[Koha-bugs] [Bug 11119] New: Silent zebra in UNIMARC

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

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11119

            Bug ID: 11119
           Summary: Silent zebra in UNIMARC
 Change sponsored?: ---
           Product: Koha
           Version: master
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: Searching
          Assignee: paul.poulain at biblibre.com
          Reporter: paul.poulain at biblibre.com
        QA Contact: testopia at bugs.koha-community.org

In UNIMARC configuration, there are some complaints from Zebra about non
existing indexes:
> 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'UPC' not found in attset(s)
> 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Serials' not found in attset(s)
> 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Printed-music' not found in attset(s)
> 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Electronic-ressource' not found in attset(s)
> 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'Title-host' not found in attset(s)
> 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'title-host' not found in attset(s)
> 21:12:42-22/10 zebraidx(29295) [warn] Index 'lcn' not found in attset(s)

Those indexes should either be removed from record.abs or created into
bib1.att/ccl.properties

Mathieu suggested the following options, that are worth being followed:


I think I would try this :
*** UPC : 
melm 072$a      UPC:w,Identifier-standard:w
melm 072$z      UPC:w,Identifier-standard:w
In MARC21, it is in 024, alongside other identifiers (the indicator of the
fields precise the nature of the identifier, but of course record.abs cannot
take that into consideration...)
So UPC is only defined in UNIMARC, whereas it is an id kind of EAN, used mainly
in the USA and Canada, MARC21 countries. That's not logical. This index is
useless for UNIMARC ppl, especially if it is not working well.
=> my proposition: get rid of UPC in UNIMARC conf files and index 072 in
"Identifier-standard" and in ccl.properties
If marc21 ppl want to index this in their DOM conf file, they will create the
propoer custom definition in ccl and bib1.att.

*** Serials and Printed-music
melm 207    Serials,Serials:p
melm 208    Printed-music,Printed-music:p
207 field is equivalent to 362 field in MARC21
208 field is equivalent to 254 field in MARC21

http://www.loc.gov/marc/unimarctomarc21_2xx5xx.pdf
Both are not indexed in MARC21, so maybe the information is not really
important.
BNF sites give some examples
http://multimedia.bnf.fr/unimarcb_trad/B207-6-2010.pdf
"Cette zone contient les numéros de la première et de la dernière livraison de
la ressource continue et/ou les dates que couvrent ces livraisons quand ces
numéros et ces dates sont connus."
Ex : "Vol. 1, no. 1 (1 Apr. 1946)-vol. 26, no. 195 (10 Oct.1972) = no. 1-no.
6943 "
=> for me, this field should NOT BE indexed in any way!

http://multimedia.bnf.fr/unimarcb_trad/B208-6-2010.pdf
"Cette zone contient une mention, transcrite à partir de la ressource, relative
à la présentation particulière d'une ressource musicale imprimée ou manuscrite.
"
Ex : "Partition de poche"
Maybe it can be usefull, and I did not find declarations for that in ccl or
bib1, so let's create a custom one, OR maybe index it in notes.

*** Electronic-ressource
melm 230$a      Electronic-ressource
Electronic-ressource : 230 is deprecated in UNIMARC. Maybe present in legacy
records, but not sure of that.
Let's get rid of this index.

*** Title-host
melm 461$t    Title,Title-host:w,title-host:p

title-host : typo for Title-host

461: Title-host:
as we have 461$9 indexed in "Host-Item-Number", I guess this "Title-host" is a
mistake for "Host-item".
So, 461 would behave like 773 in MARC21

(Technically, 461 is not a strict equivalent of 773. From LOC site, I get that
the official equivalent of 461 in MARC21 is 774)

*** lcn
lcn isn't used

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