Re: [Koha-devel] commit "various authorities fixes" (from galen)

[Galen Charlton]

Hi,

On 11/14/07, Paul POULAIN <address@hidden> wrote:
> * 152 field for authority type is unused in marc21, so using it is
> harmless. But it's the correct field for unimarc, so I think we could
> accept it (as 1xx is the correct place imho)

The problem is that at some point in the future, 152 could be defined
as a standard tag in MARC21 for some other purpose, causing an upgrade
problem for Koha users of MARC21 authorities.  9XX tags should be used
(in MARC21, anyway) for local and ILS-specific uses such as the
authority type tag.

For MARC21 I intend to adjust the framework and code so that something
like 952 is used while still allowing the current behavior and tag for
UNIMARC.  Of course, depending on the complexity of the change, this
may be a post 3.0 patch.

> * why would be need to use summary only in UNIMARC ? The limits of the
> summary feature are the same in MARC21 & UNIMARC. And for full headings,
> it does not work 100% correctly in unimarc as well. So let it empty.
> That's what we say to our customers

I coded it that way so as to not break current behavior for UNIMARC
users.  However, the process of building the authority record summary
clearly needs more work, but that is perhaps for post-3.0.

> * The complete building of authority include some non translatable
> strings. It's not due to galen commit, but I think we will (in france)
> see this question thrown back to us quite soon... I don't know how we
> will solve it atm.
>
> knowing 2 and 3 users can choose to have something translated or
> something correct from a MARC pov. I know some customers that will
> prefer one, some prefering the other.

I agree that the hard-coded strings need to be taken out, and should
be done as part of reexamining the summary feature.

Regards,

Galen
-- 
Galen Charlton
Koha Application Developer
LibLime
address@hidden
p: 1-888-564-2457