I've been looking at the Koha terminology page ( https://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Terminology). There are still a handful of occurrences of incorrect terminology throughout the '.tt' files. I'm starting with looking for instances of 'biblio', which should be 'Bibliographic record'. I'm wondering about instances of "Biblio number" in the text... I think that "Bibliographic number" is actually *less* clear... "Bibliographic Record Number" is better, but in most cases where Biblio number is used (e.g. the Marc Editor), Biblio number makes sense in its context. Cheers, --Barton
I'm starting with looking for instances of 'biblio', which should be 'Bibliographic record'.
Hopefully Bug 19833 took care of (most of?) them. https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19833
I'm wondering about instances of "Biblio number" in the text... I think that "Bibliographic number" is actually *less* clear... "Bibliographic Record Number" is better, but in most cases where Biblio number is used (e.g. the Marc Editor), Biblio number makes sense in its context.
As a human-readable term I prefer "Bibliographic record number." However, operations which reference biblionumber should all be fairly technical, and thus a technical term might be appropriate. I'm curious what edge cases there might be that don't fall into the "technical" category. On the other hand, if we expect these more technical users to know what biblionumber is... how did they learn? -- Owen -- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries https://www.myacpl.org
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:14 AM Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org> wrote:
I'm starting with looking for instances of 'biblio', which should be 'Bibliographic record'.
Hopefully Bug 19833 took care of (most of?) them. https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=19833
I found a dozen or so in master.
I'm wondering about instances of "Biblio number" in the text... I think that "Bibliographic number" is actually *less* clear... "Bibliographic Record Number" is better, but in most cases where Biblio number is used (e.g. the Marc Editor), Biblio number makes sense in its context.
As a human-readable term I prefer "Bibliographic record number." However, operations which reference biblionumber should all be fairly technical, and thus a technical term might be appropriate. I'm curious what edge cases there might be that don't fall into the "technical" category.
Most of the ones that I found were via grepping, I'm going to be looking at them in more detail shortly, so I'll have more context.
On the other hand, if we expect these more technical users to know what biblionumber is... how did they learn?
I'm guessing that most probably learn from the URL or the database schema/reports library. It depends on level of expertise, I'm sure. I suppose I could ask on the koha general mailing list... --Barton
On 23 October 2018 at 01:09, Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> wrote: <snipped> 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.
+1 cheers -idg
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.
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
Hi Liz and Barton, About "I think the most accurate long form representation is "Koha internal record number", as the biblionumber has nothing at all to do with MARC" I received this feedback from Libraries Australia today : *MARC Field 035 $a - System Control Number : Koha Record Numbers* <> Every record should have one instance of MARC field 035 containing the current Koha record number before re-exporting. So simply call biblionumber <> "Koha record number"? Irma CALYX On 23 October 2018 at 09:03, Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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/
The API uses: "internally assigned biblio identifier" El mar., 23 oct. 2018 a las 10:32, Irma Birchall (<irma@calyx.net.au>) escribió:
Hi Liz and Barton,
About "I think the most accurate long form representation is "Koha internal record number", as the biblionumber has nothing at all to do with MARC"
I received this feedback from Libraries Australia today :
*MARC Field 035 $a - System Control Number : Koha Record Numbers* <> Every record should have one instance of MARC field 035 containing the current Koha record number before re-exporting.
So simply call biblionumber <> "Koha record number"?
Irma CALYX
On 23 October 2018 at 09:03, Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Tomás Cohen Arazi Theke Solutions (http://theke.io) ✆ +54 9351 3513384 GPG: B2F3C15F
participants (6)
-
Barton Chittenden -
Indranil Das Gupta -
Irma Birchall -
Liz Rea -
Owen Leonard -
Tomas Cohen Arazi