Stephen, The lines of psuedo-MARC that you added are physically different from the lines under discussion, and represent a separate and different data set. More specifically, yours have the temporal subdivisions placed /before/ the geographic subdivisions, and (with the patch under discussion applied) would sort in the way you want. And Yamil's (geographic-first) will also do what he wants.
--miker On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Elfstrand, Stephen F <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Re the sort. OCLC sorts in the way you describe? That is odd because > > 150 $aJazz $zFrance $zParis $y1921-1930. Is a subset of > > 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930 > > > The sort order that is the most logical at least to me is > > 150 $aJazz > > 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930 > > 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930 $zFrance $zParis > > 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930 $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia. > > 150 $aJazz $y1931-1940 > > 150 $aJazz $y1931-1940 $zFrance $zParis . > > 150 $aJazz $y1931-1940 $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia. > > 150 $aJazz $y1941-1950 > > 150 $aJazz $y1941-1950 $zEngland. > > 150 $aJazz $y1941-1950 $zFrance $zParis . > > Stephen Elfstrand > PALS > > [Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:16:43 -0400 > From: Yamil Suarez <[email protected]> > Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] What are authorities sorted in the cataloging > "manage authorities" view? > To: Development Evergreen list > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:57:06 -0400 > From: Dan Scott <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] What are authorities sorted in the > cataloging "manage authorities" view? > To: Evergreen Development Discussion List > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 05:16:43PM -0400, Yamil Suarez 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. > > The code in authority_tag_sf_browse() in OpenILS/Application/SuperCat.pm is > sorting purely by the value of the subfield that was being searched; other > subfields currently play no actual role in the sorting. (That is, if the > code hasn't changed significantly over the past couple of years). > > In addition, the examples you gave are great, but they're missing the 4xx / > 5xx fields which can also play a role in the sorting, as you might get a > match for a 4xx "see from" or 5xx "see also" field, per > http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad400.html. > > For example, if you searched for "Singh, Bhagat", you might be surprised to > see "Bhagata Si" appearing apparently out of order. However, the idea was > that if you displayed the pertinent fields for the hit, you would see that > it was a "see from" reference and you would select the authorized result. > Obviously there's lots of improvement that could go into the UI for this... > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:21:28 -0400 > From: Mike Rylander <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] What are authorities sorted in the > cataloging "manage authorities" view? > To: Evergreen Development Discussion List > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <CAO8ar=kcad-qlmuvskmc32kucnzutsnhr3j6yvd18kywvbu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:13:32 -0400 > From: Mike Rylander <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] What are authorities sorted in the > cataloging "manage authorities" view? > To: Evergreen Development Discussion List > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <CAO8ar=kz1-nwamkqyrsks8wq9b2oraxtvrswxu9ehyhpn3j...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > 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 > > > End of Open-ils-dev Digest, Vol 87, Issue 12 > ******************************************** > -- 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
