On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Yamil Suarez <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
That would be a great test. Just make sure that you enable the force_on_same_marc internal flag. > Also, I made a mistake in my example when I placed the "Jazz England" auth > record at the bottom. Thanks for catching that Mike. > Good. I'm glad we were on the same page all along! --miker > 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 > -- 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
