[Koha-bugs] [Bug 33159] Thesaurus is not defined by second indicator for controlled fields outside of 6XX

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=33159

--- Comment #28 from Janusz Kaczmarek <januszop at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Phil Ringnalda from comment #26)
> There is sense in looking for a thesaurus for 100, 700, and 830, because
> they share authority records with 600 and 630. If you don't look for a
> thesaurus to decide between two or more Shakespeare, William authority
> records, then the default linker says "oops, more than one result, no link
> for you" (and worse yet, first match or last match could decide to link to
> the authority record for a subject thesaurus that you could later decide you
> didn't want to use, and when you deleted the authority record you would not
> only delete the subject headings, you would also delete the author headings).

Phil, thank you for your comment.  Maybe what you are saying is true in some
contexts (US?), but in others -- not.  Here is a real authority record for
William Shakespeare from NLPol:
https://dbn.bn.org.pl/descriptor-details/a0000001180305.  You will not find it
in Koha when unnecessarily enriching the query for the main heading with
subject-heading-thesaurus = 'a', because it has nothing to do with LCSH.  If we
really wanted to narrow the query in this case, we should enrich it with
Heading-use-main-or-added-entry = 'a'.  And yes, this auth record it is shared
for the use in 600 (008/15 = 'a'), but the thesaurus is not LCSH but DBN (note,
that it is not explicitly declared in 040 $f, which is correct). 

So even if in some (not all) cases the auth record you are looking for for your
main or added entry (1XX/7XX) was shared with 6XX, from the heading field of
biblio you cannot state what thesaurus is would be.  It is not prudent to
assume that it is definitely a LCSH what is made now. 

> This bug is about making what bug 30280 tried to do actually work, a narrow
> enough scope that is has made it to Passed QA and is ready to land.
> 
> "Bug 30280 shouldn't have mapped ind2=4 to 008/11=n" and "Bug 30280 should
> have treated 008/11=z with no 040$f as a wildcard authority that matches any
> value of $2 when no other authority with a match in 040$f exists" are both
> legitimate other followup bugs (as is "Bug 30280 should have put its new
> behavior behind a preference that defaults to off"), but they aren't part of
> making what it tried to do actually work.

IMHO, if we are trying to fix the problems introduced by Bug 30280, it should
be done with possibly complete and universal set of test data.  Of course one
can always prepare test data that pass the test, but in real life the
application will fail for the people.  Now the linking is not working for some
libraries (before 30280 it was not perfect, but was acceptable in most cases),
and it will still not work after applying this patch.  So what would be the
point to introduce a patch that is known to be problematic, to put it mildly...

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