https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20194 David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcook@prosentient.com.au --- Comment #20 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #17)
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #16)
(In reply to Julian Maurice from comment #15)
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #12)
I am not sure about the terminology of using Record type - this is still an itemtype, just from a different level. I think it gives a wrong idea of the usage.
Is "Record-level item type" better ?
I like it better, but a native speaker would probably be helpful :)
That makes sense to me, that is how we refer to it
As a native English-speaking librarian, biblioitems.itemtype makes me crazy. I usually say "Bib-level item type" or "Bibliographic-level item type", and then wish that biblioitems.itemtype will be removed from Koha, since "Bib-level item type" is a paradox. The concept makes no sense in a library, and I've had a lot of confused librarians ask me about it over the years. But... I'm sure that it's not going away any time soon. "Record-level item type" doesn't make sense in libraries, but I think it's probably a good enough technical description. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.