Summary: | Allow choosing narrower/broader when linking authority hierarchies | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) <tomascohen> |
Component: | MARC Authority data support | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | CLOSED WORKSFORME | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | arouss1980 |
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: | ||
Circulation function: | |||
Bug Depends on: | 8523 | ||
Bug Blocks: | |||
Attachments: | Cataloging authority plugin - Relationship information dropdown menu |
Description
Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen)
2018-11-11 22:36:29 UTC
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #0) > The idea is that instead of just picking the 'Choose' button, the end-user > can choose if the selected one is a narrower or a broader term, and thus > filling $w accordingly. Hi Tomás. There does exist a dropdown menu in both MARC21/UNIMARC setups with various relationship options. If you select one of the options (say, "g - Broader term") before you pick the 'Choose' button, subfield $w ($5 in UNIMARC) will be filled in with the appropriate code. Or were you referring to something different in your comment? :-) Created attachment 82651 [details]
Cataloging authority plugin - Relationship information dropdown menu
(In reply to Andreas Roussos from comment #1) > (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #0) > > The idea is that instead of just picking the 'Choose' button, the end-user > > can choose if the selected one is a narrower or a broader term, and thus > > filling $w accordingly. > Hi Tomás. There does exist a dropdown menu in both MARC21/UNIMARC > setups with various relationship options. If you select one of the > options (say, "g - Broader term") before you pick the 'Choose' > button, subfield $w ($5 in UNIMARC) will be filled in with the > appropriate code. > > Or were you referring to something different in your comment? :-) That's correct! I missed it, thanks! |