http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11043 Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de --- Comment #1 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- I think not every library is treating the biblio level itemtype as a document type currently, so there might be different ideas and workflows involved here. What I always thought was that item-level itypes was being used as a different way to define circulation rules. Our libraries don't use the biblio level itype at all, apart from it being set to a default value, as the itemtype being picked in the item form will then preset to this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11043 --- Comment #3 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> --- In my library, in biblioitems.itemtype we put 'book', 'cd' etc and in items.itype 'long loan', 'normal loan' And we use items.itype for circulation rules. Mathieu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11043 --- Comment #5 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> --- Yes, 2 different lists. Because our vendor tell us it was possible I presume. For circulation rules, if the rules are the same for DVD and CD, we did not want to duplicate them. So we can have biblioitems.itemtype = DVD items.itype = SHORT and biblioitems.itemtype = CD items.itype = SHORT Mathieu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11043 --- Comment #7 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #4)

I think you can only do that, when you change the mapping? So that you are not using the itemtypes authorised value list for both (like it is the default for MARC21 at least).

HMM I understand now why in Zebra, Marc21 is indexing both information in the same index, while in UNIMARC we use ccode for biblioitems.itemytpe (ccode seems quite a bad choice). Making this more uniform could be interesting I think. Because some changes could be unseen for Marc21 ppl, while they will break configs of unimarc ppl. And as the concept of "type of documents" and "type of items" are easily understandable by everone, and not specific to a marcflavor, I don't see why the indexing should be different. I would appreciate to have the opinion of unimarc ppl, for example from Biblibre. Mathieu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.