[Koha-bugs] [Bug 30280] Koha does not currently support authority records with common subject headings from different thesaurus

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=30280

--- Comment #15 from Frank Hansen <frank.hansen at ub.lu.se> ---
Hi, (In reply to Sarah Cornell from comment #14)
> We are using multiple thesauruses as well and would like the linker to be
> able to distinguish between them too.  Here is a typical example:
> 
> 600 1 0 ‡aGammage, Jeff.‡0n 2007005947‡9104714
> 650 _ 0 ‡aAdoptive parents‡vBiography.‡0sh 92003241 
> 650 _ 0 ‡aIntercountry adoption‡zChina.‡0sh 85067220 
> 650 _ 0 ‡aIntercountry adoption‡zUnited States.‡0sh2008104783‡9227784
> 650 _ 7 ‡aAdoptive parents.‡2homoit‡0homoit0000010‡9218151
> 
> We would like the linker to consider the 6XX$0 field and the 6XX$2 field
> when it selects the authority record for the 6XX$9 link.  The 6XX0 field
> matches with either the 010 (LC headings) or the 024 (other thesauruses). 
> Using the 6XX$0 to match would also make it possible for the linker to find
> the match for compound headings, which you can see it doesn't find for two
> of the 6XXs in my example.

I understand your point. In Bug 17511 there is a discussion whether to move the
AuthId link field from $9 to $0 or not. But there is a comment that $0 is a
complex field. And the discussion seems to have died after that.

$0 is complex because it is repeatable and its content may have different
meanings. It may even contain URI:s. We have such situation in our catalog as
well. Here is an example:

=650  \7$aFeminism$0https://id.kb.se/term/sao/Feminism$2sao$0144892$94353
=650  \7$afeminism$2bnb$0144892$9216319
=650  \0$aFeminism$9216318

The first heading referring to the sao thesaurus. There are two occurences of
the $0 subfield. The first one consist of a URI and the the second one is the
ID of the authority record in the Royal Library catalog.

The second heading referring to the BNB thesaurus with one occurence of the $0
subfield which, i guess is the ID of the authority record in the BNB thesaurus
system.

The last heading is our LC authority record.

When I viewed the code I couldn't see I understand your point. In Bug 17511
there is a discussion whether to move the AuthId link field from $9 to $0 or
not. But there is a comment that $0 is complex. The discussion almost died
after this comment. It is complex partly because subfield $0 is a repeatable
field and may contain other ID:s with a different meaning and partly because it
also may contain URI:s. We have such situation in our catalog as well. Here is
an example taken from our catalog:

=650  \7$aFeminism$0https://id.kb.se/term/sao/Feminism$2sao$0144892$94353
=650  \7$afeminism$2bnb$0144892$9216319
=650  \0$aFeminism$9216318

The first heading referring to the sao thesaurus. There are two occurences of
the $0 subfield. The first one consist of a URI and the the second one is the
ID to the actual authority record at the Royal library.

The second heading referring to the BNB thesaurus with one occurence of the $0
subfield which probably is a ID from the BNB thesaurus system.

The last heading is our LC authority record.

I know that the LC field 010$az is an indexed field and can certainly be used
to duplication control. But i'm not sure if it is doable to distinguish between
LC records based on the 6XX$0 field.

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