Bug 17407

Summary: Fields cataloged using MARC21 880 are only searchable using keyword search
Product: Koha Reporter: Barton Chittenden <barton>
Component: SearchingAssignee: Galen Charlton <gmcharlt>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE 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:
Attachments: Example data, marcxml
Example data, marc / utf8

Description Barton Chittenden 2016-10-05 19:37:20 UTC
According to http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd880.html, the MARC21 880 field is used to store versions of other MARC21 fields that have a different representation than the main cataloged fields. This would be used, for instance, to hold title or author information not stored in a Latin character set.

The 880 field is then linked back to 245 (Title), 100 (author), etc, via 880$6.

The $6 subfield follows the linkage rules here: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html under '$6 - Linkage'.

... the linkage fields are used to give context -- which field / occurrence is being linked to, which language / is being used, and whether the script is written right-to-left or left-to-right.

--

Without this development, titles cataloged using 880 fields can be searched using keyword searches, but searches using the linked title, author, subject are not searchable using title, author, subject searches.

This will be an issue for both Zebra and Elastic search.
Comment 1 Barton Chittenden 2016-10-05 19:41:10 UTC
Created attachment 56059 [details]
Example data, marcxml
Comment 2 Barton Chittenden 2016-10-05 19:42:05 UTC
Created attachment 56060 [details]
Example data, marc / utf8
Comment 3 Katrin Fischer 2016-10-16 13:43:08 UTC
I'd really like to see this. Records from our union catalog contain the original script in 880.
Comment 4 Katrin Fischer 2019-06-10 08:38:34 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 15187 ***