Bug 35562 - Default framework should not include 856 $k and needs correct label for $l
Summary: Default framework should not include 856 $k and needs correct label for $l
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Cataloging (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low critical (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2023-12-13 18:51 UTC by Esther Melander
Modified: 2023-12-13 22:45 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 Esther Melander 2023-12-13 18:51:23 UTC
The default framework includes two subfields in the 856 that should be reconsidered.

$k Password
$l Login

$k is not a subfield included in the MARC standard and should be removed. See the Library of Congress page on this:

https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd856.html

$l is meant to be used to indicate access restrictions and is associated with access restriction codes. Also referenced in the link above.

As currently defined in the framework, these could have security concerns. These subfields do not show by default in the staff interface or OPAC, but a password or login should likely not be stored in plain text in a MARC record either.
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2023-12-13 20:56:46 UTC
Hi Esther,

as we cannot tell what customizations libraries have made to their frameworks we have decided not to update frameworks in existing installations on update. But we have updated the frameworks.

Please note that $k was indeed a valid subfield until 2020:
$k - Password [OBSOLETE, 2020]

If you take a look at a new installation and the default frameworks there, you'll see that they have been updated (with 23.11).

$k has been marked as [OBSOLETE]
$l has been renamed to "Standardized information governing access"

If we removed/deleted subfields, we'd risk that the libraries are using data they have stored there.
Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2023-12-13 20:57:16 UTC
... we have updated the frameworks for new installations (missed a few words there)
Comment 3 Esther Melander 2023-12-13 21:50:23 UTC
Since this has been fixed, we can probably mark this as resolved?
Comment 4 Katrin Fischer 2023-12-13 22:45:00 UTC
Yes, we can. We were quite behind with the MARC updates, but thankfully Caroline made sure we caught up for 23.11 at least.