https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=24544 --- Comment #17 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #15)
What is the right moment for a biblio record to receive a persistent identifier btw? Thinking about local procedures around acquisition etc.
The choice in this patch set is still influenced by the partial/meta resolving (see former comments). A replace by Z3950/SRU might result in two PIDs in the authoritative table and one local copy (the newest) in Koha.
That's an interesting question. In my mind, a biblionumber represents a conceptual metadata entity. While the actual metadata can change, that entity is tied to the point in time that the biblionumber is created. While we use the MySQL/MariaDB autonumber for that at the moment, in theory we could use a UUID or some other generated number (like we do for the item barcode rather than the item number). For me, the MARCXML isn't the bibliographic record, but rather a view of it. In the future, that bibliographic record might have a RDF/XML view as well. They're both describing the same bibliographic entity, and that entity is the thing that should have the PID. After all, HTML, MARCXML, RDF/XML, they're just different content types available via content negotiation, right? The replacement by Z3950/SRU is interesting. If we had versioned records, it might make sense to have a PID per version I suppose... It could be interesting to see how DSpace manages this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.