[Koha-bugs] [Bug 28201] Add API routes to create biblio record

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28201

Julian Maurice <julian.maurice at biblibre.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|Failed QA                   |In Discussion

--- Comment #14 from Julian Maurice <julian.maurice at biblibre.com> ---
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #4)
> I like where this is going, but I think this needs some more thinking.
> 
> In my opinion:
> - The request body should include the raw record
> - Content/Type should tell the controller how it should handle the raw
> record in terms of serialization format (i.e. application/marcxml+xml,
> application/marc-in-json, etc)
> - The framework should be passed as a header. I propose
> x-koha-cataloguing-fw to ease your work.
> - We still need the 'biblio_metadata.schema' attribute, put it in some
> header as well: x-koha-metadata-schema.

The more I think about this, the more I disagree with it.
The frameworkcode is a property of a biblio record in the same way as the MARC
record. I don't see why it shouldn't be passed with the body. Especially as the
response to GET /biblio/:id already returns the frameworkcode in the response
body.
Actually, I think we should go in the opposite direction and pass the MARC
record inside a "metadata" property. Something like this:

POST /api/v1/biblios

{
  "framework_id": "",
  "metadata": [
    {
      "format": "marcxml",
      "schema": "UNIMARC",
      "metadata": "<record>...</record>"
    }
  ]
}

It's more in line with the database structure.
And we may want to set other columns of biblio or biblioitems (for those that
are not mapped to a MARC subfield)
What do you think ?

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