Bug 15051

Summary: 245 Marc Field Order
Product: Koha Reporter: Nicole C. Engard <nengard>
Component: TemplatesAssignee: Owen Leonard <oleonard>
Status: CLOSED FIXED QA Contact: Testopia <testopia>
Severity: enhancement    
Priority: P5 - low CC: amy, cunha, dcook, katrin.fischer, nick, nicole
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:
Bug Depends on: 13381    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Nicole C. Engard 2015-10-22 15:44:03 UTC
I have been informed that per marc rules the 245 should display the following subfields in this order:

a, n, p, h, b, c

Right now we're showing them in 

a, b, c, k, n, p, s

I am unsure of where k and s fit in the scheme of things, but I thought I'd bring this up to discussion and/or fixing.
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2015-11-22 23:34:29 UTC
I did some tests and research, looking at the examples provided by the LOC:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd245.html

Overall it seems that the correct sequence is not fixed and some subfields can be repated in different positions:

a k p h
245 	00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm (jacketted in fiche).

a p b p c
245 	10$aInternationale Strassenkarte.$pEurope 1:2.5 Mio. :$bmit Register = International road map.$pEurope, 1:2.5 mio : with index /$cRV Reise- und Verkehrsverlag. 

So the ideal would be to make sure that the subfields can be cataloged in a certain sequence and will also display in this sequence... and actually that is exactly how it works now. I tested by changing my sequence in the record to a n... and the normal displays in staff and OPAC reflected that change perfectly. (I didn't expect it :) )

I think we probably can't just hardcode the sequence of subfields, as that would actually break the correct behaviour. Maybe it could be an option.
Comment 2 David Cook 2015-11-23 00:04:27 UTC
I think the order is hard-coded in the XSLTs at the moment... 

I agree with what Nicole has said as well. I much prefer:

a, n, p, h, b, c

over the alternatives.

At the moment, I think it goes "b" then "h", but it appears that "h" should be before "b":

$h - Medium
Medium designator used in the title statement. In records formulated according to ISBD principles, the medium designator appears in lowercase letters and is enclosed within brackets. It follows the title proper (subfields $a, $n, $p) and precedes the remainder of the title ($b), subsequent titles (in items lacking a collective title), and/or statement(s) of responsibility ($c).

http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd245.html
Comment 3 Katrin Fischer 2015-11-23 08:57:56 UTC
By moving the subfields in cataloguing I can do 'a n p h b c k s'. 
The fields show in the sequence they appear in the record for me.
Comment 4 David Cook 2015-11-23 23:35:13 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #3)
> By moving the subfields in cataloguing I can do 'a n p h b c k s'. 
> The fields show in the sequence they appear in the record for me.

Even with the XSLT instead of the normal display? Hmm, I'll have to take a look. I had someone complaining about this recently and I switched the order of "bh" to "hb" and that seemed to fix it...

First, I'm going to sign off one of your other bugs then I'll look at it again :)
Comment 5 Katrin Fischer 2015-11-23 23:37:33 UTC
Sounds like a plan - but yes, I tested with XSLT :)
Comment 6 David Cook 2015-11-24 00:03:36 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #5)
> Sounds like a plan - but yes, I tested with XSLT :)

And right you are!

It looks like I was thinking of the XSLTs in 3.14. It appears they've changed since then... yay!
Comment 7 Owen Leonard 2019-01-04 15:58:29 UTC
Is this bug still valid?
Comment 8 Nick Clemens (kidclamp) 2019-06-10 19:13:58 UTC
In testing the fields appear in the order they are cataloged,we can adjust the order in both editors, closing this one now