[Bug 41535] New: UNIMARC fields used for Bundles are wrong
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=41535 Bug ID: 41535 Summary: UNIMARC fields used for Bundles are wrong Initiative type: --- Sponsorship --- status: Product: Koha Version: Main Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 - low Component: Cataloging Assignee: koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org Reporter: arthur.suzuki@biblibre.com QA Contact: testopia@bugs.koha-community.org CC: m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl According to the Unimarc manual : https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/unimarc/manuel-unimarc-format-bibl... In the host record, links to bundled items should be found in 464 rather than 462. In the marc record of a bundled item, the link to the host record should be in the 462 instead of 461. 461 is already used to identify the series title (Enola Holmes, Harry Potter). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=41535 Arthur Suzuki <arthur.suzuki@biblibre.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |38093 Comma delimited| |BibLibre list of Sponsors| | Sponsorship status|--- |Sponsored Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38093 [Bug 38093] Bundles: Add MARC link options should also add a link in 462 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=41535 Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mathsabypro@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro@gmail.com> --- Shouldn't the symmetrical relationship of 464 be 463? I get this impression when reading https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/B463_fr... and https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/B464_fr... Question may be off topic (and I suppose also applies to MARC21): all these fields can exist independently of Koha's "bundle" function. They may be present in records imported from Sudoc, BNF or other sources. Is Koha able to differentiate between and handle the two cases differently (links created in Koha <> links inherited from a source record)? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=41535 --- Comment #3 from Arthur Suzuki <arthur.suzuki@biblibre.com> --- Created attachment 190987 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=190987&action=edit Bug 41535: Fix UNIMARC fields used for bundles Test plan : 1 - Without patch : Set EasyAnalyticalRecords to 1 2 - Create a Parent record with 1 item with a barcode. 3 - Edit the record to make it a collection (edit record and set the 7th character as "c" in the 000/leader). 4 - Create another record (call it "Child") with 1 item with a barcode as well. 5 - On the Parent record holdings table, click on "manage bundles" 6 - Add the child item with "Add Marc Link" enabled (using child-item's barcode). 7 - Check MARC view on the Parent Record, child items data should be in a 462 field. 8 - Check MARC view on the Child record, host record data should be in a 461 field. 9 - Apply patch and restart_all 10 - Edit Parent and Child records and remove the links in 461/462. 11 - repeat step 6 12 - in Parent record the child item data should now be in 464 13 - in Child record the parent item data should now be in 462 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=41535 --- Comment #4 from Arthur Suzuki <arthur.suzuki@biblibre.com> --- (In reply to Mathieu Saby from comment #2)
Shouldn't the symmetrical relationship of 464 be 463? I get this impression when reading https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ B463_fre.pdf and https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ B464_fre.pdf
that's a good point, about the marc fields, as soon as the parent record is the highest level parent record it can be 462. I don't think we use multiple level of bundles in Koha so, 462 seems fine to me.
Question may be off topic (and I suppose also applies to MARC21): all these fields can exist independently of Koha's "bundle" function. They may be present in records imported from Sudoc, BNF or other sources. Is Koha able to differentiate between and handle the two cases differently (links created in Koha <> links inherited from a source record)?
About this, Koha bundle feature will creates or remove 46x with item and biblionumber (see other bugs in the dependency tree). As thoses are specificaly Koha's identifiers, I don't think other links from other sources would be impacted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=41535 Gamo <moise.gachiniard@biblibre.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |In Discussion CC| |moise.gachiniard@biblibre.c | |om --- Comment #5 from Gamo <moise.gachiniard@biblibre.com> --- Hello, I allow to jump in this bz : I totally agree with Mathieu Saby for the relation between fields 463 and 464. However in the complete context of this bz, the 462 may be more relevant as the top level parent of a bundle group is the bundle itself which is not a bibliographical entity, but a material one (as it can be a box). I may be wrong, but in this bundle-type context, as we mix bibliographical resources and a non-bibliographical one, I think that the use of the 463 is overruled by the 462. Other possibility (that may be really niche in my opinion) is to include and set the possibility to have bundle of bundles in which case we would indeed have something like : Master Bundle in 462 Childs Bundles in 463 Resources of Childs Bundles in 464 This bundle of bundles scenario wasn't head-ahead thought and so it would lead to an evolution of this BZ before making it community-wise -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla-daemon＠bugs.koha-community.org