Bug 13383

Similar comment as for bug 13383: 

Be careful if both $4 and $e exist. I think if the relator term exists, don't display the relator code.

Also not sure about the | as separator.

What separator would you use instead?

I agree with Katrin about the $4 and $e conflict- always favor the term over the code, as that is what patrons will more readily understand. 

I also still like the vertical bar as a separator for the reasons I mentioned in Bug 13382.

Should there be a separator? Or should each be on their own line? 
-Winona

(In reply to rgravel from comment #3)
> I agree with Katrin about the $4 and $e conflict- always favor the term over
> the code, as that is what patrons will more readily understand. 
> 
> I also still like the vertical bar as a separator for the reasons I
> mentioned in Bug 13382.

Also, while working on this I noticed that the relator code for field 111 is actually subfield j, should I add that change into this fix as well? This is not handled by the current version of the stylesheet. 
Thanks, 
-Winona


(In reply to Winona Salesky from comment #4)
> Should there be a separator? Or should each be on their own line? 
> -Winona
> 
> (In reply to rgravel from comment #3)
> > I agree with Katrin about the $4 and $e conflict- always favor the term over
> > the code, as that is what patrons will more readily understand. 
> > 
> > I also still like the vertical bar as a separator for the reasons I
> > mentioned in Bug 13382.

Thanks for catching that, Winona! I think this should be included in the fix, as it was just overlooked and is the equivalent of the $e in the 100/110s.


(In reply to Winona Salesky from comment #5)
> Also, while working on this I noticed that the relator code for field 111 is
> actually subfield j, should I add that change into this fix as well? This is
> not handled by the current version of the stylesheet. 
> Thanks, 
> -Winona
> 
> 
> (In reply to Winona Salesky from comment #4)
> > Should there be a separator? Or should each be on their own line? 
> > -Winona
> > 
> > (In reply to rgravel from comment #3)
> > > I agree with Katrin about the $4 and $e conflict- always favor the term over
> > > the code, as that is what patrons will more readily understand. 
> > > 
> > > I also still like the vertical bar as a separator for the reasons I
> > > mentioned in Bug 13382.

1 - 100 subfield D is not displaying
2 - 111 subfields j,4 not displaying in any combination

Created attachment 37247 [details]
Sample record for testing

Sample record with data in all affected fields, not properly formatted, for testing only

Let me revise the comments, was looking at pre-apply notes instead of post-apply
100$d does display as well as 111$j


1 - For 100/110 In presence of both $4 and $e I think $e should take preference, it is the other way around now

2 - 111$j displays whether or not $4 is present and $4 does NOT display whether not $j is present

3 - If 111$j is blank, the record displays an empty []

This should address the issues with the relator codes and terms.

Thanks,
-Winona

(In reply to Winona Salesky from comment #12)
> Created attachment 37281 [details] [review] [review]
> Bug 13383 - RDA: 100/110/111 changes to XSLT
> 
> Test plan:
> 1) Apply this patch
> 2) Ensure you are using the default XSLT setting for the staff and opac
> search results and record details
> 3) Find or create a record with MARC tags 100,110,111
> 4) Perform an opac search that would show the record in the search results.
> 5) Click title to review record.
> 6) Note the fields updates 100,110,111 to show subfields a,b,c,d,q and
> t.Multiple fields are separated by span class=separator |.
> 7) Repeat steps 4 - 6 for the staff interface

Applying: RDA: 100/110/111 changes to XSLT
fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless (koha-tmpl/intranet-tmpl/prog/en/xslt/MARC21slim2intranetDetail.xsl).
Repository lacks necessary blobs to fall back on 3-way merge.
Cannot fall back to three-way merge.
Patch failed at 0001 RDA: 100/110/111 changes to XSLT
When you have resolved this problem run "git bz apply --continue".
If you would prefer to skip this patch, instead run "git bz apply --skip".
To restore the original branch and stop patching run "git bz apply --abort".
Patch left in /tmp/Bug-13383---RDA-100110111-changes-to-XSLT-9bjGww.patch

Okay, fixed what I saw before but noticed new issue:

-Multiple relator terms/codes do seem to be showing (only shows first $e/$4 (or $j/$4 for 111)

Also a question:  Should we display 100$j (Attribution qualifier)?  I don't know if I have ever used it, but seems like it should show if present (and all if repeated)

I think that is it then, trying to catch all the cases but so many little details to watch

I don't see any reason not to include the 100$j, if no one objects I will add it. 
-Winona


(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #16)
> Okay, fixed what I saw before but noticed new issue:
> 
> -Multiple relator terms/codes do seem to be showing (only shows first $e/$4
> (or $j/$4 for 111)
> 
> Also a question:  Should we display 100$j (Attribution qualifier)?  I don't
> know if I have ever used it, but seems like it should show if present (and
> all if repeated)
> 
> I think that is it then, trying to catch all the cases but so many little
> details to watch

I think no one has objected so you could go ahead and add

(In reply to Winona Salesky from comment #17)
> I don't see any reason not to include the 100$j, if no one objects I will
> add it. 
> -Winona
> 
> 
> (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #16)
> > Okay, fixed what I saw before but noticed new issue:
> > 
> > -Multiple relator terms/codes do seem to be showing (only shows first $e/$4
> > (or $j/$4 for 111)
> > 
> > Also a question:  Should we display 100$j (Attribution qualifier)?  I don't
> > know if I have ever used it, but seems like it should show if present (and
> > all if repeated)
> > 
> > I think that is it then, trying to catch all the cases but so many little
> > details to watch

Just waiting until 13382 gets pushed to master. There are some contradictions in the two, it will be easier to work from the latest version. 

-Winona

(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #18)
> I think no one has objected so you could go ahead and add
> 
> (In reply to Winona Salesky from comment #17)
> > I don't see any reason not to include the 100$j, if no one objects I will
> > add it. 
> > -Winona
> > 
> > 
> > (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #16)
> > > Okay, fixed what I saw before but noticed new issue:
> > > 
> > > -Multiple relator terms/codes do seem to be showing (only shows first $e/$4
> > > (or $j/$4 for 111)
> > > 
> > > Also a question:  Should we display 100$j (Attribution qualifier)?  I don't
> > > know if I have ever used it, but seems like it should show if present (and
> > > all if repeated)
> > > 
> > > I think that is it then, trying to catch all the cases but so many little
> > > details to watch

Works 

Worth mentioning that subfields $u and $g might be worth having too, but not necessary

Perhaps in a future enhancement?
-Winona

(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #22)
> Works 
> 
> Worth mentioning that subfields $u and $g might be worth having too, but not
> necessary

Created attachment 40940 [details] [review]
[PASSED QA] Bug 13383 - RDA: 100/110/111 changes to XSLT

Test plan:
1) Apply this patch
2) Ensure you are using the default XSLT setting for the staff and opac search results and record details
3) Find or create a record with MARC tags 100,110,111
4) Perform an opac search that would show the record in the search results.
5) Click title to review record.
6) Note the fields updates 100,110,111 to show subfields a,b,c,d,q and t.Multiple fields are separated by span class=separator |. Includes 100$j and handles multiple relator terms/codes.
7) Repeat steps 4 - 6 for the staff interface

Signed-off-by: Nick Clemens <nick@quecheelibrary.org>

Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>

Patch pushed to master.

Thanks Winona!