Created attachment 99122 [details] [review] Bug24675: Update MARC21 config for bib_heading_fields To reproduce: - Enable the sysprefs AutoCreateAuthorities BiblioAddsAuthorities CatalogModuleRelink - Edit or open any biblio record - fill all subfields of the field 100 In my case , I have $a, $d, $e, $q - Save and continue editing - Check the $9 of the field 100 filled for the authid(auto create of authority) - Open the detail of the new authority created using authid ($9) - In the new authority, $e is not filled This problem produce, because in C4/Heading/MARC21.pm, the list of subfields for each field is not upated since 2011. The source of new list of subfields is : library of congress (https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic) When applying the patch, all subfields is reported correctly in the new authority.
Created attachment 99125 [details] [review] Bug24675: Update MARC21 config for bib_heading_fields To reproduce: - Enable the sysprefs AutoCreateAuthorities BiblioAddsAuthorities CatalogModuleRelink - Edit or open any biblio record - fill all subfields of the field 100 In my case , I have $a, $d, $e, $q - Save and continue editing - Check the $9 of the field 100 filled for the authid(auto create of authority) - Open the detail of the new authority created using authid ($9) - In the new authority, $e is not filled This problem produce, because in C4/Heading/MARC21.pm, the list of subfields for each field is not upated since 2011. The source of new list of subfields is : library of congress (https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic) When applying the patch, all subfields is reported correctly in the new authority. NB: All the subfields not written in the file C4/Heading/MARC21.pm have the same problem.
Created attachment 99130 [details] [review] Bug 24675: Update MARC21 config for bib_heading_fields To reproduce: - Enable the sysprefs AutoCreateAuthorities BiblioAddsAuthorities CatalogModuleRelink - Edit or open any biblio record - fill all subfields of the field 100 In my case , I have $a, $d, $e, $q - Save and continue editing - Check the $9 of the field 100 filled for the authid(auto create of authority) - Open the detail of the new authority created using authid ($9) - In the new authority, $e is not filled This problem produce, because in C4/Heading/MARC21.pm, the list of subfields for each field is not upated since 2011. The source of new list of subfields is : library of congress (https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic) When applying the patch, all subfields is reported correctly in the new authority. NB: All the subfields not written in the file C4/Heading/MARC21.pm have the same problem.
Created attachment 99508 [details] [review] Bug 24675: Update MARC21 config for bib_heading_fields To reproduce: - Enable the sysprefs AutoCreateAuthorities BiblioAddsAuthorities CatalogModuleRelink - Edit or open any biblio record - fill all subfields of the field 100 In my case , I have $a, $d, $e, $q - Save and continue editing - Check the $9 of the field 100 filled for the authid(auto create of authority) - Open the detail of the new authority created using authid ($9) - In the new authority, $e is not filled This problem produce, because in C4/Heading/MARC21.pm, the list of subfields for each field is not upated since 2011. The source of new list of subfields is : library of congress (https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic) When applying the patch, all subfields is reported correctly in the new authority. NB: All the subfields not written in the file C4/Heading/MARC21.pm have the same problem. Signed-off-by: Martin Renvoize <martin.renvoize@ptfs-europe.com>
The reference here is to the MARC bibliographic records - $e is not a subfield that is supposed to be recorded in authorities - that would end up creating a different record for each relator terms for the same individual. Check here, under the 'LC Guidelines' link near the bottom - LC has a list of subfields not to use, including e We might need an update here, but I think we need to get an authoritative list with some cataloger input before moving it ahead
(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #5) > The reference here is to the MARC bibliographic records - $e is not a > subfield that is supposed to be recorded in authorities - that would end up > creating a different record for each relator terms for the same individual. > > Check here, under the 'LC Guidelines' link near the bottom - LC has a list > of subfields not to use, including e > > We might need an update here, but I think we need to get an authoritative > list with some cataloger input before moving it ahead Nick is correct, $e, $4 and maybe others should not be part of the generated authority record as they can be differerent in every record using the same authority.
The actual situation with $e is even weirder, because although LC chooses not to use it, $e is actually defined for authority 100 tags in http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad100.html but it isn't defined for what you would expect. Instead, as documented in http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adx00.html it's the relator between the $a and the $t in a name/title heading. So if you were cataloging according to MARC but not according to LC, you could have an "800 1# $aThunkitup, John,$ecreator$tOthers write John's characters series", and when Koha created an authority record from that and dropped the $ecreator it would be wrong. Making that work for 700, where $a$e means the relationship between the $a and the work the bib record describes, but $a$e$t means the relationship between the $a and the $t, would require a rewrite of how Koha decides what subfields are appropriate, to make them dependent on the existence of others, and that horrible ambiguity is probably why LC decided that it wasn't a good idea so they wouldn't use it.