[Koha-bugs] [Bug 22820] Display 830 series information when there is no 490 tag (MARC21)

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

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22820

--- Comment #12 from David Cook <dcook at prosentient.com.au> ---
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #10)
> If we changed this to display always 490 independent of the indicator
> (traced/untraced) a lot of information would show doubled up, once linked by
> phrase search and once by record control-number (if it exists like in our
> case).

I looked at a few of public catalogues this morning (Library of Congress,
National Library of Australia, and Vancouver Public Library) and they all
showed both the 490 and 8xx records, although in all those cases they either
had phrase searches for 490 and 8xx or just display 490 and phrase search for
8xx. 

If that's the common behaviour, maybe it's worth emulating it. (Although that
brings to mind the saying "would you jump off a cliff if all your friends were
doing it too?")

> 
> The solution would be to make sure if there is a corresponding 8xx for a 490
> and make the decision based on that. One record can have multiple traced and
> untraced 490 entries in whatever sequence. I am really not sure how to make
> this work with XSLT means. Looking at the LOC page, $a don't have to match
> and there is even an example with one 490 and 2 corresponding 8xx.
> 

490 and 8xx fields are both repeatable and I haven't seen any documented or
real life examples of precise correspondence between them. 

> 
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd490.html
> 0 - Series not traced
> No series added entry is desired for the series. 
> 
> 1 - Series traced
> When value 1 is used, the appropriate field 800-830 is included in the
> bibliographic record to provide the series added entry

I don't know why you would have a 8xx without a 490, but Joy mentioned that she
has experience with that, and technically
https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd830.html says "an 830 field is usually
justified by a series statement (field 490) or a general note (field 400)
relating to the series. For reproductions, it may be justified by a series
statement in subfield $f of field 533 (Reproduction Note)."

--

On a separate note, have we considered at all replacing the $9 with $0? It was
only added to the MARC standard in 2007, so I suppose that's maybe too recent
for most data to align with it. Plus, the $0 is repeatable, so not really
useful for "linking" a bibliographic record to an authority record for
search/indexing purposes. 

--

I've actually come to this bug report, because I've found issues with "se,phr",
but that's another conversation for another day... (I've posted on the Zebra
list about it though...)

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