koha - length of records - separation of items from biblios
There is an "abandoned RFC" for "Stop copying item records to bib's MARC and MARCXML RFC" . Could someone tell me why this was abandoned, because I think having the item record data exists both in the items table and as MARC fields in the bib record is an a terrible shortcoming of Koha for academic and research libraries with large numbers of items for certain titles. Thank you. -- Linda Culberson lculber@mdah.state.ms.us Archives and Records Services Division Ms. Dept. of Archives & History P. O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 Telephone: 601/576-6873 Facsimile: 601/576-6824
Linda Culberson asked:
There is an "abandoned RFC" for "Stop copying item records to bib's MARC and MARCXML RFC" .
Could someone tell me why this was abandoned, because I think having the item record data exists both in the items table and as MARC fields in the bib record is an a terrible shortcoming of Koha for academic and research libraries with large numbers of items for certain titles.
My notes say that RFC was created by a LibLime worker, so a current or former LibLime worker may have a definitive answer... BUT: I suspect it may have been abandoned because one of the MARC fields is sent to the Zebra index server and there are benefits like faster availability searches if the item data is indexed by Zebra. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and LMS developer, statistician. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
Can anyone tell me if Evergreen has a similar problem? Thanks in advance. On 3/1/2011 11:31 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Linda Culberson asked:
There is an "abandoned RFC" for "Stop copying item records to bib's MARC and MARCXML RFC" .
Could someone tell me why this was abandoned, because I think having the item record data exists both in the items table and as MARC fields in the bib record is an a terrible shortcoming of Koha for academic and research libraries with large numbers of items for certain titles.
My notes say that RFC was created by a LibLime worker, so a current or former LibLime worker may have a definitive answer... BUT:
I suspect it may have been abandoned because one of the MARC fields is sent to the Zebra index server and there are benefits like faster availability searches if the item data is indexed by Zebra.
Hope that helps,
-- Linda Culberson lculber@mdah.state.ms.us Archives and Records Services Division Ms. Dept. of Archives & History P. O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 Telephone: 601/576-6873 Facsimile: 601/576-6824
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Linda Culberson <lculber@mdah.state.ms.us> wrote:
Can anyone tell me if Evergreen has a similar problem?
Hi Linda, Items in Evergreen are not stored or mirrored in the bib record, and a circulation will not cause an update of a bib record. However, you are able to maintain MFHD in bib records, and you can export bib data with embedded holdings. -- Jason Etheridge | VP, Tactical Development | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: jason@esilibrary.com | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
Le 01/03/2011 18:31, MJ Ray a écrit :
My notes say that RFC was created by a LibLime worker, so a current or former LibLime worker may have a definitive answer... BUT:
I suspect it may have been abandoned because one of the MARC fields is sent to the Zebra index server and there are benefits like faster availability searches if the item data is indexed by Zebra.
IIRC, I moved this RFC to abandonned, because of what MJ wrote : lot of LL RFCs were announced for 3.2, are maybe in LLEK, but definetly, we had no news from this. OTH, this RFC could come back soon because BibLibre made some work on this (although it's not 100% finished yet). you can take a look at : http://git.biblibre.com/?p=koha;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wip/remove_items_fro... -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
Paul, This would be fantastic. Being a state government archives, our collections grow over time, and some of them very quickly. I've been frantically trying to split some of them out in ways that make sense, but sometimes, splitting just limits accessibility. On 3/1/2011 3:50 PM, Paul Poulain wrote:
Le 01/03/2011 18:31, MJ Ray a écrit :
My notes say that RFC was created by a LibLime worker, so a current or former LibLime worker may have a definitive answer... BUT:
I suspect it may have been abandoned because one of the MARC fields is sent to the Zebra index server and there are benefits like faster availability searches if the item data is indexed by Zebra.
IIRC, I moved this RFC to abandonned, because of what MJ wrote : lot of LL RFCs were announced for 3.2, are maybe in LLEK, but definetly, we had no news from this.
OTH, this RFC could come back soon because BibLibre made some work on this (although it's not 100% finished yet). you can take a look at : http://git.biblibre.com/?p=koha;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/wip/remove_items_fro...
-- Linda Culberson lculber@mdah.state.ms.us Archives and Records Services Division Ms. Dept. of Archives & History P. O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 Telephone: 601/576-6873 Facsimile: 601/576-6824
I had an idea about this recently. Perhaps it is possible to have in the items table a MARCXML column which stores the MARC just for the items, and have that be seperate from the biblio's MARCXML. Then we the record is sent to the zebra server combine the two, so that zebra still has all the information we would like it to have. On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Linda Culberson asked:
There is an "abandoned RFC" for "Stop copying item records to bib's MARC and MARCXML RFC" .
Could someone tell me why this was abandoned, because I think having the item record data exists both in the items table and as MARC fields in the bib record is an a terrible shortcoming of Koha for academic and research libraries with large numbers of items for certain titles.
My notes say that RFC was created by a LibLime worker, so a current or former LibLime worker may have a definitive answer... BUT:
I suspect it may have been abandoned because one of the MARC fields is sent to the Zebra index server and there are benefits like faster availability searches if the item data is indexed by Zebra.
Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and LMS developer, statistician. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha _______________________________________________ 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/
I had an idea about this recently. Perhaps it is possible to have in the items table a MARCXML column which stores the MARC just for the items, and have that be seperate from the biblio's MARCXML. Then we the record is sent to the zebra server combine the two, so that zebra still has all the information we would like it to have. There is an enhancement in bugzilla it is referenced as bug 5579 for
Le 01/03/2011 23:04, Mike Hafen a écrit : that and biblibre publicized a branch which is also pushed on git.koha-community.org as new/bug_5579. It is not exactly managing that removal the way you propose. In fact, it builds on demand the marcfield for items. But it is working pretty nicely, although you have to remove all the items from marcxml (there is a script for that) before you use since on MARCdetail.pl, it is taking items from items table + from marcxml (if you havenot previously removed) The improvement in circulation speed is really good. But it would need thorough tests... If anyone is interested. Be advised this branch should NOT be used in production at the moment. -- Henri-Damein LAURENT
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop <mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop>> wrote:
Linda Culberson asked: > There is an "abandoned RFC" for "Stop copying item records to bib's MARC > and MARCXML RFC" . > > Could someone tell me why this was abandoned, because I think having the > item record data exists both in the items table and as MARC fields in > the bib record is an a terrible shortcoming of Koha for academic and > research libraries with large numbers of items for certain titles.
My notes say that RFC was created by a LibLime worker, so a current or former LibLime worker may have a definitive answer... BUT:
I suspect it may have been abandoned because one of the MARC fields is sent to the Zebra index server and there are benefits like faster availability searches if the item data is indexed by Zebra.
Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop <http://www.software.coop>, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and LMS developer, statistician. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
participants (6)
-
Jason Etheridge -
LAURENT Henri-Damien -
Linda Culberson -
Mike Hafen -
MJ Ray -
Paul Poulain