I support 942$f for the following reasons: 1. best to use an existing tag, and 942 is the best-fit candidate for non-repeating biblio-level, Koha-specific information 2. New subfields for new content, rather than repurposing an old field (and possibly having data conflicts on systems that still have the old, obsolete value) 3. subfield letter is the initial (in English) for the thing being stored; easy to remember! -Ian 2012/1/9 Jared Camins-Esakov <jcamins@cpbibliography.com>
Zeno, et. al.,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Zeno Tajoli <tajoli@cilea.it> wrote:
oh, is quite simple. I want to export data in marc format to import in an other Koha and I use different frameworks to catalogue.
If I insertr biblio.frameworkcode, I can re-import records in different frameworks.
Clearly I need to setup 'marc to Koha links' before to import with bulkmarcimport.pl
For MARC21 frameworks, if we were add to this to the default framework, I'd prefer that the 942 or the 999 be used, as those are already supported for bib-level mappings -- no need to carve out another tag.
Well, in theory 999 are repetable, 942 is not repetable. So for me is better 942. A new subfield or we re-use $a ? The subfield used are [default framework]: -- 942
What about 942$f? For 'F'ramework?
Regards, Jared
-- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions ALA Midwinter Booth #2048 Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal