http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 Robin Sheat <robin@catalyst.net.nz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|gmcharlt@gmail.com |robin@catalyst.net.nz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 Robin Sheat <robin@catalyst.net.nz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |Needs Signoff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 --- Comment #3 from Robin Sheat <robin@catalyst.net.nz> --- I'm not sure. I think I just based it on the pattern used by other things. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 I'm just a bot <gitbot@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- When did the bot|2013-09-29 00:00:00 |2013-10-25 last check this| | --- Comment #5 from I'm just a bot <gitbot@bugs.koha-community.org> --- Patch applied cleanly, go forth and signoff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 --- Comment #7 from Robin Sheat <robin@catalyst.net.nz> --- (In reply to M. Tompsett from comment #6)

Speaking of other things, how did you determine the subfields? http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/690.html (why not c,d,e?) http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/691.html (why not b?) http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/696.html (why not u,v,x,y,z?) You get the idea. :)

I know nothing of library stuff, but I would suspect that subject would be applicable to these 6xx fields, like Jared was asking about in comment 2.

And it looks like 696-698 are cut and paste from 700,710,711. And 699 cut and paste from 698. Which is what is implied by comment 3.

The subfields are just based on what was used on the equivalent fields, on the assumption that they were laid out the same. These are all local use fields, there is no strict definition for them according to LoC, and according to OCLC, they are they same. So what's good enough for 650 is good enough for 690, etc. If they're not actually good enough, then that's another bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #18297|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #9 from Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 29157 --> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=29157&action=edit [SIGNED-OFF] Bug 10308 - local subjects can use authorities too This adds entries for 690-699 to the authorities linker, so they get linked up like everything else. To Test: * make sure your framework doesn't have 690 set up to link to authorities (or it'll get linked as part of cataloguing.) * add a subject with some term to the 690$a field. * add an authority for TOPIC_TERM with the matching term. * make sure zebra is up to date. * run link_bibs_to_authorities.pl over your system. * check that the authority is now linked to your record. * repeat with the other 69x fields if you like. Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com> Tested using 696a (PERSO_NAME). Works as described, no errors -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 M. de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patch complexity|--- |Trivial patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #29157|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #10 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer@bsz-bw.de> --- Created attachment 29881 --> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=29881&action=edit [PASSED QA] Bug 10308 - local subjects can use authorities too This adds entries for 690-699 to the authorities linker, so they get linked up like everything else. To Test: * make sure your framework doesn't have 690 set up to link to authorities (or it'll get linked as part of cataloguing.) * add a subject with some term to the 690$a field. * add an authority for TOPIC_TERM with the matching term. * make sure zebra is up to date. * run link_bibs_to_authorities.pl over your system. * check that the authority is now linked to your record. * repeat with the other 69x fields if you like. Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com> Tested using 696a (PERSO_NAME). Works as described, no errors Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <Katrin.Fischer.83@web.de> This works as described, but linked authorities won't search correctly when clicking on the link on the detail page, as the 69x $9 is not indexed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.