[Koha-bugs] [Bug 18309] UNIMARC update from IFLA

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18309

--- Comment #23 from François Pichenot <fpichenot at ville-roubaix.fr> ---
Hi Laurent,

Thank you very much and sorry for the late reply...


> 009 ARK perennial identifier of the record [obsolete since version 2007]
> ARK = Archival Resource Key / This is a Bnf Specific Zone
> . See ARK specifications: http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/arkspec.pdf
> [accessed October 10, 2006]
> ex: 009http: //catalogue.bnf.fr/ark: / 12148 / cb375475483
BnF doesn't use 009 anymore (since 2016, see
http://www.bnf.fr/documents/unimarc_b_recap_modif.pdf p.6).
But 009 seems to be useful to store Sudoc PPN (as 035 is a repeatable field),
so I added it.

> Add the following subfield: $ 010 9 which is a field put forward by the ABES as part of the Sudoc network. The information of Sudoc is the following
> UNIMARC / Bibliographic
> Field 010: export of subfield $ 9 (repeatable): "ISBN of a serial delivery"
> This Sudoc-specific subfield is likely to be present in periodical records. It contains the ISBN of a periodical delivery > when it is processed in the Sudoc in the collector's state under the note of the periodical concerned.
OK

> Block 181 except that the $ 181 a must be repeatable
OK

> Block 183 = 183 $ P sub-field specific to ABES and Sudoc network 
183 $P doesn't appear in Sudoc exchange format (see
http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques)

> 183 $ 8 under IFLA specific field obviously missing
OK

> Block 219 = OK but specific to Sudoc of ABES;
This field is included in BnF exchange format (see
http://www.bnf.fr/documents/unimarc_b_recap_modif.pdf p22) but not appears in
Sudoc exchange format. So I correct the field tag.

> Attention misses $ 219 $ 6 and $ 7, under fields reserved for cataloging documents with non-Latin characters. Also note that $ 219 $ P $ r $ s and $ 6 and $ 7 are non-repeatable subfields (to be corrected)
This is not included in an exchange format.

> Block 231 new since 2017: does not exist at Bnf and ABES Sudoc
> All sub fields are repeatable so correct
OK

> Block 283 new since 2017: does not exist at BnF and ABES Sudoc
> Lack $ 8Material specific, repeatable
OK

> Bloc 338 new 2017: does not exist at BnF and ABES Sudoc
> Be careful and correct: $ b, $ c and $ e are repeatable!
OK

> Block 915 specific to ABES Sudoc
> Be careful the $ a and $ b are repeatable (to correct)
OK

> Block 916 no longer exists at ABES Sudoc (to be deleted? if it do not exist in IFLA)
Are you sure ? 916 still appears in Sudoc exchange format (see
http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques
p.71)

> Bloc 918 specific to the BNF
Are you sure ? 918 still appears in Sudoc exchange format (see
http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques
p.71)

> Field 930
> Missing subfield $ j "PEB code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / non-repeatable
> Missing subfield $ v "Copy status code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / non-repeatable
> Missing subfield $ Z "Shared Conservation Plan Code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / Repeatable
> Missing the subfield $ p "Conservation pole or associated pole in the context of a PCPP" that is specific to the ABES Sudoc / non-repeatable
OK

> Add the entire block 931 (Sudoc block of the abes) that is missing in the document is $ 5, $ 2, $ a, $ b, $ c, $ d, $ e, $ g, $ h, $ i, $ l, $ v / all are non-repeatable / for labels see http://documentation.abes.fr/sudoc/formats/loc/zones/931.htm
OK


> This comment deals with the 932 that was proposed to delete
> Why remove the 932 zone that seems useful for the ABES (sudoc)
This field is not included in Sudoc exchange format (see
http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques)

> All block 955 (used by ABES sudoc) is to be reviewed because it lacks subfields like this: $ =, $ 0, $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4, 
Field conformed to Sudoc exchange format (see
http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques
p72)

> Block 956
Field conformed to Sudoc exchange format (see
http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques
p72)


> Block 957
> All block 957 (used by Sudoc of ABES) is to be reviewed because it lacks subfields like this: $ -, $ 0, $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4, $ 7, $ n, $ p, $ q / them $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4 and $ 7 are non-repeatable unlike others
> Remove $ h, $ i, $ j, $ r, $ w, and $ z
> http://documentation.abes.fr/sudoc/formats/loc/zones/957.htm
Field conformed to 

*Commentary 16
Block 958 = OK

> Bloc 959 has just been added by Sudoc ABES
> Any good but addition of a $ r that does not exist at the level of the ABES?
959 $r occurs in Sudoc exchange format (see
http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques)

> Not found the 987 where does it come from?
BnF exchange format : http://www.bnf.fr/documents/UNIMARC(B)_conversion.pdf
p.59

> Block 990 $ has repeatable!
OK

> Block 991 All good except $ b and $ c repeatable
OK

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