in > every other or so. So, I think it would be nice to follow the data and act > accordingly. Yes, I like the idea of, and phrase of "follow the data and act accordingly". To me it seems to be the sound and common sense thing to do. I don't think Koha is doing this, and then some punctuation gets globally removed, and others automatically added. Not great. Hopefully, someone else will agree with us, and Koha's global response with regard to punctuation on Marc records can be reviewed. If someone wants to have this punctuation approach applied globally to all their data they should really have to switch it on, as an option, not for every Koha instance to use this. -- 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/
