[Koha-bugs] [Bug 8958] Facets are not fully UNIMARC compliant

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8958

--- Comment #3 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby at univ-rennes2.fr> ---
Hello Frederic, thanks for your comments.

As I want the change for Place facet to be pushed quickly, I will make a other
patch this evening making allowance to your comments, and I will make other(s)
patch(s) or follow up (what is best?) latter.

"Check that new fields added to topic facets are searcheable."
>> I have forgotten 608 and 616 are missing in standard record.abs. I send a message to koha-fr list for this issue and others, but I suspect nobody received it... Will send it to koha-devel.
->I'll remove 608/616 and I will do an other patch when unimarc record.abs is
updated.

"Disputable for libraries not using 410 field but only 225."
>> Did not think of that. I thought the use of 410$t was universal (in Sudoc it is).
->I'll remove this feature too.

"Why not a new facet for Corporate Name? Is it a good idea to mix
Personal/Corporate Name?"
>> Maybe you are right, but it's a UX question and I am not sure of the answer : for a library user, are "Proust, Marcel" and "France. Prime minister" just two kind of AUTHORS, or TWO KIND of authors? Maybe we should look 
Moreover, I thought the community would be reluctant to add new facets, because
in Marc21 code for facets, there is already a "su-na" facet that have been
commented with #. But I did not make search in the code history to see when and
why it was commented.
So this could be discussed and we may need to read some UX study about facets
use in other library opacs.
->I'll remove 716 and 71X/72X for the moment. I'll make some more tests and
maybe ask the question the koha list.

"Since they are multi-part facets (coming from several subfields), biblio DOM
indexing may be required. Improving facets, we can reach a point where
deprecated GRS-1 indexing may be necessary."
>> I've seen 606ax and 700ab 701ab 702ab in the current Koha.pm file. So I thought I could add 600ab 601abcdef and 710-711-712abcdef without any problem. -> Do you think I am wrong ? I can remove 600ab and 601abcdef but I think it should work. So, are you satisfied with 600 and 601 appearance with my patch ?


Regards,
Mathieu Saby
Rennes 2 Universiy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.