https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=18309
--- Comment #23 from François Pichenot <fpiche...@ville-roubaix.fr> --- Hi Laurent, Thank you very much and sorry for the late reply... > 009 ARK perennial identifier of the record [obsolete since version 2007] > ARK = Archival Resource Key / This is a Bnf Specific Zone > . See ARK specifications: http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/arkspec.pdf > [accessed October 10, 2006] > ex: 009http: //catalogue.bnf.fr/ark: / 12148 / cb375475483 BnF doesn't use 009 anymore (since 2016, see http://www.bnf.fr/documents/unimarc_b_recap_modif.pdf p.6). But 009 seems to be useful to store Sudoc PPN (as 035 is a repeatable field), so I added it. > Add the following subfield: $ 010 9 which is a field put forward by the ABES > as part of the Sudoc network. The information of Sudoc is the following > UNIMARC / Bibliographic > Field 010: export of subfield $ 9 (repeatable): "ISBN of a serial delivery" > This Sudoc-specific subfield is likely to be present in periodical records. > It contains the ISBN of a periodical delivery > when it is processed in the > Sudoc in the collector's state under the note of the periodical concerned. OK > Block 181 except that the $ 181 a must be repeatable OK > Block 183 = 183 $ P sub-field specific to ABES and Sudoc network 183 $P doesn't appear in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques) > 183 $ 8 under IFLA specific field obviously missing OK > Block 219 = OK but specific to Sudoc of ABES; This field is included in BnF exchange format (see http://www.bnf.fr/documents/unimarc_b_recap_modif.pdf p22) but not appears in Sudoc exchange format. So I correct the field tag. > Attention misses $ 219 $ 6 and $ 7, under fields reserved for cataloging > documents with non-Latin characters. Also note that $ 219 $ P $ r $ s and $ 6 > and $ 7 are non-repeatable subfields (to be corrected) This is not included in an exchange format. > Block 231 new since 2017: does not exist at Bnf and ABES Sudoc > All sub fields are repeatable so correct OK > Block 283 new since 2017: does not exist at BnF and ABES Sudoc > Lack $ 8Material specific, repeatable OK > Bloc 338 new 2017: does not exist at BnF and ABES Sudoc > Be careful and correct: $ b, $ c and $ e are repeatable! OK > Block 915 specific to ABES Sudoc > Be careful the $ a and $ b are repeatable (to correct) OK > Block 916 no longer exists at ABES Sudoc (to be deleted? if it do not exist > in IFLA) Are you sure ? 916 still appears in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques p.71) > Bloc 918 specific to the BNF Are you sure ? 918 still appears in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques p.71) > Field 930 > Missing subfield $ j "PEB code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / > non-repeatable > Missing subfield $ v "Copy status code" that is specific to ABES Sudoc / > non-repeatable > Missing subfield $ Z "Shared Conservation Plan Code" that is specific to ABES > Sudoc / Repeatable > Missing the subfield $ p "Conservation pole or associated pole in the context > of a PCPP" that is specific to the ABES Sudoc / non-repeatable OK > Add the entire block 931 (Sudoc block of the abes) that is missing in the > document is $ 5, $ 2, $ a, $ b, $ c, $ d, $ e, $ g, $ h, $ i, $ l, $ v / all > are non-repeatable / for labels see > http://documentation.abes.fr/sudoc/formats/loc/zones/931.htm OK > This comment deals with the 932 that was proposed to delete > Why remove the 932 zone that seems useful for the ABES (sudoc) This field is not included in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques) > All block 955 (used by ABES sudoc) is to be reviewed because it lacks > subfields like this: $ =, $ 0, $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4, Field conformed to Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques p72) > Block 956 Field conformed to Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques p72) > Block 957 > All block 957 (used by Sudoc of ABES) is to be reviewed because it lacks > subfields like this: $ -, $ 0, $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4, $ 7, $ n, $ p, $ q / them > $ 1, $ 2, $ 3, $ 4 and $ 7 are non-repeatable unlike others > Remove $ h, $ i, $ j, $ r, $ w, and $ z > http://documentation.abes.fr/sudoc/formats/loc/zones/957.htm Field conformed to *Commentary 16 Block 958 = OK > Bloc 959 has just been added by Sudoc ABES > Any good but addition of a $ r that does not exist at the level of the ABES? 959 $r occurs in Sudoc exchange format (see http://www.abes.fr/Media/Fichiers/Sudoc-Fichiers/Produire-dans-le-Sudoc/Format-d-echange-des-donnees-bibliographiques) > Not found the 987 where does it come from? BnF exchange format : http://www.bnf.fr/documents/UNIMARC(B)_conversion.pdf p.59 > Block 990 $ has repeatable! OK > Block 991 All good except $ b and $ c repeatable OK -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/