Hi Marcel and Christopher,

maybe to explain this a bit more, Koha will already display all the information from 260 and 264 in the detail view and result lists, because in those views the full MARC record is used as the source for the displayed information.


There are other, brief views, that pull information from the columns in the biblio and biblioitems tables only. The mappings define, how these columns are filled with information. For example the default mapping for copyrightdate is 260 at the moment. An example for a 'brief' view would be the list of records in the cart, or the information shown in the acquisitions module.

Christopher got me thinking: For 260 and 264 are repeatable, as a side effect of cataloguing rule changes, they might even appear both in a record (even if they shouldn't). Which year will be given priority? For display purposes in the brief views, only one year should be displayed.

I agree with the idea of making the mapping on the default framework the standard to use for all MARC records. If we support other formats at some point, we could add a default BIBFRAME or default Dublin Core mapping maybe?

Katrin



On 09.08.2017 16:05, Christopher Davis wrote:
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 <mailto:cgda...@uintah.utah.gov>
(435) 789-0091 <tel:14357890091> ext.261
uintahlibrary.org <http://uintahlibrary.org>
basinlibraries.org <http://basinlibraries.org>
facebook.com/uintahcountylibrary <http://facebook.com/uintahcountylibrary>
instagram.com/uintahcountylibrary <http://instagram.com/uintahcountylibrary>


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Marcel de Rooy <m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl <mailto: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
    <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>
    http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
    <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/
    <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/

_______________________________________________
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/

Reply via email to