Bug 25221 - Imported records are not checked for accuracy
Summary: Imported records are not checked for accuracy
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Cataloging (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-04-20 17:07 UTC by Christopher Brannon
Modified: 2024-01-02 02:18 UTC (History)
3 users (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 Christopher Brannon 2020-04-20 17:07:08 UTC
When you create a new bib record, Koha checks if certain fields are filled out.  When you import a bib record, Koha does not check if that record has those fields filled out.

I would suggest that when a record is imported, it either needs to be taken immediately into editing so that Koha can catch issues, or it needs to be put into a quarantine state, and unusable anywhere in the system until it is edited and saved.

When importing a bib for an order, since you are dealing with a single record, I could see how going straight into editing after importing could work.

However, if you are importing bibs through an batch import tool, if the process isn't already checking for issues or missing fields, these items should be set in quarantine and require the cataloger to edit the record to remove it from quarantine.

This process would address problems elsewhere in Koha where incomplete or compromised records cause an error in Koha or in a process that can't complete due to a faulty record.

I'm not a cataloger, but this seems like a reasonable workflow for bringing outside records into your own system.
Comment 1 Martin Renvoize 2020-04-20 17:31:24 UTC
I like the idea of a check for accuracy and clear reporting, but a hard quarantine would need to be optional in my opinion.

I know of catalogues where they import hundreds, if not thousands of records, for electronic holdings regularly and requiring a manual intervention step for each record could prove detrimental.  Also, how would Union Catalogues work?

It would certainly need to act like a filter rather than a hard requirement for all.

I do like the idea though.
Comment 2 Christopher Brannon 2020-04-20 18:08:03 UTC
(In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #1)
> I like the idea of a check for accuracy and clear reporting, but a hard
> quarantine would need to be optional in my opinion.

I think optional is a good idea.

> I know of catalogues where they import hundreds, if not thousands of
> records, for electronic holdings regularly and requiring a manual
> intervention step for each record could prove detrimental.  Also, how would
> Union Catalogues work?

I am unfamiliar with the term of Union Catalog.  If this refers to a shared catalog with many libraries, such as we do with our consortium, then I suppose if we went with an optional setting, the setting could be for specific libraries, all libraries, or none.

Quarantine for import could also have an option for an authorized override, but if an override is in place, what's the point of having a quarantine at all?  Perhaps the quarantine could have options.  A more sophisticated quarantine system could allow you to quarantine certain types of issues, and only flag others.  Quarantine the issues that can cause issues or errors, and flag the record for any others that have not been reviewed?  Then have an alert on the home page of bibs that need to be reviewed.