https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22972
David Cook <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Signed Off |In Discussion --- Comment #41 from David Cook <[email protected]> --- I might be misunderstanding the discussion here... but this sounds super wrong. Look at https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdcntf.html and https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ecadcntf.html The Auth 024 field is completely irrelevant for a Bib XXX field. If it was a case of copying an Auth 100$1 to a Bib XXX field, that would be different. But there is no Auth 100$1 subfield. Which makes sense, because in the Bib XXX field we're linking to a local Authority record. We *should* migrate from the $9 to the $0. But the $1 would be for pointing to external entities. I mean... I get the idea... in theory the 024$1 could conceptually be imported into the Bib XXX field, but I'm seeing *zero evidence* that MARC is designed to work that way. This sounds like a hack designed for a particular library or libraries. Do we really want this in core? We should be trying to simplify the Koha core to make it easier to maintain rather than bolting on more and more stuff to it. This would be a perfect example of something where a Koha Plugin would be better suited to the solution. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
