https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18309 --- Comment #23 from François Pichenot <fpichenot@ville-roubaix.fr> --- Hi Laurent, Thank you very much and sorry for the late reply...
009 ARK perennial identifier of the record [obsolete since version 2007] ARK = Archival Resource Key / This is a Bnf Specific Zone . See ARK specifications: http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/arkspec.pdf [accessed October 10, 2006] ex: 009http: //catalogue.bnf.fr/ark: / 12148 / cb375475483 BnF doesn't use 009 anymore (since 2016, see http://www.bnf.fr/documents/unimarc_b_recap_modif.pdf p.6). But 009 seems to be useful to store Sudoc PPN (as 035 is a repeatable field), so I added it.
Add the following subfield: $ 010 9 which is a field put forward by the ABES as part of the Sudoc network. The information of Sudoc is the following UNIMARC / Bibliographic Field 010: export of subfield $ 9 (repeatable): "ISBN of a serial delivery" This Sudoc-specific subfield is likely to be present in periodical records. It contains the ISBN of a periodical delivery > when it is processed in the Sudoc in the collector's state under the note of the periodical concerned. OK
Block 181 except that the $ 181 a must be repeatable OK
Block 183 = 183 $ P sub-field specific to ABES and Sudoc network 183 $P doesn't appear in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Form...)
183 $ 8 under IFLA specific field obviously missing OK
Block 219 = OK but specific to Sudoc of ABES; This field is included in BnF exchange format (see http://www.bnf.fr/documents/unimarc_b_recap_modif.pdf p22) but not appears in Sudoc exchange format. So I correct the field tag.
Attention misses $ 219 $ 6 and $ 7, under fields reserved for cataloging documents with non-Latin characters. Also note that $ 219 $ P $ r $ s and $ 6 and $ 7 are non-repeatable subfields (to be corrected) This is not included in an exchange format.
Block 231 new since 2017: does not exist at Bnf and ABES Sudoc All sub fields are repeatable so correct OK
Block 283 new since 2017: does not exist at BnF and ABES Sudoc Lack $ 8Material specific, repeatable OK
Bloc 338 new 2017: does not exist at BnF and ABES Sudoc Be careful and correct: $ b, $ c and $ e are repeatable! OK
Block 915 specific to ABES Sudoc Be careful the $ a and $ b are repeatable (to correct) OK
Block 916 no longer exists at ABES Sudoc (to be deleted? if it do not exist in IFLA) Are you sure ? 916 still appears in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Form... p.71)
Bloc 918 specific to the BNF Are you sure ? 918 still appears in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Form... p.71)
Field 930 Missing subfield $ j "PEB code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / non-repeatable Missing subfield $ v "Copy status code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / non-repeatable Missing subfield $ Z "Shared Conservation Plan Code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / Repeatable Missing the subfield $ p "Conservation pole or associated pole in the context of a PCPP" that is specific to the ABES Sudoc / non-repeatable OK
Add the entire block 931 (Sudoc block of the abes) that is missing in the document is $ 5, $ 2, $ a, $ b, $ c, $ d, $ e, $ g, $ h, $ i, $ l, $ v / all are non-repeatable / for labels see http://documentation.abes.fr/sudoc/formats/loc/zones/931.htm OK
This comment deals with the 932 that was proposed to delete Why remove the 932 zone that seems useful for the ABES (sudoc) This field is not included in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Form...)
All block 955 (used by ABES sudoc) is to be reviewed because it lacks subfields like this: $ =, $ 0, $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4, Field conformed to Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Form... p72)
Block 956 Field conformed to Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Form... p72)
Block 957 All block 957 (used by Sudoc of ABES) is to be reviewed because it lacks subfields like this: $ -, $ 0, $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4, $ 7, $ n, $ p, $ q / them $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4 and $ 7 are non-repeatable unlike others Remove $ h, $ i, $ j, $ r, $ w, and $ z http://documentation.abes.fr/sudoc/formats/loc/zones/957.htm Field conformed to
*Commentary 16 Block 958 = OK
Bloc 959 has just been added by Sudoc ABES Any good but addition of a $ r that does not exist at the level of the ABES? 959 $r occurs in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Form...)
Not found the 987 where does it come from? BnF exchange format : http://www.bnf.fr/documents/UNIMARC(B)_conversion.pdf p.59
Block 990 $ has repeatable! OK
Block 991 All good except $ b and $ c repeatable OK
-- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.