[Koha-bugs] [Bug 12477] We need better ways to manage MARC Frameworks

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

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=12477

--- Comment #8 from David Cook <dcook at prosentient.com.au> ---
Just having a thought about "hidden" values...

These are the "hidden" values:

-9 => Future use
-8 => Flag
-7 => OPAC !Intranet !Editor Collapsed
-6 => OPAC Intranet !Editor !Collapsed
-5 => OPAC Intranet !Editor Collapsed
-4 => OPAC !Intranet !Editor !Collapsed
-3 => OPAC !Intranet Editor Collapsed
-2 => OPAC !Intranet Editor !Collapsed
-1 => OPAC Intranet Editor Collapsed
0 => OPAC Intranet Editor !Collapsed
1 => !OPAC Intranet Editor Collapsed
2 => !OPAC !Intranet Editor !Collapsed
3 => !OPAC !Intranet Editor Collapsed
4 => !OPAC Intranet Editor !Collapsed
5 => !OPAC !Intranet !Editor Collapsed
6 => !OPAC Intranet !Editor !Collapsed
7 => !OPAC Intranet !Editor Collapsed
8 => !OPAC !Intranet !Editor !Collapsed
9 => Future use • URL : if checked, the subfield is an URL, and can be clicked

These are their frequencies in "marc21_subtag.xml".

"hidden="-9" (0 hits)
"hidden="-8" (0 hits)
"hidden="-7" (0 hits)
"hidden="-6" (3037 hits)
"hidden="-5" (59 hits)
"hidden="-4" (0 hits)
"hidden="-3" (0 hits)
"hidden="-2" (0 hits)
"hidden="-1" (240 hits)
"hidden="9" (0 hits)
"hidden="8" (0 hits)
"hidden="7" (3 hits)
"hidden="6" (4 hits)
"hidden="5" (379 hits)
"hidden="4" (1 hit)
"hidden="3" (0 hits)
"hidden="2" (0 hits)
"hidden="1" (11 hits)
"hidden="0" (225 hits)

Some of these don't make all that much sense.

For instance, -5 is functionally equivalent to -6. They're both in the OPAC and
Intranet, and neither is in the Editor. The Collapsed quality really only
applies to the Editor...so we may as well make the subfields with -5 be -6 by
default.

6 and 7 are also functionally equivalent...although they're a bit bizarre. I
don't know why you'd ever need something to show in the Intranet but not in the
OPAC or the Editor.

If a field doesn't appear in the Editor, and it gets re-saved...any fields not
appearing in the Editor will be destroyed.

I figure...if it doesn't appear in the Editor, it probably _doesn't_ need to
appear anywhere else.

Conversely, it _does_ make sense that fields that appear in the Editor might
not show up in the OPAC or the Intranet (as they might be system values or just
not relevant for most views).

Following that logic, I find -6 to be a bit silly. I'd prefer 5 or 8, which are
functionally equivalent.

Of course, such distinctions get a bit...pedantic, so I rather just go with 1
"hidden" value for a function. Perhaps "-6" is the best one to use, since it's
the most common for fields that we want to hide.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts... when it comes to updating frameworks,
I'm going to use -6 for the sake of consistency.

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