deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Zeno Tajoli
Hi to all,

I want to add, in "Koha to MARC mapping"
a link beetween the mysql field biblio.frameworkcode
to a marc21 subfield.

I think it is useful to have this data in the marc record.
I propose to use 997 $a.
The tag 997 is an empty tag.

What do you thing ?

Bye
Zeno Tajoli
--
Dott. Zeno Tajoli
tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it
fax +39 02 2135520
CILEA - Consorzio Interuniversitario
http://www.cilea.it/disclaimer
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Galen Charlton-3
Hi,

On 01/09/2012 09:44 AM, Zeno Tajoli wrote:
> I want to add, in "Koha to MARC mapping"
> a link beetween the mysql field biblio.frameworkcode
> to a marc21 subfield.
>
> I think it is useful to have this data in the marc record.

Could you elaborate more on the use case this would support?  The
framework code is displayed in the bib editor, for example, which is one
point where a cataloger would need to know about it.  Adding it to the
MARC framework would make it available for searching and make it a
little more convenient to display the framework code in XSLT OPAC
displays -- but to what end?

For MARC21 frameworks, if we were add to this to the default framework,
I'd prefer that the 942 or the 999 be used, as those are already
supported for bib-level mappings -- no need to carve out another tag.

Regards,

Galen
--
Galen Charlton
Director of Support and Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  [hidden email]
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Jared Camins-Esakov-2
Good morning,

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Galen Charlton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 01/09/2012 09:44 AM, Zeno Tajoli wrote:
I want to add, in "Koha to MARC mapping"
a link beetween the mysql field biblio.frameworkcode
to a marc21 subfield.

I think it is useful to have this data in the marc record.

Could you elaborate more on the use case this would support?  The framework code is displayed in the bib editor, for example, which is one point where a cataloger would need to know about it.  Adding it to the MARC framework would make it available for searching and make it a little more convenient to display the framework code in XSLT OPAC displays -- but to what end?

I have no idea, but I have no particular objection to it being stored in the MARC record. 

For MARC21 frameworks, if we were add to this to the default framework, I'd prefer that the 942 or the 999 be used, as those are already supported for bib-level mappings -- no need to carve out another tag.

+1 on 942 

Regards,
Jared

--
Jared Camins-Esakov
Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC
(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445


_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Galen Charlton-3
Hi,

On 01/09/2012 10:06 AM, Jared Camins-Esakov wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Galen Charlton <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     Could you elaborate more on the use case this would support?  The
>     framework code is displayed in the bib editor, for example, which is
>     one point where a cataloger would need to know about it.  Adding it
>     to the MARC framework would make it available for searching and make
>     it a little more convenient to display the framework code in XSLT
>     OPAC displays -- but to what end?
>
>
> I have no idea, but I have no particular objection to it being stored in
> the MARC record.

And to be clear, I don't have a particular objection either, just
curiosity regarding the use case.

Regards,

Galen
--
Galen Charlton
Director of Support and Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  [hidden email]
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Ian Bays
Hi.
This does open up possibilities for loading bib data directly into a
particular framework.  Currently for data loading I have not found any
way to load bib records into anything but default framework and then
with SQL change the frameworkcode for a range of biblionumbers (if I
remembered to catch the numbers).  Even if this is not automatically
done as part of this change we could run sql to change the framework
dependent on the contents of the subfield of 942 field.  Hopefully the
act of loading the bib data would not overwrite the 942 subfield as
"default" (as currently bibs are loaded into default), if you see what I
mean.

Sounds a positive move to me.

Ian

On 09/01/2012 15:08, Galen Charlton wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 01/09/2012 10:06 AM, Jared Camins-Esakov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Galen Charlton <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>     Could you elaborate more on the use case this would support?  The
>>     framework code is displayed in the bib editor, for example, which is
>>     one point where a cataloger would need to know about it.  Adding it
>>     to the MARC framework would make it available for searching and make
>>     it a little more convenient to display the framework code in XSLT
>>     OPAC displays -- but to what end?
>>
>>
>> I have no idea, but I have no particular objection to it being stored in
>> the MARC record.
>
> And to be clear, I don't have a particular objection either, just
> curiosity regarding the use case.
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen

--
Ian Bays
Director of Projects, PTFS Europe Limited
Content Management and Library Solutions
+44 (0) 800 756 6803 (phone)
+44 (0) 7774 995297 (mobile)
+44 (0) 800 756 6384 (fax)
skype: ian.bays
email: [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Zeno Tajoli
In reply to this post by Galen Charlton-3
Hi to all,

Il 09/01/2012 15:55, Galen Charlton ha scritto:

> Could you elaborate more on the use case this would support?  The
> framework code is displayed in the bib editor, for example, which is one
> point where a cataloger would need to know about it.  Adding it to the
> MARC framework would make it available for searching and make it a
> little more convenient to display the framework code in XSLT OPAC
> displays -- but to what end?

oh, is quite simple.
I want to export data in marc format to import in an other Koha and I
use different frameworks to catalogue.

If I insertr biblio.frameworkcode, I can re-import records in different
frameworks.

Clearly I need to setup 'marc to Koha links' before to import with
bulkmarcimport.pl

> For MARC21 frameworks, if we were add to this to the default framework,
> I'd prefer that the 942 or the 999 be used, as those are already
> supported for bib-level mappings -- no need to carve out another tag.

Well, in theory 999 are repetable, 942 is not repetable.
So for me is better 942.
A new subfield or we re-use $a ?
The subfield used are [default framework]:
-- 942
0 Koha issues (borrowed),
2 Source of classification or shelving scheme
6 Koha normalized classification for sorting
a Institution code [OBSOLETE]
c Koha [default] item type
e Edition
h Classification part
i Item part
k Call number prefix
m Call number suffix
n Suppress in OPAC
s Serial record flag

Bye
Zeno Tajoli


--
Dott. Zeno Tajoli
tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it
fax +39 02 2135520
CILEA - Consorzio Interuniversitario
http://www.cilea.it/disclaimer
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Jared Camins-Esakov-2
Zeno, et. al.,

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Zeno Tajoli <[hidden email]> wrote:
oh, is quite simple.
I want to export data in marc format to import in an other Koha and I
use different frameworks to catalogue.

If I insertr biblio.frameworkcode, I can re-import records in different
frameworks.

Clearly I need to setup 'marc to Koha links' before to import with
bulkmarcimport.pl

> For MARC21 frameworks, if we were add to this to the default framework,
> I'd prefer that the 942 or the 999 be used, as those are already
> supported for bib-level mappings -- no need to carve out another tag.

Well, in theory 999 are repetable, 942 is not repetable.
So for me is better 942.
A new subfield or we re-use $a ?
The subfield used are [default framework]:
-- 942

What about 942$f? For 'F'ramework?

Regards,
Jared 

--
Jared Camins-Esakov
Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC
(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445


_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Ian Walls
I support 942$f for the following reasons:

1. best to use an existing tag, and 942 is the best-fit candidate for non-repeating biblio-level, Koha-specific information

2. New subfields for new content, rather than repurposing an old field (and possibly having data conflicts on systems that still have the old, obsolete value)

3. subfield letter is the initial (in English) for the thing being stored; easy to remember!


-Ian

2012/1/9 Jared Camins-Esakov <[hidden email]>
Zeno, et. al.,

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Zeno Tajoli <[hidden email]> wrote:
oh, is quite simple.
I want to export data in marc format to import in an other Koha and I
use different frameworks to catalogue.

If I insertr biblio.frameworkcode, I can re-import records in different
frameworks.

Clearly I need to setup 'marc to Koha links' before to import with
bulkmarcimport.pl

> For MARC21 frameworks, if we were add to this to the default framework,
> I'd prefer that the 942 or the 999 be used, as those are already
> supported for bib-level mappings -- no need to carve out another tag.

Well, in theory 999 are repetable, 942 is not repetable.
So for me is better 942.
A new subfield or we re-use $a ?
The subfield used are [default framework]:
-- 942

What about 942$f? For 'F'ramework?

Regards,
Jared 

--
Jared Camins-Esakov
Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC
(phone) <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28917%29%20727-3445" value="+19177273445" target="_blank">+1 (917) 727-3445


_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/



--
Ian Walls
Lead Development Specialist
ByWater Solutions
ALA Midwinter Booth #2048
Phone # (888) 900-8944
http://bywatersolutions.com
[hidden email]
Twitter: @sekjal

_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Zeno Tajoli
Hi to all,

Il 09/01/2012 16:55, Ian Walls ha scritto:

> I support 942$f for the following reasons:
>
> 1. best to use an existing tag, and 942 is the best-fit candidate for
> non-repeating biblio-level, Koha-specific information
>
> 2. New subfields for new content, rather than repurposing an old field (and
> possibly having data conflicts on systems that still have the old, obsolete
> value)
>
> 3. subfield letter is the initial (in English) for the thing being stored;
> easy to remember!

for me 942 $f is OK.

Bye
Zeno Tajoli
--
Dott. Zeno Tajoli
tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it
fax +39 02 2135520
CILEA - Consorzio Interuniversitario
http://www.cilea.it/disclaimer
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Galen Charlton-3
In reply to this post by Ian Walls
Hi,

On 01/09/2012 10:55 AM, Ian Walls wrote:

> I support 942$f for the following reasons:
>
> 1. best to use an existing tag, and 942 is the best-fit candidate for
> non-repeating biblio-level, Koha-specific information
>
> 2. New subfields for new content, rather than repurposing an old field
> (and possibly having data conflicts on systems that still have the old,
> obsolete value)
>
> 3. subfield letter is the initial (in English) for the thing being
> stored; easy to remember!

+1

Regards,

Galen
--
Galen Charlton
Director of Support and Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  [hidden email]
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Repeatable 999? (was Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode)

Galen Charlton-3
In reply to this post by Zeno Tajoli
Hi,

On 01/09/2012 10:32 AM, Zeno Tajoli wrote:
> Well, in theory 999 are repetable,

Actually, that's a problem.  The 999 is indeed marked as repeatable in
the (MARC21) frameworks, but since it is used to store the
biblio(item)number, it really shouldn't be marked as repeatable (or even
editable by staff users).  Does anybody see any problem making it
non-repeatable?

Regards,

Galen
--
Galen Charlton
Director of Support and Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  [hidden email]
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repeatable 999? (was Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode)

Zeno Tajoli
Hi to all,

Il 09/01/2012 17:17, Galen Charlton ha scritto:
> On 01/09/2012 10:32 AM, Zeno Tajoli wrote:
>> Well, in theory 999 are repetable,
>
> Actually, that's a problem.  The 999 is indeed marked as repeatable in
> the (MARC21) frameworks, but since it is used to store the
> biblio(item)number, it really shouldn't be marked as repeatable (or even
> editable by staff users).  Does anybody see any problem making it
> non-repeatable?

no problem for me.

Bye
Zeno Tajoli

--
Dott. Zeno Tajoli
tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it
fax +39 02 2135520
CILEA - Consorzio Interuniversitario
http://www.cilea.it/disclaimer
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repeatable 999? (was Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode)

Paul A
In reply to this post by Galen Charlton-3
At 11:17 AM 1/9/2012 -0500, Galen Charlton wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 01/09/2012 10:32 AM, Zeno Tajoli wrote:
>>Well, in theory 999 are repetable,
>
>Actually, that's a problem.  The 999 is indeed marked as repeatable in the
>(MARC21) frameworks, but since it is used to store the biblio(item)number,
>it really shouldn't be marked as repeatable (or even editable by staff
>users).  Does anybody see any problem making it non-repeatable?

As far as I can see, they already appear to be non-repeatable (unless I
modded the default framework in 3.2 and it's been imported into 3.6.)  I
find all four subfields (a, b, c and d) non-repeatable (according to the
check box) and it doesn't seem to make much difference whether they are
"ignored" or in tab 0 as no cataloguer will be able to attempt an
edit|modification.

Am I missing something?  Or have I done something stupid?

Thanks - Paul


>Regards,
>
>Galen
>--
>Galen Charlton
>Director of Support and Implementation
>Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
>email:  [hidden email]
>direct: +1 770-709-5581
>cell:   +1 404-984-4366
>skype:  gmcharlt
>web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
>Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
>http://evergreen-ils.org
>_______________________________________________
>Koha-devel mailing list
>[hidden email]
>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/

---
Maritime heritage and history, preservation and conservation,
research and education through the written word and the arts.
<http://UltraMarine.ca>, <http://AandC.org> and <http://MarDoc.ca>

_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repeatable 999? (was Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode)

Galen Charlton-3
Hi,

On 01/09/2012 02:54 PM, Paul wrote:
> As far as I can see, they already appear to be non-repeatable (unless I
> modded the default framework in 3.2 and it's been imported into 3.6.) I
> find all four subfields (a, b, c and d) non-repeatable (according to the
> check box) and it doesn't seem to make much difference whether they are
> "ignored" or in tab 0 as no cataloguer will be able to attempt an
> edit|modification.

While the subfields within the field are non-repeatable, the 999 field
itself is (by default) marked as repeatable.

Regards,

Galen
--
Galen Charlton
Director of Support and Implementation
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  [hidden email]
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repeatable 999? (was Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode)

Zeno Tajoli
In reply to this post by Paul A
Hi Paul and all,

>----- Messaggio originale -----
>Da: "Paul" <[hidden email]>

>As far as I can see, they already appear to be non-repeatable (unless I
>modded the default framework in 3.2 and it's been imported into 3.6.)

If you see the definitions of file
installer/data/mysql/en/marcflavour/marc21/mandatory/marc21_framework_DEFAULT.sql
lines 46 - 53:

INSERT INTO `marc_tag_structure` (`tagfield`, `liblibrarian`, `libopac`, `repeatable`, `mandatory`, `authorised_value`, `frameworkcode`) VALUES
 ('999', 'SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBERS (KOHA)', 'SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBERS (KOHA)', 1, 0, '', '');
 
INSERT INTO `marc_subfield_structure` (`tagfield`, `tagsubfield`, `liblibrarian`, `libopac`, `repeatable`, `mandatory`, `kohafield`, `tab`, `authorised_value`, `authtypecode`, `value_builder`, `isurl`, `hidden`, `frameworkcode`, `seealso`, `link`, `defaultvalue`) VALUES
('999', 'a', 'Item type [OBSOLETE]', 'Item type [OBSOLETE]', 0, 0, [...]
('999', 'b', 'Koha Dewey Subclass [OBSOLETE]', 'Koha Dewey Subclass [OBSOLETE]', 0, 0, [...]
('999', 'c', 'Koha biblionumber', 'Koha biblionumber', 0, 0, [...]
('999', 'd', 'Koha biblioitemnumber', 'Koha biblioitemnumber', 0, 0, [...]
 
The result is:
Field 999: repeatable
Subfield 999$a: not repeatable
Subfield 999$b: not repeatable
Subfield 999$c: not repeatable
Subfield 999$d: not repeatable

But it is only the default.
It was so also in 3.2
No problems if you change it.

Bye
Zeno Tajoli
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

paul POULAIN-3
In reply to this post by Zeno Tajoli
Le 09/01/2012 15:44, Zeno Tajoli a écrit :
> Hi to all,
>
> I want to add, in "Koha to MARC mapping"
> a link beetween the mysql field biblio.frameworkcode
> to a marc21 subfield.
>
> I think it is useful to have this data in the marc record.
> I propose to use 997 $a.
> The tag 997 is an empty tag.
Seeing this message just now, sorry for the delay: Just a big warning =
be carefull that just mapping won't probably work well. It will need a
lot of testing, but I fear that, frameworkcode being managed not like
other fields, it won't work from scratch, you'll have to change many
things in the core of Koha.

Maybe I'm too anxious though... but just double or triple check !


--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: deafult for biblio.frameworkcode

Zeno Tajoli
Hi Paul and all,
Il 27/01/2012 16:01, Paul Poulain ha scritto:

>> I want to add, in "Koha to MARC mapping"
>> a link beetween the mysql field biblio.frameworkcode
>> to a marc21 subfield.
>>
>> I think it is useful to have this data in the marc record.
>> I propose to use 997 $a.
>> The tag 997 is an empty tag.
> Seeing this message just now, sorry for the delay: Just a big warning =
> be carefull that just mapping won't probably work well. It will need a
> lot of testing, but I fear that, frameworkcode being managed not like
> other fields, it won't work from scratch, you'll have to change many
> things in the core of Koha.
>
> Maybe I'm too anxious though... but just double or triple check !

do you have any idea where can I start to check ?

At present I use 942$f linked with biblio.frameworkcode and I don't see
problems.

In fact I use it in mass import.
My MARC Bibliographic frameworks have a 942$f with a default value taken
from an authorized list, a different value fro every framework.
And catalogue don't change the value, so every update is a confirmation
of the first input.

Bye
Zeno Tajoli
--
Dott. Zeno Tajoli
tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it
fax +39 02 2135520
CILEA - Consorzio Interuniversitario
http://www.cilea.it/disclaimer
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
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/