Summary: | rename biblioitems.itemtype | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro> |
Component: | Database | Assignee: | Galen Charlton <gmcharlt> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | katrin.fischer |
Version: | Main | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Change sponsored?: | --- | Patch complexity: | --- |
Documentation contact: | Documentation submission: | ||
Text to go in the release notes: | Version(s) released in: |
Description
Mathieu Saby
2013-10-12 07:26:53 UTC
I think not every library is treating the biblio level itemtype as a document type currently, so there might be different ideas and workflows involved here. What I always thought was that item-level itypes was being used as a different way to define circulation rules. Our libraries don't use the biblio level itype at all, apart from it being set to a default value, as the itemtype being picked in the item form will then preset to this. There may be different way of using those fields, but in some templates, biblioitems.itemtype is translated as "document type". In reports maybe. I suspect the name biblioitems.itemtype dates back to the old days of pre-marc Koha, when you could have 1 biblio for x biblioitems. This is no longer the case, so in a bibliographic point of view, biblioitems table is used to describe documents (FRBR Manifestation), never items. So documenttype may be more accurate. Mathieu In my library, in biblioitems.itemtype we put 'book', 'cd' etc and in items.itype 'long loan', 'normal loan' And we use items.itype for circulation rules. Mathieu I think you can only do that, when you change the mapping? So that you are not using the itemtypes authorised value list for both (like it is the default for MARC21 at least). Yes, 2 different lists. Because our vendor tell us it was possible I presume. For circulation rules, if the rules are the same for DVD and CD, we did not want to duplicate them. So we can have biblioitems.itemtype = DVD items.itype = SHORT and biblioitems.itemtype = CD items.itype = SHORT Mathieu It is totally possible, but I think this is the kind of customizations that we will have to be really careful about when we change how this works. (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #4) > I think you can only do that, when you change the mapping? So that you are > not using the itemtypes authorised value list for both (like it is the > default for MARC21 at least). HMM I understand now why in Zebra, Marc21 is indexing both information in the same index, while in UNIMARC we use ccode for biblioitems.itemytpe (ccode seems quite a bad choice). Making this more uniform could be interesting I think. Because some changes could be unseen for Marc21 ppl, while they will break configs of unimarc ppl. And as the concept of "type of documents" and "type of items" are easily understandable by everone, and not specific to a marcflavor, I don't see why the indexing should be different. I would appreciate to have the opinion of unimarc ppl, for example from Biblibre. Mathieu Discussion here boiled down to the fact, that UNIMARC users have not mapped biblioitems.itemtype to the itemtypes authorised value. I believe this needs a different fix than suggested and is much more complex. We rely on items.itype and bilbioitems.itemtype to be the same list of itemtypes in more and more spots. Some I know of: - Suggesting the itemtype for the item when cataloguing - Search: In MARC21 both are indexed as itemtype, allowing to easily search for records without items too (only MARC21?) - Article requests on records without items - Hold limit checking If UNIMARC uses the field differently, there is a bigger discussion to be had on how to handle this to give both MARC formats the same behaviour in circ etc. I believe if necessary document type should be a separate thing. |