[Koha-bugs] [Bug 33277] Correctly handle linking subfields with no defined thesaurus

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=33277

--- Comment #22 from Frank Hansen <frank.hansen at ub.lu.se> ---
(In reply to Phil Ringnalda from comment #16)
> I've never seen an authority record for a heading intended to be coded with
> ind2=4, so I don't have a practical opinion. If someone ordered me to create
> one, I would have used 008/11=z and an empty 040$f to say "this is an Other
> thesaurus, but I cannot speak its name." But if Janusz has experience with
> ones using 008/11=| I'm quite happy to defer to experience, and wait to see
> if someone using z objects later.
> 
> (Because I think horrible thoughts, a WhatSubjectThesaurusCodeIsUnknown
> preference came to mind to solve disagreements, but anyone who feels we need
> that really ought to either be forced to write it, or be forced to pay
> someone handsomely for writing it.)

I understand that different countries may have different interpretations of
Library of Congress MARC specifications. And the Library of Congress allows
free interpretation. I'm pretty sure that in Sweden we have our interpretation,
which is also available here:
https://katalogverk.kb.se/katalogisering/Formathandboken/index.html (only in
Swedish). And Sweden are not to decide the format of course. And different
countries may also have different needs.

I would still like to comment on ind2=4. As for us, we treat them as local
subject headings only and they are not included in any thesaurus. Therefore, I
would prefer not to see any authority records for either 008/11=| (or 008/11=n)
in our catalog, even if the format allows it. Here in Sweden, a kind of
transition is made from field 653 for uncontrolled subject headings to using
650 with ind2=4 instead. That's another reason why I don't want to see any
authority records with 008/11=| in our catalog. We are don't autocreate any
authority records in our catalog. Almost all is imported from Netional Library
(Libris).

I also want to comment on 040$f. According to the Swedish cataloguing
guidelines here
https://katalogverk.kb.se/katalogisering/Formathandboken/kallorsystem/index.html
(only in Swedish) 040$f must be filled in if 008/11=z. We in Sweden use many
different thesauruses. In Library of Congress list here,
https://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/subject.html both the Swedish and
Polish are listed. As I understand, 040 is a required field in Koha. However,
040$f is optional. Even though Library of Congress allows for the omission of
040$f, I can't see why it should be omitted, except for convenience. So I
question about allowing to omit 040$f when 008/11=z.

What causes the most trouble for me is, as mentioned earlier, that non-6XX
fields are hardcoded to LCSH. This creates problems for libraries outside the
US, as we typically do not use LCSH names. I wish we could skip thesaurus
search for those fields.

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