Bug 18188 - Should we rename items.booksellerid to items.acqsource ?
Summary: Should we rename items.booksellerid to items.acqsource ?
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Database (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Galen Charlton
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 18187
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2017-03-01 12:50 UTC by Marcel de Rooy
Modified: 2020-01-11 23:34 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcel de Rooy 2017-03-01 12:50:22 UTC

    
Comment 1 Marcel de Rooy 2017-03-01 13:14:12 UTC
See also bug 18187.
This field in items is labeled as Source of acquisition. Since it is a free text field, we can imagine that any information may be entered into this field. You could e.g. also enter a name of someone who donated a book.
Unfortunately its literal name is booksellerid. Originally, it may have been the intention to really save the booksellerid; but making it an editable text field was a bad choice.

Note: MARC21 maps 952$e to booksellerid, French UNIMARC maps 995a to it.

Would you agree with renaming the field to acqsource?
Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2017-03-05 10:37:44 UTC
At the moment we use it in both ways in our library. Libraries not using the acquisitions module use it as a free text field adding the name of the vendor there. In libraries using the acquisitions module the booksellerid of the vendor is added by the acquisitions module. I am not sure what we will win by renaming it?