https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=40119 --- Comment #7 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Janusz Kaczmarek from comment #6)
1) From https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad008.html, section 008/11 = 'z': "A MARC code for the conventions used to formulate the heading *may* be contained in subfield $f (Subject heading/thesaurus conventions) in field 040 (Cataloging Source)". "May" means, IMO, that it is legal to have 008/11 = 'z' and no 040 $f.
Agreed.
2) 008/11 = 'z' in authority implies 2nd ind. = '7' in linked 6XX fields in bibliographic record. And 2nd ind. = '7' implies the presence of $s subfield. (From https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd600.html: " 7 - Source specified in subfield $2 / Subject added entry conforms to a set of subject heading system/thesaurus building rules. The identifying code is given in subfield $2."
You would indeed expect a code there, reading this. Since they could have written "may contain" otherwise.. But that is already interpretation..
3) I agree that removing 040 $f from an authority record while leaving 008/11 = 'z' creates a fuzzy situation but IMO the best heuristics is just to retain the old value of $2 in linked biblios. For now, I cannot think of a better choice... What could we do else? (If one puts later a new value in auth 040 $f or changes 008/11, the 6XX $2 will be updated or removed accordingly.)
The only other choice is removing. But maybe keeping is a bit better. You could still force removal by playing with the auth values as you mention.
4) A real world example of authority records with 008/11 = 'z' and no 040 $f linked to bibliographic 6XX with 2nd ind. '7' and subfield $2 is the Polish NB bibliographic data: note fields 6XX in https://data.bn.org.pl/api/institutions/bibs.marcxml?id=b1000003108650 vs. example authority record for 'Graficy holenderscy': https://data.bn.org.pl/api/institutions/authorities.marcxml?id=a000000228425...
OK Will PQA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.