[Koha-patches] Bug 5128 [3.2] To define default 9xx fields for Unimarc

[Zeno Tajoli]

  Hi Galen,

Il 06/10/2010 14:29, Galen Charlton ha scritto:
> I have a question about one of the changes to record.abs:
>
> -melm 995$h             ccode,item
> ...
> +melm 995$8             ccode,item
>
> Would this not break indexing of the ccode for existing UNIMARC users?
>

I think no. Why?

1) A 995 subfield for ccode (for Unimarc setup) is a new thing in 3.2. A 
value for items.ccode is not present in file record.abs of 3.0.6

2)In 3.2 the en SQL Unimarc definition for items.ccode is 995$8
file 
../installer/data/mysql/en/marcflavour/unimarc/mandatory/unimarc_framework_DEFAULT.sql
line 182: ('995', '8', 'Koha collection', 'Koha collection', 0, 0, 
'items.ccode', 10, 'CCODE', '', '', 0, 0, '', '', '', NULL),

3)In 3.2 all fr SQL Unimarc defintions use 995$h for "code à barres, 
incrémentation"
All french SQL definitions don't setup a subfield for items.ccode
file 
..installer/data/mysql/fr-FR/marcflavour/unimarc_complet/Obligatoire/framework_DEFAULT.sql
line 2023: ('995', 'h', 'code à barres, incrémentation', '', 0, 0, '', 
-1, '', '', '', NULL, 0, '', NULL, NULL, ''),

3b)In 3.2 all fr SQL Unimarc defintions don't use 995$8

4)In my wiki proposal of 995 for 3.2 Unimarc 
<http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Holdings_data_fields_%289xx%29>
    I inserted 995$8 for items.ccode.

So I think we can use 995$8 for items.ccode and connect index.

Bye





-- 
Zeno Tajoli
CILEA - Segrate (MI)
tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it
(Indirizzo mascherato anti-spam; sostituisci qaunto tra AT con @)