Marcel, Thank you for clarifying my understanding. It sounds like Koha will simultaneously pull and display copyright date information from more than one MARC subfield and that's great. What would happen if a MARC record only has, for example, a 264$c and no 260$c? Will Koha throw an error if it encounters scenarios like this? I hope that those questions do not sound stupid.
As far as non-MARC data is concerned, if Koha can pull copyright date from two MARC subfields, then it stands to reason that it could pull the date from two MARC subfields and a Dublin Core field/element, yes? Regards, Christopher Davis Systems & E-Services Librarian Uintah County Library cgda...@uintah.utah.gov (435) 789-0091 <14357890091> ext.261 uintahlibrary.org basinlibraries.org facebook.com/uintahcountylibrary instagram.com/uintahcountylibrary On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Marcel de Rooy <m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote: > > Thank you for seeking input from the Koha Community before making this > decision. > > Thanks for responding :) > > > > If I understand your message correctly, you are saying that if the > "Default" MARC framework has kohafield mappings which are configured to > pull copyright date from MARC 260$c *and* MARC 264$c, and if Koha sometimes > only "asks" for the kohafield mapping codes from the "Default" MARC > framework, then why rewrite the code to pull kohafield mappings from MARC > frameworks other than "Default" if the mappings of the other frameworks are > identical to "Default's" mappings (i.e., MARC 260$c *and* MARC 264$c). Is > this correct? > > > Not sure if you fully got my point. I propose to always check kohafield > mappings from Default, and at the same time keep kohafield in all > frameworks in sync. This requires some code changes of course. New would be > that a kohafield may have two mappings. This approach would make Koha more > consistent, since it currently is somewhat ambiguous in this regard (also > partly as a result of having no frameworkcode in indexed records). > > > In answer to your question, I think that prudence demands that we > rewrite the code. For example, if the records with MARC framework "A" were > cataloged according to AACR2 standards (copyright recorded in MARC 260$c) > and the records using framework "B" were according to RDA (copyright in > 264$c), then a code rewrite would be necessary. My library has both AACR2 > MARC records and RDA MARC records, so, for the time being, as long as Koha > can displays the copyright information from both MARC 260$c *and* 264$c, > I'm happy. When the day comes, however, when Koha will finally index > non-MARC metadata records such as Dublin Core and BIBFRAME, It would be > wise to have the code always "ask" for what bibliographic framework a > record uses. > > We agree on the need for code changes. They are inspired by the fact that > we want to show copyrightdate from both 260 and 264. Since this is all > about Koha to MARC and vice versa, indexing other data is out of scope. But > surely, it needs proper attention in the future. > > Marcel > > _______________________________________________ > Koha-devel mailing list > Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org > http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel > website : http://www.koha-community.org/ > git : http://git.koha-community.org/ > bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/ >
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
