Mike,
Thanks for looking into this. Can you or anyone else tell me if I can just
re-declare the two updated stored procedures (see below) and re-ingest the auth
records on my test server to see the code in action? I guess I can just build a
new test VM, but I want to know if I have another option.
Also, I made a mistake in my example when I placed the "Jazz England" auth
record at the bottom. Thanks for catching that Mike.
Yamil
-------------------------
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION authority.normalize_heading( marcxml TEXT,
no_thesaurus BOOL ) RETURNS TEXT AS $func$
DECLARE
acsaf authority.control_set_authority_field%ROWTYPE;
tag_used TEXT;
nfi_used TEXT;
sf TEXT;
sf_node TEXT;
<snip>
END;
$func$ LANGUAGE PLPGSQL IMMUTABLE;
-------
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION authority.simple_heading_set( marcxml TEXT ) RETURNS
SETOF authority.simple_heading AS $func$
DECLARE
res authority.simple_heading%ROWTYPE;
acsaf authority.control_set_authority_field%ROWTYPE;
<snip>
END;
$func$ LANGUAGE PLPGSQL IMMUTABLE;
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Mike Rylander <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, on second thought, I think that bug is fine for this. I'll
> just use that. See:
> http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/collab/miker/authority-sf-file-order
>
> --miker
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Mike Rylander <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The primary cause of the sort order you're seeing is the code at lines
>> 277 through 279 of Open-ILS/src/sql/Pg/011.schema.authority.sql.
>>
>> For each tag that we're going turn into simple heading, primarily for
>> browsing authority records, we look only at the subfields that we've
>> been told to. However, instead of looping over the subfields in
>> record-order, we pull them out of the tag in configuration order.
>> IOW, record order is not preserved for sorting.
>>
>> I think this needs a new bug, since the old one you pointed out has a
>> muddled history, and doesn't call out the problem specifically.
>>
>> The fix for this is relatively straight forward, and I'll see if I can
>> put that together soon.
>>
>> One last thing, however, regarding your cataloger's desired sort
>> order; it would look like the following (note the placement of the
>> "Jazz -- England" line in your desired example):
>>
>> 150 $aJazz
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $y1931-1940
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $y1941-1950
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $zEngland $y1941-1950.
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1921-1930.
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1931-1940.
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1941-1950.
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1921-1930.
>>
>> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1931-1940.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Yamil Suarez <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> My catalogers are confused by how authorities are sorted in the cataloging
>>> "manage authorities" view. I wanted to understand the approach being taken
>>> by the current code, versus what the catalogers are expecting.
>>>
>>>
>>> For example in our EG 2.2 and our now EG 2.4 system if we search for
>>> subject "jazz" the results look something like this (though the sub-field
>>> letters are not displayed)…
>>>
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1921-1930.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1921-1930.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $y1931-1940
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1931-1940.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1931-1940.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $y1941-1950
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zEngland $y1941-1950.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1941-1950.
>>>
>>>
>>> The catalogers would prefer that the sorting should instead look like this….
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $y1931-1940
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $y1941-1950
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1921-1930.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1931-1940.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1941-1950.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1921-1930.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1931-1940.
>>>
>>> 150 $aJazz $zEngland $y1941-1950.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is the way that the authorities searches look like within OCLC
>>> Connexion client when searching the OCLC authority file. I wonder if part
>>> of the confusion is that sometimes authority subfield letters are not sued
>>> in alphabetical order. For example, in these subject authority the subfield
>>> are used in this order $a, $z, $y.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that this old LP bug is referring to this sorting issue.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/781008
>>>
>>> This old bug needs to be re-filed because it combined more than one issue
>>> at a time, and I am just trying to research authority sorting to see if it
>>> should be refiled or turned into a wish-list item, etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Yamil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Rylander
>> | Director of Research and Development
>> | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
>> | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
>> | email: [email protected]
>> | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Rylander
> | Director of Research and Development
> | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
> | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
> | email: [email protected]
> | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
