Summary: | Improve sequence in which fields are displayed in XSLT output | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | David Roberts <david.roberts> |
Component: | Cataloging | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | fiona.borthwick, flyingendpaper, m.de.rooy |
Version: | unspecified | ||
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: |
Description
David Roberts
2020-02-07 10:06:52 UTC
Hi David, I am not sure if this would work a general rule - an example would be the 700, 710, 711, etc. No, I agree that the 1XX and 7XX fields are currently a complication that might make it difficult to implement 100%. I still think that it is expected that the fields are in the correct order though, and librarians new to Koha often query why this is not the case. I have just completed training for a new customer and they requested that the 700 fields display after the 650 Subjects and questioned why some other fields seemed to be out of numerical order. I wonder if this is a librarian vs users thing. As a user, I would expect the first author and other authors to be be displayed together - having to scroll way back down for the second author would not make sense to me, as the whole first/second thing is a bit of an artificial librarian thing. It's also very based on how MARC is structured - in Germany we used to have our own format (MAB) and also a big part of cataloguing is still not done in MARC, but based on the internal format of our union catalogs. I'd argue we should always try to keep things in an order, that makes sense from the content. MARC lends to that, but not totally. Hi! Some MARC21 tag groups are entered (and should be displayed) in tag order, but some aren't. The note fields (5XX) in serials/continuing resources records should be entered and displayed in tag order if one is cataloging according to the Library of Congress' CONSER program, but the other formats' notes' tags are usually entered and displayed in the order of relationship to the description (i.e., notes relating to title(s), then statements of responsibility, then publication, then physical description, etc.) Subject fields (6XX) are entered and should be displayed in order of coverage in the title, so the first 6XX field is what the work is mostly about, the next is what the work is less about, etc. So although many of the tags are entered and should be displayed in numerical order, not all of them should be. So in the example below, the notes should be entered and displayed in this order: 511 508 773 (this relates to publication, i.e., 260 or 264) 505 586 583 It does make sense that the order seems random to non-catalogers, but it follows the order of the description--of relationship to the other fields (1XX, 2XX, 3XX, etc.)--with the final note(s) about the institution/repository. Of course, this is probably not true for institutions cataloging in MARC21 according to different cataloging rules! Cheerio, h2 Very helpful information, thx Heather! I'll reword this a bit into "improve the sequence" as I doubt a bit that we stick to the proper order now :) |