https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcook@prosentient.com.au --- Comment #19 from David Cook <dcook@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.