[Koha-patches] [PATCH] Analytical records support

[savitra sirohi]

Hi Jared, we have known that our use of 'w' and 'o' are far from
ideal. I think what you suggest is great and we would like to
implement this.

Couple of questions:

1. Can you please expand on how we could "extend analytical support to
ISBN and other standard identifiers". For instance, what would $w
contain if one were using ISBN as a host record identifier. And which
field in the host record would we look in to find the ISBN - 001 or in
020?

2. What about the item identifier? We were planning on recording
barcode (952$p) in $o, and not referring to the itemnumber in the MARC
record at all.

Thanks,
Savitra



On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Jared Camins-Esakov
<jcamins at cpbibliography.com> wrote:
> Amit,
> [ ... snipped a long patch ...]
>
> I am concerned about the impact of the way you are using subfield 'w' and
> subfield 'o'... those subfields may be used by other libraries, which could
> lead to incorrect linkages when sharing records. The standard usage for
> subfield 'w' is to include the library's MARC Organizational Code in
> parentheses to indicate the source. For example "$w(NNAN)12345" indicates
> that the record control number is from the American Numismatic Society. To
> use subfield 'w' for LCCN, one would use "$w(DLC)##2010000034#". Could I
> suggest that rather than assuming every subfield 'w' and subfield 'o'
> contains correct and relevant analytic coding that the linking take into
> account both biblionumber/001 and 003? So rather than just looking for a
> record with biblionumber/001 of '12345' (in my example), we'd need to look
> for a record with that in the biblionumber/001 and 'NNAN' in the 003.
> One of the nice side effects of this is that one could then easily extend
> the analytic support to handle LCCNs, ISBNs, and other standard numbers
> stored in 0XX fields in MARC21.
> I suspect this probably also applies to UNIMARC... perhaps the subfield '5'
> should be taken into account here? I'm a little confused by hdl's follow-up
> patch because it seems to equate the contents of the 001 field with the
> biblionumber, and I'm pretty sure that there isn't any guaranteed
> relationship. Actually, on second thought, this is a problem with the entire
> concept. Biblionumber is not a robust identifier, and using it will break,
> for example, union catalog situations (this seems to be the case with
> BSZ-BW).
> Following on the discussion about this currently taking place, perhaps it
> would make sense to store the biblionumber in $0 or $9, reserving $w for 001
> identifiers, and adjusting import/cataloging to automatically convert robust
> $w links to local $0 or $9 links.
> Regards,
> Jared Camins-Esakov
> --
> Jared Camins-Esakov
> Freelance bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC
> (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445
> (e-mail) jcamins at cpbibliography.com
> (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-patches mailing list
> Koha-patches at lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-patches
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
>