[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 #34 from Nick Clemens <nick at bywatersolutions.com> ---
(In reply to Janusz Kaczmarek from comment #31)
> (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #26)
> I understand your explanation about hardcoding Subject-heading-thesaurus
> but, to be sincere, I do not share this argument.  Firstly, in Zebra also we
> have the definitions in the configuration file--if somebody changes there
> something he/she shouldn't, its his/her fault.  And secondly, which is IMHO
> more important, shall we than, in the next step, hardcode also
> Heading-use-main-or-added-entry for 008/14, Heading-use-series-added-entry
> for 008/16, Heading-use-subject-added-entry for 008/15 when we will be
> wanting to narrow the search for linking even more specifically (which
> should definitely be done at some point)?  So, I am still not convinced if
> it is the right idea...

I would suggest we hardcode the new fields if needed for linking. Linking is an
internal process that shouldn't be adjusted by the user. Rather than allow them
to break the system, let us save them :-)

Zebra can technically be adjusted by the end user, however, ES allows direct
updating via the interface. The intention of allowing the user access, IMHO, is
to allow them to adjust searching for their needs. Adjusting internal processes
isn't something we need to provide access to. The same MARC fields can be
indexed into another field if the user needs them for searching. Authority
searching doesn't use or provide these fields either, so allowing to be user
adjusted only allows linking to break.

Happy to continue that discussion, but I think we can address it wholesale on
another bug.

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