[Koha-bugs] [Bug 10421] Add cron script to delete deleted records

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

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10421

--- Comment #13 from David Cook <dcook at prosentient.com.au> ---
(In reply to David Cook from comment #12)
> Mohammad Nashbat's comment on the listserv is also interesting:
> 
> "I’m trying to upload a deletion batch from ebrary to our Koha LMS, this
> batch changes the records status in the leader tag to “d” delete, which used
> to delete the bib records using our old library system “Dynix” after
> indexing. But now in Koha it do change the status but without deleting the
> bib records even  after indexing, am I missing something?"
> 
> I think at a bare minimum records with a "d" need to be suppressed in the
> OPAC. 
> 
> However, actual deletions...I'm not sure what I think of this "batch
> deletion" idea. I haven't done a lot yet with MARC dumps from vendors like
> EBSCO, but I could see how re-uploading records with a "d" in the leader to
> do a batch delete might be an idea. 
> 
> While it's only tangentially related to this discussion, I wonder what sorts
> of best practices people have for maintaining MARC records in Koha that come
> from electronic service providers (for services like electronic journals and
> e-books). 
> 
> We have a homecooked solution here that my boss takes care of but I wonder
> what the optimal way of doing it would be. 
> 
> I'm sure people in a union catalogue situation/those who use OCLC or other
> interconnected cataloguing tools must also encounter situations where the
> original record has changed and now they either need to update or delete
> their existing records.
> 
> (I know this is a problem I've also encountered in developing the OAI-PMH
> harvester. It seems like it could be a pervasive issue.)

Jared Camins-Esakov has mentioned that using the import/revert features in
Koha, a person could revert a batch of MARC records from an electronic
subscription, then just import the latest full reload file. That seems to me to
be a very reasonable solution. The only problem would be if someone added items
to those records, but as he pointed out...with a large enough load (say 50k
records), the likelihood of items being added is probably fairly low.

That said, I think some of our libraries have items automatically added to some
of their electronic holdings. However, perhaps that's a practice that should
just be eliminated, since the process Jared describes seems quite robust.

In the case where you unsubscribe from a subscription, you'd just revert your
records and that's that. So long as you have a full MARC record dump, you're
covered for additions/updates/deletes.

--

In the union catalog/online cataloging tool scenario, additions/updates
shouldn't be much of a problem (provided that there haven't been local
changes), but I imagine that deletes are still an issue...and that perhaps you
would still want a record marked "d" in your catalogue (although not in your
OPAC).

Ok. That's it from me. Sorry for spamming all of you!

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