problem with mandatory subfields
Hi, I discovered one problem while I am trying to enter one record from our OPAC. Right now, 100c is mandatory. This is not correct. (See the examples at http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdmain.html; I think 100a is mandatory, not 100c.) But assuming that 100c really is mandatory, it would really only mean that one of 100c, 110c or 111c is mandatory, since any of 100, 110, or 111 can be the main entry. Is it currently possible to specify that one of several subfields is mandatory? Or is this something that cannot yet be specified? -- Ambrose Li Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto | http://www.cccgt.org/
Ambrose Li [CCCGT] a écrit:
Hi,
I discovered one problem while I am trying to enter one record from our OPAC.
Right now, 100c is mandatory. This is not correct. (See the examples at http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdmain.html; I think 100a is mandatory, not 100c.) But assuming that 100c really is mandatory, it would really only mean that one of 100c, 110c or 111c is mandatory, since any of 100, 110, or 111 can be the main entry.
Is it currently possible to specify that one of several subfields is mandatory? Or is this something that cannot yet be specified?
it cannot yet be specified. And i'm not sure this will change in the "near" future. (near meaning what you want, but later than 2002 :-) ) Note that in 2.x (probably 2.1), you should be able to define up to 4 differents "masks" for up to 4 differents types of "biblios". In this case, you will be able to define 1 screen for true biblios (which requires a 100c), one for meetings (111c)... -- Paul POULAIN Consultant indépendant en logiciels libres responsable francophone de koha (SIBGB libre http://fr.koha.org)
Hi, On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 06:56:45PM +0100, paul POULAIN wrote:
Note that in 2.x (probably 2.1), you should be able to define up to 4 differents "masks" for up to 4 differents types of "biblios". In this case, you will be able to define 1 screen for true biblios (which requires a 100c), one for meetings (111c)...
I'm speaking as someone who had taken a "library volunteer's short course" who has forgotten a lot of stuff already. AFAIK, 100c is *not* mandatory. {100,110,111}a (not c) is, and it is not true that "true biblios" require a 100a (or 100c). If the author of the book *is* an organization (e.g., books written by a committee, lots of such books in China I was told), there is only 110a, no 100a. (This is what I have been taught. It is US MARC iirc. Some librarian on the list can correct me :-) Best regards, -- Ambrose Li <a.c.li@ieee.org> http://ada.dhs.org/~acli/cmcc/ http://www.cccgt.org/ DRM is theft - We are the stakeholders
participants (3)
-
Ambrose Li -
Ambrose Li [CCCGT] -
paul POULAIN