[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 Heather changed: What|Removed |Added CC||heather_hernan...@nps.gov -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #10 from David Cook --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #8) > Hm, using ExtractValue is slow, especially on big databases. As Magnus says > in lot of use cases a quick access to 001 and 003 for matching is really > helpful. We have started to map the biblioitems.ean to 001 for use in > reports etc. as the 001 is so important to us. The column is indexed and not > mapped by default in MARC21 - but it remains a bit of a workaround and I'd > be happy about a real controlnumber column. Hmm, ok, I think I'm convinced. We're still living in a MARC centric world, so there's no reason not to add it. And I doubt Koha will ever use the 001 instead of the 999$c, so even if it isn't ideal from a MARC perspective, it does seem like a practical move. I know I hate using ExtractValue in databases in the hundreds of thousands or millions of records O_O. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #9 from David Cook --- (In reply to Magnus Enger from comment #6) > (In reply to David Cook from comment #5) > > But in any case... I think there's a difference between the Koha 001 and > > 003... and the original 001 and 003. > > Could you expand on this? I thought Koha left these alone, pretty much? > It does but it shouldn't 藍. > > However, how likely is it for source MARC data to have the 001 and 003 > > properly filled out? > > In the case of Sweden and Norway: very. And I bet the Germans do it properly > too? I'm sure that's true, but I suppose I'm thinking about all the libraries (like all the ones I support) that don't use it. But I suppose if it's unused that doesn't really create a problem. And if the database columns were there, maybe we would more highly recommend them to use the 001 and 003... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #8 from Katrin Fischer --- Hm, using ExtractValue is slow, especially on big databases. As Magnus says in lot of use cases a quick access to 001 and 003 for matching is really helpful. We have started to map the biblioitems.ean to 001 for use in reports etc. as the 001 is so important to us. The column is indexed and not mapped by default in MARC21 - but it remains a bit of a workaround and I'd be happy about a real controlnumber column. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 Hans Pålsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hans.pals...@hkr.se -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #7 from Katrin Fischer --- > > However, how likely is it for source MARC data to have the 001 and 003 > > properly filled out? > > In the case of Sweden and Norway: very. And I bet the Germans do it properly > too? For libraries participating in a union catalog (a lot) 001 and 003 will be filled out. A lot of libraries not participating still use records from union catalogs in their cataloguing, so there is probably a high percentage there as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #6 from Magnus Enger --- (In reply to David Cook from comment #5) > But in any case... I think there's a difference between the Koha 001 and > 003... and the original 001 and 003. Could you expand on this? I thought Koha left these alone, pretty much? > However, how likely is it for source MARC data to have the 001 and 003 > properly filled out? In the case of Sweden and Norway: very. And I bet the Germans do it properly too? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #5 from David Cook --- But in any case... I think there's a difference between the Koha 001 and 003... and the original 001 and 003. I think we abuse the 001 and 003 in Koha, and I'm not sure we should develop functionality to further entrench that abuse. But I would be interested in a table that tracks record imports better, so that it would be easier to find a local Koha identifier (ie biblionumber / 999$c) that was created during an import using the 001 and 003 (or OAI-PMH identifier and baseUrl). However, how likely is it for source MARC data to have the 001 and 003 properly filled out? Looks like import_biblios has a control_number field, but cleanup_database.pl deletes all the records from the import_* tables periodically, so that's not useful. Anyway, I'll stop spamming now. I think that I'm probably just being too idealistic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #4 from David Cook --- I'm trying to think how we could do this in a more extensible way... and I might have an idea. MARC: 001 - Control Number 003 - Control Number Identifier 005 - Date and Time of Latest Transaction OAI-PMH: identifier baseURL datestamp These two schemas actually overlap pretty much perfectly, and those are the 3 criteria I use when I'm matching for my OAI-PMH imports. It's basically a record number, a record origin, and a last modified date. When matching, if the record number and origin match and the inbound record is newer, update the record. Easy. Thinking about other metadata schemas... - Unqualified Dublin Core wouldn't fit that pattern, but that's partially because it's too simplistic of a schema. Qualified Dublin Core could. - I don't know BIBFRAME well enough. Looking at https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/implementation/register.html, I see a bf:changeDate. I suppose maybe their "Control Number Identifier" or "baseURL" could be empty since the BIBFRAME URI should be globally unique. Although BIBFRAME is just a whole other ball game anyway... -MODS has a recordIdentifier for 001, and recordIdentifier "source" attribute for 003, and recordChangeDate for 005... I suppose the reality is that we just support MARC for the time being, and we have no idea what a post-MARC world will actually look like, so maybe we should just develop against a MARC world. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 --- Comment #3 from David Cook --- (In reply to Magnus Enger from comment #0) > Koha itself does not care too much about these fields, but sometimes they > are used when importing/syncing in records from external sources, and then > it can be work intensive to match on WHERE ExtractValue( > metadata,\'//controlfield[@tag="001"]\' ). This would be much easier if the > 001 and 003 fields from the record had their own database columns we could > match on. > > Similar to: Bug 11529 - Add subtitle, medium and part fields to biblio table I'm trying to wrap my head around how we'd do this in practice. In theory, Koha should be resetting the 001 and 003, but it doesn't do that currently. I guess you'd be relying on that? Trying to match off the original 001 and 003 to improve the ease of matching records from external sources. I can see the logic there for sure. Personally, I wish that we'd move the 001 and 003 to the 035 during import, although that would present its own matching problems, plus the 035 is a repeatable field. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 David Cook changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dc...@prosentient.com.au --- Comment #2 from David Cook --- (In reply to Andreas Jonsson from comment #1) > It would be nice to have one table for control fields and one table for > data-fields. I don't think that's ever going to happen, as we're (slowly) trying to get away from MARC. > We could make it configurable which fields that should be > indexed in these tables if storage space would be an issue. We wouldn't make the database schema configurable, and it would be the database indexing that would be valuable here. Indexing database columns for identifiers like 001 and 003 would be very reasonable though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
[Koha-bugs] [Bug 25603] Add 001 and 003 to biblio table
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=25603 Andreas Jonsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andreas.jons...@kreablo.se --- Comment #1 from Andreas Jonsson --- It would be nice to have one table for control fields and one table for data-fields. We could make it configurable which fields that should be indexed in these tables if storage space would be an issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
