https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38042
--- Comment #5 from Katrin Fischer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mathieu Saby from comment #4) > Although this mode of operation was developed in the UNIMARC "community", > strictly speaking, this is not a MARC flavor issue. Is there really nobody > in the MARC21 community that would be interested in a differentiated > record/item type management? In fact, I don't understand the purpose of the > "standard" behavior. What's the interest of copying the same value at biblio > and item level ? > > What's certain is that our configuration worked well in the past for us, and > has been used by other libraries in France for years. I'd even go so far as > to say that if Koha hadn't enabled us to have different types for record and > items, we would have been forced to choose an other ILS. The UNIMARC community never communicated this to the MARC21 community, so on side was not aware of the others change. Now we are in a non-good situation. I haven't said that there should not be a document type field, just that it should have been added as a separate field from the beginning. And I woudl be really interested to hear why it is so important to your libraries and how it is used. With the current setup, UNIMARC users are losing features and we will keep encounter situations where things break. In a MARC21 installation, if you set the itemtype at record level, it will be used for: 1) Search: Records without items (electronic resources, serials, set records) will be searchable with this item type from the advanced search, as both fields are indexed as item type (942$c and 952$y) 2) Cataloguing help: the record level itype will be suggested as itemtype when adding a new item. 3) Article requests for records without items: article requests can work both on item level and biblio level. The item type on record level will be used to determine if an article request on a record is allowed by circulation rules if you chose "biblio level" 4) Hold requests: If you want to enforce a max of 4 record level hold requests on a certain item type, the record level one will be used to check the rule (item types in the items might be mixed item types) ... It did work for you, but it will keep breaking as long as both MARC and UNIMARC work in different directions here. The best solution would be to introduce a new field for your record/document type and restore itype to be the same as MARC21. But I am not a UNIMARC user. I have been pointing out the diverting behavior for years in order to help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://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/
