Bug 34482 - Improve MARC21 7xx linking fields in bibliographic records [Omnibus]
Summary: Improve MARC21 7xx linking fields in bibliographic records [Omnibus]
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: MARC Bibliographic data support (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 6011 7414 14341 21302
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2023-08-04 20:12 UTC by Katrin Fischer
Modified: 2025-01-23 17:17 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

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


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Katrin Fischer 2023-08-04 20:12:01 UTC

    
Comment 1 Heather 2023-08-04 20:41:01 UTC
Hi!

It makes me SO happy to see this!!  This is the relevant documentation for the MARC21
Comment 2 Heather 2023-08-04 20:46:57 UTC
...the MARC21 76X-78X Linking Entry Fields:
https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd760787.html

(I was so excited I mistyped and my previous comment got saved before I finished!)

ByWater has created custom XSLT so that the field linking of these fields works via enabling linking on the control numbers in the $w of these fields:  https://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
They are willing to share this XSLT so this linking can get into the community version, if that would help.

In our catalog, selecting the hyperlinked control number in the $w of the 76X-78X Linking Entry Field executes a search on the 001 of the target record.  It is not a simple search, since we, like many, many libraries, use OCLC, so our 001 fields contain OCLC numbers with prefixes--but it works!

So happy to see this omnibus!!!
--h2
Comment 3 Katrin Fischer 2023-08-04 20:54:36 UTC
Hi Heather,

I had planned to add you when I have a more complete picture of open bugs concerning 7xx fields :) 

I think any specifics for OCLC + $w should go on a separate bug linked to this one. 

We might want to tie it to a new preference or similar. As I have never used OCLC, I am not aware of what needs to be done exactly, but we need to be careful not to break things for other use cases (I think union catalogs in Finland, Sweden and Germany at least are using $w these days :) )
Comment 4 Heather 2023-08-04 21:03:27 UTC
Hi, Katrin!

Specifics of linking (e.g., $w vs. $a/$t, and/or with different types of $w numbers) in a separate bug, perhaps (hopefully!) tied to a syspref makes so much sense.

Thank you!!!
h2
Comment 5 Heather 2023-09-26 16:16:51 UTC
Hi!  I created a ticket with ByWater, requesting that they post the code from our catalog (keys.bywatersolutions.com) that makes our 7XX linking entry fields work.

--h2
Comment 6 Laura Escamilla 2023-09-28 15:48:17 UTC
Hi Katrin, 

The code that Heather has requested is available here! https://github.com/bywatersolutions/bywater-koha-xslt/commits/keys

Please let me know if I can help out further.
Comment 7 Eric Phetteplace 2025-01-16 21:20:15 UTC
We would also be interested in seeing better support of 7xx linked fields. 776 seems to only display the title, none of the other subfields, and links only on the OCLC control number. I'd love to see an ability to provide your own URL in one of these fields.
Comment 8 Katrin Fischer 2025-01-16 22:09:25 UTC
Eric, can you show how the MARC21 would look like?

We currently link 001 and $w. Implementing 035$a to 7xx$w would probably be another valid option. Please note that 001 is not necessarily an OCLC number.
Comment 9 Eric Phetteplace 2025-01-17 22:43:36 UTC
Hi, Katrin!

Yes, we have an OCLC number in 001 for most of our records, I was sort of writing in shorthand for that. I would like to be able to use a URL in $w or I suppose $o (other record identifier) or else use a biblionumber. I'm not sure if we've set precedence for biblionumber as a record control number anywhere? Like would something like $w(koha)1234 make sense?

Examples:

776 0 8 $iOnline version:$tHamlet$ohttps://example.com

renders as => Online version: <a href="https://example.com">Hamlet</a>

776 0 8 $iOnline version:$tHamlet$w(koha)1234

renders as => Online version: <a href="​/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=1234">Hamlet</a>

The latter seems maybe a bit weird in that there's no fitting choice of organizational code to prefix the biblionumber with. But with the ability to use a URL one could at least use a link to one's own catalog.
Comment 10 Heather 2025-01-23 16:54:04 UTC
Hi!

I think something like "$w(koha)1234" could totally work for the library that never shares records, but libraries usually end up sharing records somehow--that control number wouldn't work in a consortium, or for any other Koha catalog.

So I think this is a great idea, but it's pretty easy to get a unique MARC Organization Code (and any library can get one, no matter how small): https://www.loc.gov/marc/organizations/form-eng.html
E.g., where I work is CSfMM, so our $w using a Koha record number would be something like, "$w(CSfMM)1234"

I like this idea a lot, because I think nothing would stop anyone from making the org code in the parentheses anything they want, so could use "(koha)" or "(local)" or even "(NorthBranch)"--but maybe also provide the link in any documentation of this feature to https://www.loc.gov/marc/organizations/form-eng.html to get an Org Code if one doesn't have one?

--h2
Comment 11 Eric Phetteplace 2025-01-23 17:17:13 UTC
I like that idea a lot. Koha already knows your institution's code from the MARCOrgCode setting, so it could decide "if a matching org code is in the $w subfield, this is a biblionumber".