In MARC21, 690-699 are for locally defined subjects. These should be linked up to their appropriate authorities by the linker too.
Created attachment 18297 [details] [review] Bug 10308 - local subjects can use authorities too This adds entries for 690-699 to the authorities linker, so they get linked up like everything else. To Test: * make sure your framework doesn't have 690 set up to link to authorities (or it'll get linked as part of cataloguing.) * add a subject with some term to the 690$a field. * add an authority for TOPIC_TERM with the matching term. * make sure zebra is up to date. * run link_bibs_to_authorities.pl over your system. * check that the authority is now linked to your record. * repeat with the other 69x fields if you like.
Is there a reason you didn't mark 696-699 as subjects?
I'm not sure. I think I just based it on the pattern used by other things.
Patch applied cleanly, go forth and signoff
Speaking of other things, how did you determine the subfields? http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/690.html (why not c,d,e?) http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/691.html (why not b?) http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/696.html (why not u,v,x,y,z?) You get the idea. :) I know nothing of library stuff, but I would suspect that subject would be applicable to these 6xx fields, like Jared was asking about in comment 2. And it looks like 696-698 are cut and paste from 700,710,711. And 699 cut and paste from 698. Which is what is implied by comment 3.
(In reply to M. Tompsett from comment #6) > Speaking of other things, how did you determine the subfields? > http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/690.html (why not c,d,e?) > http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/691.html (why not b?) > http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/696.html (why not u,v,x,y,z?) > You get the idea. :) > > I know nothing of library stuff, but I would suspect that subject would be > applicable to these 6xx fields, like Jared was asking about in comment 2. > > And it looks like 696-698 are cut and paste from 700,710,711. > And 699 cut and paste from 698. Which is what is implied by comment 3. The subfields are just based on what was used on the equivalent fields, on the assumption that they were laid out the same. These are all local use fields, there is no strict definition for them according to LoC, and according to OCLC, they are they same. So what's good enough for 650 is good enough for 690, etc. If they're not actually good enough, then that's another bug.
(In reply to Jared Camins-Esakov from comment #2) > Is there a reason you didn't mark 696-699 as subjects? And looking at this again, it's because they're not subjects. They're names and titles.
Created attachment 29157 [details] [review] [SIGNED-OFF] Bug 10308 - local subjects can use authorities too This adds entries for 690-699 to the authorities linker, so they get linked up like everything else. To Test: * make sure your framework doesn't have 690 set up to link to authorities (or it'll get linked as part of cataloguing.) * add a subject with some term to the 690$a field. * add an authority for TOPIC_TERM with the matching term. * make sure zebra is up to date. * run link_bibs_to_authorities.pl over your system. * check that the authority is now linked to your record. * repeat with the other 69x fields if you like. Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com> Tested using 696a (PERSO_NAME). Works as described, no errors
Created attachment 29881 [details] [review] [PASSED QA] Bug 10308 - local subjects can use authorities too This adds entries for 690-699 to the authorities linker, so they get linked up like everything else. To Test: * make sure your framework doesn't have 690 set up to link to authorities (or it'll get linked as part of cataloguing.) * add a subject with some term to the 690$a field. * add an authority for TOPIC_TERM with the matching term. * make sure zebra is up to date. * run link_bibs_to_authorities.pl over your system. * check that the authority is now linked to your record. * repeat with the other 69x fields if you like. Signed-off-by: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel <bgkriegel@gmail.com> Tested using 696a (PERSO_NAME). Works as described, no errors Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <Katrin.Fischer.83@web.de> This works as described, but linked authorities won't search correctly when clicking on the link on the detail page, as the 69x $9 is not indexed.
Patch pushed to master. Thanks Robin!