Bug 37502 - Holdings table needs an ERM tab
Summary: Holdings table needs an ERM tab
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: ERM (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement
Assignee: Jonathan Druart
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
: 38480 40200 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2024-07-26 19:47 UTC by Esther Melander
Modified: 2025-11-26 15:53 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

See Also:
GIT URL:
Initiative type: ---
Sponsorship status: ---
Comma delimited list of Sponsors:
Crowdfunding goal: 0
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 Esther Melander 2024-07-26 19:47:24 UTC
If a bibliographic record is generated via an import in the ERM, the resulting bibliographic record should have an ERM tab in the holdings table. The ERM tab could have the Package and Title info, even if an item record does not exist. Similar to the Acquisitions tab for acquisitions info.
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2024-07-29 15:10:14 UTC
+1

But I'd also add not only for records created via import, but for every record linked to title/package. :)
Comment 2 Mathieu Saby 2025-01-06 18:12:26 UTC
*** Bug 38480 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 David Cook 2025-01-06 23:51:41 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #1)
> +1
> 
> But I'd also add not only for records created via import, but for every
> record linked to title/package. :)

This sounds great.

I need to delve deeper into the ERM module sometime. While I see how you can import "Titles" and create bib records, I don't see how you can really *manage* the electronic resources.

Say you unsubscribe from a package, there's no way to remove the bib records linked to the titles.

Or if your package adds titles, it's not clear how you'd go about upgrading the titles at the ERM or bib level...

But anyway...
Comment 4 Michaela Sieber 2025-10-21 09:16:54 UTC
*** Bug 40200 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Michaela Sieber 2025-10-21 09:19:19 UTC
It seems that many people are interested in this feature.

+1 ERM titles should be linked from a new tab in the catalog

When looking at the detail page in the staff interface catalog, we should have have a tab to display information from the ERM module.

For example we could display in a little table:
- Packages the title is linked to (via erm title - erm resource)
- Maybe license information
- Maybe agreement information

And provide links to these so you can navigate there easily if you have the required permissions. 

This would allow to tie the catalog and the ERM module closer together.
Comment 6 Mathieu Saby 2025-11-26 15:51:43 UTC
Ok but what should happen if you have several ERM packages giving access to the same title (ex for a serial : a direct link for the backfiles, and a link giving access through an aggregator, like Ebsco Business source complete)?

Should we ideally have 1 record with the information from the 2 packages in the ERM pane ? In that case, that would imply adding 2 856 links in the record for providing access.

If if is not possible, or to complex to be achieved in the short term, can we accept that the function can only apply to data (and links) from a single package?


Caution: when the link between the serial module and bibliographic data was established, not all use cases were considered, and several years later we still find ourselves creating tickets in a painstaking attempt to better articulate them... We should not repeat the same mistake with the ERM. What happens if the title is deleted or modified in the ERM? What if the bibliographic record is deleted ? Can the link in 856 be edited manually in the bibliographic record, or should it be "controlled" automatically by the ERM, etc.?
Comment 7 Mathieu Saby 2025-11-26 15:53:34 UTC
And should this enhancement depend on https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=39326 , or be considered separately?