Personally, I'd probably convert any "Biblio number" into "Biblionumber," and if that needs explaining, it's the "Koha internal record number" or "Koha unique record identifier" On 23/10/18 09:02, Barton Chittenden wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:39 PM Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
The term bibliographic number is easily confused with "inventory number" and any local or old internal record numbers that migrated MARC may have.
Agreed, bibliographic number is confusing.
I think the most accurate long form representation is "Koha internal record number", as the biblionumber has nothing at all to do with MARC, and wouldn't necessarily be carried over to another system if the record was moved (not that anybody would *leave* Koha, amirite).
With that in mind, I don't see why we would need to drop biblionumber at all - it references exactly what it is, is specific to Koha, and can be understood and trained in that context, fully independent of MARC.
I think the use of biblionumber is fine in context -- that's generally used specifically when database tables are being mentioned. The term 'Biblio number' (containing a space) is what I'm more concerned about. I don't know that the marc editor was the only place that I saw that used.
-- -- Liz Rea Catalyst.Net Limited Level 6, Catalyst House, 150 Willis Street, Wellington. P.O Box 11053, Manners Street, Wellington 6142 04 803 2265 GPG: B149 A443 6B01 7386 C2C7 F481 B6c2 A49D 3726 38B7