Bug 5407 - Koha displays series entries in the order they're in the MARC
Summary: Koha displays series entries in the order they're in the MARC
Status: CLOSED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: OPAC (show other bugs)
Version: master
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Owen Leonard
QA Contact: Bugs List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-11-15 04:16 UTC by Robin Sheat
Modified: 2012-10-26 00:41 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Bot Control: ---
When did the bot last check this:
Who signed the patch off:
Text to go in the release notes:


Attachments
Explanatory picture (36.74 KB, image/png)
2010-11-15 04:16 UTC, Robin Sheat
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Robin Sheat 2010-11-15 04:16:58 UTC
Created attachment 2751 [details]
Explanatory picture

For the 490 MARC field, the 'a' is the series statement and 'v' is the volume number. When displaying details on a biblio, Koha will display any fields in 490 in the order they are in the MARC file, rather than being smarter and making sure 'a' comes before 'v'. See the screenshot.

This applies to the XSLT and non-XSLT views, in both the OPAC and the staff client. Note that the link creation only applies to the 'a' field, so it's not causing breakage.
Comment 1 Jared Camins-Esakov 2011-10-11 19:02:18 UTC
Robin,

I think that Koha's behavior is actually correct, here. In 490, subfield 'v' could in fact come before subfield 'a'. For example, in the following:
$vVol. 5,$aThe Compleat Works of William Shakespeare, Abridged.

The good news is, that's almost never done. The bad news is, my understanding of the standard says that for the 490 (as opposed to the old 440 or the 830), that would be allowed.

Jared
Comment 2 Robin Sheat 2011-10-11 21:39:42 UTC
Well, I think my concern was that it makes it look funny. I assume that we had a client who wanted it changed, though as there's no patch attached, I can't remember if I ever did "fix" it. Feel free to mark it as invalid if you like.