http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10421 --- Comment #11 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Colin Campbell from comment #10)
In the past I've come across sites whose databases included a fair propotion of records with deleted status in the header, often imported from some external source. I'm wondering why you would flag recs in the koha db as deleted rather than delete them straight out
I decided to do a quick web search on this topic and here is the first thing I stumbled across: "Whether you perform the conversion or we do, consider whether you wish to retain MARC records carrying the delete flag ("d" in Leader/05). You may need to retain these for reporting purposes if your database is part of a union catalog." http://www.itsmarc.com/UpgradingFromITS.asp I imagine that this might be the use case that Katrin was mentioning. -- Perhaps it would be an institutional policy for library techs to mark a record as deleted but only "authorized" librarians are allowed to delete the record? Sort of following along the lines of the ideas mentioned here: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/asktico/procedures/deletion-bibliographic-record -- In the MARC Authority record context, there are actually several different "deleted" flags such as "s" and "x" which have different reasons attached to them. http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adleader.html d - Deleted Used when neither code s nor code x is applicable, or when an organization chooses not to use code s or x. Some level of manual intervention may be needed to effect the change in bibliographic records because the deleted heading may or may not be carried as a 4XX See From Tracing field in other authority records and a 682 field explaining the delete may be present in the record marked for deletion. s - Deleted; heading split into two or more headings Record has been deleted from a file because the heading has been split into two or more headings, requiring a new authority record for each. The heading from the deleted record is included in each of the new authority records as a tracing in a 4XX See From Tracing field. This specialized delete value supports use of automated systems to carry out any necessary reviews, since when a heading is split, a computer cannot automatically replace the old heading in bibliographic records. x - Deleted; heading replaced by another heading Record has been deleted from a file and that a new authority record in which the heading from the deleted record appears as a 4XX See From Tracing field has been added to the file. (In a system where authority control is linked to the bibliographic file, a computer can effect the one-to-one replacement indicated by code x without manual intervention.) Apparently there is also a code "o" for obsolete but not deleted. http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/mergedProjects/helpauth/helpauth/idh_leader_05_au... A person can also use the 682 to provide a reason apparently. http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad682.html Admittedly, the Authority context might not be relevant to this discussion because it talks about automatic/manual updating of Bibliographic records. But if you're deleting Bibliographic records...you wouldn't need to worry about a trickle down effect (except in the case where its linked to another using 7xx linking fields, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). -- In the end...I wonder if it's best to: 1) Not display "deleted" records in the OPAC 2) Have a label saying "deleted" in the staff client 3) Perhaps have a cronjob to clean out "d" records, but only at the behest of a library administrator. It seems that having this cronjob active by default might cause issues if only at a policy level (which is an extremely important level in libraries) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.