[Koha-bugs] [Bug 12477] We need better ways to manage MARC Frameworks

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=12477

--- Comment #10 from Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Jacek Ablewicz from comment #9)
> (In reply to David Cook from comment #8)
> 
> > If a field doesn't appear in the Editor, and it gets re-saved...any fields
> > not appearing in the Editor will be destroyed.
> 
> Does it really work that way for biblos MARC frameworks?? If so, that would
> be a _major_ disaster IMO.
> 

I created a new fw, set hidden = -6 for all subtags. A new record using this fw
will only show those tags/subtags that are mandatory.
Editing an existing record will show any tag/subtag that have a value, even
hidden ones, and on saving no information is loose.

I think that default and sample (or simple) frameworks needs only 3 hidden
values: visible (0), editable but not visible (2), and hidden (5) [visibility
on opac/staff]. (5) could be used for obsoleted/deprecated tags/subtags (e.g.
440), but again you can't hide something in the editor with a value

(-6) is the value I was told to use when adding new tags/subtags, they do not
display on editor (for new) and produce no functional change, but imported
record can show values [opac/staff].

Whichever we use, my thinking is that we need to use a few hidden values as
possible, and default FW needs to show as many tags as possible

Then sample FW could be built by copying default, and _hiding_ (editor) all but
a selected subset of tags. Which subset... I don't care, but it need a certain
rationale behind. Not an universal agreement though.

But if they have all tags/subs then no information will be loose.
That's what we need to ensure

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.