Bug 11453 - Update EN default UNIMARC bibliographic framework
Summary: Update EN default UNIMARC bibliographic framework
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: MARC Bibliographic data support (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 6172 10726
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-12-27 03:43 UTC by Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
Modified: 2015-06-04 23:33 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: Medium patch
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Bug 11453 - Update EN default UNIMARC bibliographic framework (333.53 KB, patch)
2013-12-27 04:00 UTC, Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 11453 - Update EN default UNIMARC bibliographic framework (332.42 KB, patch)
2014-01-01 06:29 UTC, Chris Cormack
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
[PASSED QA] Bug 11453 - Update EN default UNIMARC bibliographic framework (332.59 KB, patch)
2014-01-18 13:54 UTC, Katrin Fischer
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-12-27 03:43:09 UTC
English default UNIMARC bibliographic framework need to be updated.

UNIMARC manual (2008) 
http://archive.ifla.org/VI/8/unimarc-concise-bibliographic-format-2008.pdf

Updates (2012)
http://www.ifla.org/node/7974
Comment 1 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-12-27 04:00:28 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Mathieu Saby 2013-12-27 23:22:31 UTC
Hello
Not sure of that, but I see that you added a 852 field. We don't use it in France, but I suppose it is made for storing information about items, which are stored in 995 in UNIMARC Koha.
I unterstand it is part of the IFLA standard, but don't you think this could be source of mistakes ? I'm not sure of the best way of dealing with that: maybe not creating 852 field in a fist time? or adding a comment in the fied name to prevent mistakes?
And maybe on a long run, we could envision to move items from 995 to 852 ??

Mathieu
Comment 3 Bernardo Gonzalez Kriegel 2013-12-28 00:07:43 UTC
(In reply to mathieu saby from comment #2)
> Hello
Hi Mathieu and thanks for taking a look

> Not sure of that, but I see that you added a 852 field. We don't use it in
> France, but I suppose it is made for storing information about items, which
> are stored in 995 in UNIMARC Koha.

For what I can see UNIMARC 852 is very similar to MARC21 852
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/concise/bd852.html)
That is not used on MARC21 Koha, we use 952 instead.

> I unterstand it is part of the IFLA standard, but don't you think this could
> be source of mistakes ? I'm not sure of the best way of dealing with that:
> maybe not creating 852 field in a fist time? or adding a comment in the fied
> name to prevent mistakes?
> And maybe on a long run, we could envision to move items from 995 to 852 ??
> 

On MARC21 framework it's hidden so is not a problem, may be the same could be done on UNIMARC. And all new fields are hidden by default.
If you load the framework the only visible field is 856

Bernardo
Comment 4 Chris Cormack 2014-01-01 06:29:23 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 5 Katrin Fischer 2014-01-18 13:54:41 UTC
Created attachment 24543 [details] [review]
[PASSED QA] Bug 11453 - Update EN default UNIMARC bibliographic framework

This patch updates default EN UNIMARC bibliographic framework

I used the 2008 version of the UNIMARC bibliographic manual,
and added updates listed on official site.

There are new fields/subfields, those added are hidden by
default.

There are some description changes, and also a lot of
changes to repeatable and mandatory values.

To test:
a) Functional
1) Remove all bibliographic frameworks
2) Load new file unimarc_framework_DEFAULT.sql
3) Check that it load without errors

b) Correctness
1) Take a time and verify that all new
fields/subfileds are correct

Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz>
Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <Katrin.Fischer.83@web.de>
Huge patch, lots of additions and corrections.
To view the changes git diff --color-words HEAD^ is helpful.
Comment 6 Galen Charlton 2014-01-18 16:17:00 UTC
(In reply to mathieu saby from comment #2)
> Hello
> Not sure of that, but I see that you added a 852 field. We don't use it in
> France, but I suppose it is made for storing information about items, which
> are stored in 995 in UNIMARC Koha.
> I unterstand it is part of the IFLA standard, but don't you think this could
> be source of mistakes ? I'm not sure of the best way of dealing with that:
> maybe not creating 852 field in a fist time? or adding a comment in the fied
> name to prevent mistakes?
> And maybe on a long run, we could envision to move items from 995 to 852 ??

A general question I've been curious about for a while: who uses the English UNIMARC frameworks?
Comment 7 Katrin Fischer 2014-01-18 17:50:20 UTC
I think the idea behind the update was in part that it could be used for translations. So only one framework would have to be updated in the future. But the question is good, maybe basing them on another, the French(?) would make more sense?
Comment 8 Mathieu Saby 2014-01-18 18:09:24 UTC
I'm sure it's used in France, in Portugal, in Italy. And Koha is used in those 3 countries.
It may also be in use in Greece, Russia, Croatia and some arabic speaking countries (I found data of 2008 for those countries).


Mathieu
Comment 9 Galen Charlton 2014-01-23 15:44:09 UTC
(In reply to mathieu saby from comment #8)
> I'm sure it's used in France, in Portugal, in Italy. And Koha is used in
> those 3 countries.
> It may also be in use in Greece, Russia, Croatia and some arabic speaking
> countries (I found data of 2008 for those countries).

Right -- but do they use the *English* version specifically?
Comment 10 Katrin Fischer 2014-01-23 15:53:23 UTC
If we don't update the English version, we should maybe pick another language to base the po file for translations on?
Comment 11 Galen Charlton 2014-01-23 16:58:00 UTC
Pushed to master.  Thanks, Bernardo!
Comment 12 Katrin Fischer 2014-03-15 09:50:16 UTC
*** Bug 6172 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***