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
Created attachment 23825 [details] [review] 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
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
(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
Created attachment 23882 [details] [review] 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>
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.
(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?
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?
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
(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?
If we don't update the English version, we should maybe pick another language to base the po file for translations on?
Pushed to master. Thanks, Bernardo!
*** Bug 6172 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***