[Koha-bugs] [Bug 18265] Should biblio_metadata.biblionumber be biblioitemnumber instead?

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265

David Cook <dcook at prosentient.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dcook at prosentient.com.au

--- Comment #19 from David Cook <dcook at prosentient.com.au> ---
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #18)
> I believe we have been more and more standardizing on biblionumber and this
> also applies to biblio_metadata. I feel the current schema is correct.
> 
> Any vetos to closing this?

I get where Olli-Antti was coming from and overall is probably right in theory
but I don't think it was a practical approach.

Looking at the BIBFRAME 2.0 model
(https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/bibframe2-model.html) it looks like it could
be worthwhile keeping the "biblio", "biblioitems", "items" tables separate as
those could evolve into "works", "instances", "items"...

I suppose a MARC expression of the BIBFRAME 2.0 format would merge together all
3 of those with the instance being the central piece of the puzzle. 

But that's not really how Koha works at this point. I think we would need some
collective talks and agreements about future directions if we wanted to really
adopt the WMI model used by BIBFRAME 2.0. 

--

In other words, I'm not sure if we're ready to close this one yet... but I
don't know that I see it moving forward anytime soon either...

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