http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11119 Bug ID: 11119 Summary: Silent zebra in UNIMARC Change sponsored?: --- Product: Koha Version: master Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: Searching Assignee: paul.poulain@biblibre.com Reporter: paul.poulain@biblibre.com QA Contact: testopia@bugs.koha-community.org In UNIMARC configuration, there are some complaints from Zebra about non existing indexes:
21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'UPC' not found in attset(s) 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Serials' not found in attset(s) 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Printed-music' not found in attset(s) 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Electronic-ressource' not found in attset(s) 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Title-host' not found in attset(s) 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'title-host' not found in attset(s) 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'lcn' not found in attset(s)
Those indexes should either be removed from record.abs or created into bib1.att/ccl.properties Mathieu suggested the following options, that are worth being followed: I think I would try this : *** UPC : melm 072$a UPC:w,Identifier-standard:w melm 072$z UPC:w,Identifier-standard:w In MARC21, it is in 024, alongside other identifiers (the indicator of the fields precise the nature of the identifier, but of course record.abs cannot take that into consideration...) So UPC is only defined in UNIMARC, whereas it is an id kind of EAN, used mainly in the USA and Canada, MARC21 countries. That's not logical. This index is useless for UNIMARC ppl, especially if it is not working well. => my proposition: get rid of UPC in UNIMARC conf files and index 072 in "Identifier-standard" and in ccl.properties If marc21 ppl want to index this in their DOM conf file, they will create the propoer custom definition in ccl and bib1.att. *** Serials and Printed-music melm 207 Serials,Serials:p melm 208 Printed-music,Printed-music:p 207 field is equivalent to 362 field in MARC21 208 field is equivalent to 254 field in MARC21 http://www.loc.gov/marc/unimarctomarc21_2xx5xx.pdf Both are not indexed in MARC21, so maybe the information is not really important. BNF sites give some examples http://multimedia.bnf.fr/unimarcb_trad/B207-6-2010.pdf "Cette zone contient les numéros de la première et de la dernière livraison de la ressource continue et/ou les dates que couvrent ces livraisons quand ces numéros et ces dates sont connus." Ex : "Vol. 1, no. 1 (1 Apr. 1946)-vol. 26, no. 195 (10 Oct.1972) = no. 1-no. 6943 " => for me, this field should NOT BE indexed in any way! http://multimedia.bnf.fr/unimarcb_trad/B208-6-2010.pdf "Cette zone contient une mention, transcrite à partir de la ressource, relative à la présentation particulière d'une ressource musicale imprimée ou manuscrite. " Ex : "Partition de poche" Maybe it can be usefull, and I did not find declarations for that in ccl or bib1, so let's create a custom one, OR maybe index it in notes. *** Electronic-ressource melm 230$a Electronic-ressource Electronic-ressource : 230 is deprecated in UNIMARC. Maybe present in legacy records, but not sure of that. Let's get rid of this index. *** Title-host melm 461$t Title,Title-host:w,title-host:p title-host : typo for Title-host 461: Title-host: as we have 461$9 indexed in "Host-Item-Number", I guess this "Title-host" is a mistake for "Host-item". So, 461 would behave like 773 in MARC21 (Technically, 461 is not a strict equivalent of 773. From LOC site, I get that the official equivalent of 461 in MARC21 is 774) *** lcn lcn isn't used -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.