Ben,
These records don't have an 880, so would this still help? The subfield is
to link to the Czech national authorities and not an internal link to the
record.
Elaine
J. Elaine Hardy
PINES Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Ste 150
Atlanta,
Eva,
Both |0 and |d are assigned subfields for MARC21 1xx and 7xx fields. |0 is
for authority record control numbers and |d is of course the date. I think
your problem may be that you are using an unassigned subfield for your
authority control numbers, so Evergreen isn’t recognizing the
Hi Elaine,
Yes, this affects regardless of the presence of 880s or not in the
record. The function is part of the process used to determine and
link the 880s if present, but in the process, it grabs all the parts
of the tag except for the subfields that are ignored per the block of
code I
Hi Elaine,
Bens proposal to edit the misc-util.tt2 template was the right solution and
I am sure this will not cause any problem with national authorities - the
field 7 in 1XX and 7XX stays in the record, it is only not handled as a
part of the link to the author (and the search query performed
Interestingly, when you click on the author link in the facet rather than in
the search return list, you do retrieve records.
We are on 2.5.1 and not 2.6 and I have not observed that behavior in our
catalog. However, we don't use |7. I don't know if that is the issue but
suspect that it is.
Hi Elaine,
it is true that the author link in the facet works fine in our catalog.
But the problem is that it is quite confusing for our patrons if they get
no entry when clicking the author link in search results or record details
although the record/s exist/s.
As far as I know, the same
Hi Eva,
I think I see where the problem might be. In
Open-ILS/src/templates/opac/parts/misc_util.tt2, there is a function
at the beginning for get_graphic_880s. Around line 10, there's a
portion that looks like this:
FOR subnode IN node.findnodes('./*[not(contains(w 0 4 5 6 8 9, @code))]');
Hi all,
we had updated our Evergreen to from 2.2 to 2.6 and I discovered the
problem when using the link to author in the search results and record
details. Some subfields (e.g. 7 or d) of fields 100 or 700 are
displayed as a part of the link to author seach in search result or record
details
