https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |17196 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=17196 [Bug 17196] Move marcxml out of the biblioitems table -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 --- Comment #1 from Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> --- Exhibit 3: Just noticed while doing DB changes, that biblio_metadata is linked to the biblio table instead of the biblioitems-table! No FRBR there. Is being fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 --- Comment #3 from Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> --- WIP. Will fix tests tomorrow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 --- Comment #4 from Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> --- Created attachment 61096 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=61096&action=edit Bug 18265 - Followup to Buuug 17196. deletedbiblio_metadata is not used. biblioitemnumber was forgot. FK to wrong table. Exhibit 1: The MARCXML is lost when the biblio is deleted because the values in biblio_metadata-table from biblioitems-table are never moved to deletedbiblio_metadata-table. Previously the marcxml was preserved in the oldbiblioitems-table This is a challenge for gathering statistics For example item has been ordered, received, and removed from collection during the statistics period Information in marcxml is needed to accurately categorize the item Exhibit 2: [15:22:38] <kivilahtio> also. In Koha there once was a great idea that one biblio-entry can have multiple biblioitems [15:22:45] <kivilahtio> and the marcxml was tied to the biblioitems-table [15:23:11] <kivilahtio> this is a nice idea, but nobdy really cared for it and now biblionumber and biblioitemnumber are used interchangeably [15:23:22] <kivilahtio> except when they get out of sync during a data migration [15:23:41] <kivilahtio> then things start to work really interestingly [15:23:47] <kivilahtio> but the point is [15:23:57] <kivilahtio> biblio_metadata has a biblionumber-column [15:24:15] <kivilahtio> shouldn't it have a biblioitemnumber-column, just for old time's sake? In the biblioitems-table we had marcxml. primary keyed with biblioitemnumber. Now the marcxml is moved to biblio_metadata and the foreign key reference was simplified to biblionumber. This makes the existing FRBR-bug worse. Exhibit 3: Just noticed while doing DB changes, that biblio_metadata is linked to the biblio table instead of the biblioitems-table! No FRBR there. Is being fixed. REPLICATE ISSUE: Create biblio Delete biblio Where is deletedbiblio_metadata-row? TEST PLAN: perl misc/devel/update_dbix_class_files.pl perl t/db_dependent/Biblio_crud.t perl t/db_dependent/Holds/HoldFulfillmentPolicy.t + other tests from Buug 17196 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-c | |ommunity.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #61097|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #6 from Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> --- Created attachment 61098 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=61098&action=edit Bug 18265 - Followup to Buuug 17196. deletedbiblio_metadata is not used. biblioitemnumber was forgot. FK to wrong table. Exhibit 1: The MARCXML is lost when the biblio is deleted because the values in biblio_metadata-table from biblioitems-table are never moved to deletedbiblio_metadata-table. Previously the marcxml was preserved in the oldbiblioitems-table This is a challenge for gathering statistics For example item has been ordered, received, and removed from collection during the statistics period Information in marcxml is needed to accurately categorize the item Exhibit 2: [15:22:38] <kivilahtio> also. In Koha there once was a great idea that one biblio-entry can have multiple biblioitems [15:22:45] <kivilahtio> and the marcxml was tied to the biblioitems-table [15:23:11] <kivilahtio> this is a nice idea, but nobdy really cared for it and now biblionumber and biblioitemnumber are used interchangeably [15:23:22] <kivilahtio> except when they get out of sync during a data migration [15:23:41] <kivilahtio> then things start to work really interestingly [15:23:47] <kivilahtio> but the point is [15:23:57] <kivilahtio> biblio_metadata has a biblionumber-column [15:24:15] <kivilahtio> shouldn't it have a biblioitemnumber-column, just for old time's sake? In the biblioitems-table we had marcxml. primary keyed with biblioitemnumber. Now the marcxml is moved to biblio_metadata and the foreign key reference was simplified to biblionumber. This makes the existing FRBR-bug worse. Exhibit 3: Just noticed while doing DB changes, that biblio_metadata is linked to the biblio table instead of the biblioitems-table! No FRBR there. Is being fixed. REPLICATE ISSUE: Create biblio Delete biblio Where is deletedbiblio_metadata-row? TEST PLAN: perl misc/devel/update_dbix_class_files.pl perl t/db_dependent/Biblio_crud.t perl t/db_dependent/Holds/HoldFulfillmentPolicy.t + other tests from Buug 17196 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #61098|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #8 from Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> --- Created attachment 61101 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=61101&action=edit Bug 18265 - Followup to Buuug 17196. deletedbiblio_metadata is not used. biblioitemnumber was forgot. FK to wrong table. Exhibit 1: The MARCXML is lost when the biblio is deleted because the values in biblio_metadata-table from biblioitems-table are never moved to deletedbiblio_metadata-table. Previously the marcxml was preserved in the oldbiblioitems-table This is a challenge for gathering statistics For example item has been ordered, received, and removed from collection during the statistics period Information in marcxml is needed to accurately categorize the item Exhibit 2: [15:22:38] <kivilahtio> also. In Koha there once was a great idea that one biblio-entry can have multiple biblioitems [15:22:45] <kivilahtio> and the marcxml was tied to the biblioitems-table [15:23:11] <kivilahtio> this is a nice idea, but nobdy really cared for it and now biblionumber and biblioitemnumber are used interchangeably [15:23:22] <kivilahtio> except when they get out of sync during a data migration [15:23:41] <kivilahtio> then things start to work really interestingly [15:23:47] <kivilahtio> but the point is [15:23:57] <kivilahtio> biblio_metadata has a biblionumber-column [15:24:15] <kivilahtio> shouldn't it have a biblioitemnumber-column, just for old time's sake? In the biblioitems-table we had marcxml. primary keyed with biblioitemnumber. Now the marcxml is moved to biblio_metadata and the foreign key reference was simplified to biblionumber. This makes the existing FRBR-bug worse. Exhibit 3: Just noticed while doing DB changes, that biblio_metadata is linked to the biblio table instead of the biblioitems-table! No FRBR there. Is being fixed. REPLICATE ISSUE: Create biblio Delete biblio Where is deletedbiblio_metadata-row? TEST PLAN: perl misc/devel/update_dbix_class_files.pl perl t/db_dependent/Biblio_crud.t perl t/db_dependent/Holds/HoldFulfillmentPolicy.t + other tests from Buug 17196 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 --- Comment #10 from Marcel de Rooy <m.de.rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> --- (In reply to Olli-Antti Kivilahti from comment #9)

Do you mean that biblio- and biblioitems-tables should be merged?

Then those need to be separated again when we are moving to FRBR.

This is one fundamentally good architectural design decision in Koha. Don't break it.

A design decision that has not been implemented, might not be a good one after all.. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #61090|0 |1 is obsolete| | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 --- Comment #13 from Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #10)

(In reply to Olli-Antti Kivilahti from comment #9)

...

Do you mean that biblio- and biblioitems-tables should be merged?

Then those need to be separated again when we are moving to FRBR.

This is one fundamentally good architectural design decision in Koha. Don't break it.

A design decision that has not been implemented, might not be a good one after all..

The issues with (MA)chine (R)eadable (C)ard catalogues are aknowledged for decades. Probably even then when the format was being discussed. Now the official formats for implementing FRBR (RDA -> Bibframe) are at the door and we (Finland) are already migrating to RDA this year. Actually I think we officially did and new records are only available in RDA as we speak. Looking forward to Bibframe in the near future. Structuring the DB to model the separation of work from manifestation is fundamentally important to achieve moving Koha to the future. Removing this distinction will turn us back 30 years. I have already suffered from the awkwardness caused by this divide (biblio-biblioitems) for many years with Koha, but the problem is not with DB but the internal API. Better stick to it now, since it is the foothold for pushing us forward. Naturally the current implementation is not good enough, but it is better than nothing. Otherwise we need to reinvent this wheel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 --- Comment #15 from Olli-Antti Kivilahti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> --- Created attachment 61199 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=61199&action=edit Bug 18265 - Followup to Buuug 17196. Fix t/db_dependent/Exporter/Record.t -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Followup to Bug 17196. |Should |deletedbiblio_metadata is |biblio_metadata.biblionumbe |not used. biblioitemnumber |r be biblioitemnumber |was forgotten |instead? Status|Needs Signoff |In Discussion Severity|critical |normal --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> --- Bug 18284 has been pushed, lowering the severity of this one. Discussion remains on the move of biblio_metadata.biblionumber to biblioitemnumber. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 Fridolin SOMERS <fridolin.somers@biblibre.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fridolin.somers@biblibre.co | |m -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18265 David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcook@prosentient.com.au --- Comment #19 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #18)

I believe we have been more and more standardizing on biblionumber and this also applies to biblio_metadata. I feel the current schema is correct.

Any vetos to closing this?

I get where Olli-Antti was coming from and overall is probably right in theory but I don't think it was a practical approach. Looking at the BIBFRAME 2.0 model (https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/bibframe2-model.html) it looks like it could be worthwhile keeping the "biblio", "biblioitems", "items" tables separate as those could evolve into "works", "instances", "items"... I suppose a MARC expression of the BIBFRAME 2.0 format would merge together all 3 of those with the instance being the central piece of the puzzle. But that's not really how Koha works at this point. I think we would need some collective talks and agreements about future directions if we wanted to really adopt the WMI model used by BIBFRAME 2.0. -- In other words, I'm not sure if we're ready to close this one yet... but I don't know that I see it moving forward anytime soon either... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.