[Koha-devel] MARC frameworks in Koha

[Katrin]

Hi Marcel and Christopher,

maybe to explain this a bit more, Koha will already display all the 
information from 260 and 264 in the detail view and result lists, 
because in those views the full MARC record is used as the source for 
the displayed information.

There are other, brief views, that pull information from the columns in 
the biblio and biblioitems tables only. The mappings define, how these 
columns are filled with information. For example the default mapping for 
copyrightdate is 260 at the moment. An example for a 'brief' view would 
be the list of records in the cart, or the information shown in the 
acquisitions module.

Christopher got me thinking: For 260 and 264 are repeatable, as a side 
effect of cataloguing rule changes, they might even appear both in a 
record (even if they shouldn't). Which year will be given priority? For 
display purposes in the brief views, only one year should be displayed.

I agree with the idea of making the mapping on the default framework the 
standard to use for all MARC records. If we support other formats at 
some point, we could add a default BIBFRAME or default Dublin Core 
mapping maybe?

Katrin



On 09.08.2017 16:05, Christopher Davis wrote:
> Marcel,
>
> Thank you for clarifying my understanding. It sounds like Koha will 
> simultaneously pull and display copyright date information from more 
> than one MARC subfield and that's great. What would happen if a MARC 
> record only has, for example, a 264$c and no 260$c? Will Koha throw an 
> error if it encounters scenarios like this? I hope that those 
> questions do not sound stupid.
>
> As far as non-MARC data is concerned, if Koha can pull copyright date 
> from two MARC subfields, then it stands to reason that it could pull 
> the date from two MARC subfields and a Dublin Core field/element, yes?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Christopher Davis
> Systems & E-Services Librarian
> Uintah County Library
> cgdavis at uintah.utah.gov <mailto:cgdavis at uintah.utah.gov>
> (435) 789-0091 <tel:14357890091> ext.261
> uintahlibrary.org <http://uintahlibrary.org>
> basinlibraries.org <http://basinlibraries.org>
> facebook.com/uintahcountylibrary <http://facebook.com/uintahcountylibrary>
> instagram.com/uintahcountylibrary 
> <http://instagram.com/uintahcountylibrary>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Marcel de Rooy 
> <M.de.Rooy at rijksmuseum.nl <mailto:M.de.Rooy at rijksmuseum.nl>> wrote:
>
>     > Thank you for seeking input from the Koha Community before making this decision.
>
>     Thanks for responding :)
>
>
>     > If I understand your message correctly, you are saying that if the "Default" MARC framework has kohafield
>     mappings which are configured to pull copyright date from MARC
>     260$c *and* MARC 264$c, and if Koha sometimes only "asks" for the
>     kohafield mapping codes from the "Default" MARC framework, then
>     why rewrite the code to pull kohafield mappings from MARC
>     frameworks other than "Default" if the mappings of the other
>     frameworks are identical to "Default's" mappings (i.e., MARC 260$c
>     *and* MARC 264$c). Is this correct?
>
>
>     Not sure if you fully got my point. I propose to always check
>     kohafield mappings from Default, and at the same time keep
>     kohafield in all frameworks in sync. This requires some code
>     changes of course. New would be that a kohafield may have two
>     mappings. This approach would make Koha more consistent, since it
>     currently is somewhat ambiguous in this regard (also partly as a
>     result of having no frameworkcode in indexed records).
>
>
>     > In answer to your question, I think that prudence demands that we
>     rewrite the code. For example, if the records with MARC framework
>     "A" were cataloged according to AACR2 standards (copyright
>     recorded in MARC 260$c) and the records using framework "B" were
>     according to RDA (copyright in 264$c), then a code rewrite would
>     be necessary. My library has both AACR2 MARC records and RDA MARC
>     records, so, for the time being, as long as Koha can displays the
>     copyright information from both MARC 260$c *and* 264$c, I'm happy.
>     When the day comes, however, when Koha will finally index non-MARC
>     metadata records such as Dublin Core and BIBFRAME, It would be
>     wise to have the code always "ask" for what bibliographic
>     framework a record uses.
>
>     We agree on the need for code changes. They are inspired by the
>     fact that we want to show copyrightdate from both 260 and 264.
>     Since this is all about Koha to MARC and vice versa, indexing
>     other data is out of scope. But surely, it needs proper attention
>     in the future.
>
>     Marcel
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Koha-devel mailing list
>     Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
>     <mailto:Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org>
>     http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
>     <http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel>
>     website : http://www.koha-community.org/
>     git : http://git.koha-community.org/
>     bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
>     <http://bugs.koha-community.org/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.koha-community.org/pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20170809/3a7b58a3/attachment-0001.html>