- Koha - lists.katipo.co.nz

inconsistencies in acquisition.simple process
by Pierre Cauchois 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Hi all, I'm working on fitting the acquisition.simple process to the needs of the ESIEE library, and something is bugging me on the addbiblio.pl page. Why do pieces of information like place, number of pages or itemtype should appear here, on the bibliographic notice form, and not on the item form (the next page)? Because of that, we are obliged to create two different notices for the same bibliography if we want two items to be in different places. Worse, the fields concerning place and itemtype duplicate themselves strangely when a bibliography has several items. Can someone explain me the technical reasons of this "inconsistency", if it's one? thx /pierre

2 1

Support
by sridhar 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Dear Sir We are a Open Source Software development company, based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India having lots of experience with open source software, and are interested in promoting and offering commercial support for Koha Library Systems. Thanks and Regards N. Sridhar email: sridhar(a)mindassociates.com URL: www.mindassociates.com

1 0

koha 2.0.0pre4 is out
by paul POULAIN 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

The 2.0.0pre4 version of Koha has been released. It may be interesting for english users to update. French users MUST update : RELEASE NOTES ============= This version of Koha is still in the "unstable" directory, because some bugs are still reported. But it's fully useable and used in (at least) 4 libraries in "real world" : * Nelsonville Public Library, Ohio, USA * Esiee, high school, France * Dombes Abbey, France * Wesford school, France This release fixes a few bugs, and MANY french translation fixes/improvements. BUGFIXES/IMPROVEMENTS --------- * new script : koha/koha/misc/overduenotices.pl This is a script for the use of printing, and emailing overdue notices. The script must be run from the command line Documentation is contained in the script * fix for bug 603 : patron searches are wonky when first letter of first and last name are the same * removing trailing "," in subject. * fixing some bugs in charges.pl, script that fills the categoryitem table. The categoryitem table contains fines for every itemtype-borrowercategory. Still has to be templated and added to admin part of Koha * notforloan bug fix : now, if a specific item is "notforloan" and the itemtype "forloan", the "notforloan" is used. Before this fix, it was overwritted by the itemtype info/ * fixing a bug that deleted the MARC part of a biblio when using full acqui system. Now, when you acquire a book through full acqui system, what you enter during acqui appears in the right MARC fields in MARC editor. FRENCH SPECIFIC --------- More than 30 improvements/bugfixes in french templates. -- Paul POULAIN Consultant indépendant en logiciels libres responsable francophone de koha (SIGB libre http://www.koha-fr.org)

3 2

Spanish koha
by ariasr 23 Sep '03

23 Sep '03

Hi there! I need to congratulate you for the work done on Koha, it is a great application. I am really looking forward to setting up koha in a library I am doing work for. Although spanish is a must!. Has koha being ported to spanish? if not, Can I help in porting it over? Best regards Ramon

3 2

Upgrading
by Heather Waite 23 Sep '03

23 Sep '03

Hi, we are using KOHA 1.2.3 and would like to upgrade to KOHA 2 - the new version when it's more stable. Is this possible, can the data be migrated ? Or would we have to completely start again ? I have limited computer knowledge, if someone can answer this that would be great. Thank you Heather

2 1

Newbie question
by Brian Chee 21 Sep '03

21 Sep '03

I've just done a trial install of Koha but the z3950 portion of the install died because it couldn't find "links" during installation. 1. What is "links"? 2. Can I restart the installer to get the z3950 stuff installed correctly once I find "links". /brian chee University of Hawaii ICS Dept Advanced Network Computing Lab 1680 East West Road, POST rm 311 Honolulu, HI 96822 808-956-5797 voice, 808-956-5175 fax

3 2

RE: [Koha] z3950 problem found to be bug #511
by baljkas＠mb.sympatico.ca 20 Sep '03

20 Sep '03

Saturday, September 20, 2003 15:22 CDT Tim, Just out of curiosity: what format is the ISBN (articulated or without hyphens) that you're using when the Z39.50 search fails? Steven F. Baljkas library tech at large Koha neophyte Winnipeg, MB, CANADA

1 0

Re: [Koha] 090 Fields [good news :-)]
by Greg Lambert/Amigos 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Thanks Paul.... Is there specific instructions on how to make this change without causing something else to break? Say I want to move the Koha fields into the 930 field.... how would I do that? Thanks, Greg Greg Lambert, JD, MLIS Project Manager Amigos Library Services, Inc. 5000 Gulf FWY Building 9 - Univ. Business Park Houston, Texas 77023-4600 713/923-2373 x225 office 877/707-1577 toll-free 713/923-2192 fax 281/433-9145 cell lambert(a)amigos.org http://www.amigos.org |---------+----------------------------> | | paul POULAIN | | | <paul.poulain@fre| | | e.fr> | | | | | | 09/19/2003 02:34 | | | AM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Greg Lambert/Amigos <lambert(a)amigos.org> | | cc: koha(a)lists.katipo.co.nz | | Subject: Re: [Koha] 090 Fields [good news :-)] | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| I all, I've read the mail on this thread rapidly. I just wanted to explain something : To support any MARC flavour, NO MARC TAG/SUBFIELDS ARE HARDCODED into Koha. So, you can move the koha fields that are mapped to 090 in the default configuration to ANYTHING YOU WANT. There is only 2 constraints : * The 2 koha fields MUST be in the same MARC tag. * No other subfield can be defined in this tag. It's only for koha internal use. I hope this is a good news for you, and hope you'll like more and more how Koha was designed :-) (Koha MARC DB design is @ Paul, Steve and Serguey iirc. You can see some benchmarks history in /marc/ directory of cvs) -- Paul POULAIN Consultant indépendant en logiciels libres responsable francophone de koha (SIGB libre http://www.koha-fr.org)

2 1

090 Fields in Koha
by Patton,Glenn 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

One of my colleagues has forwarded me a set of messages from the Koha list about the use of MARC fields for various kinds of local data and asked if someone at OCLC might be able to comment and make some suggestions. I'll try to do that. If I understand correctly, the original proposal was to use field 090 based on the MARC format convention that any tag that contains a 9 in any position can be locally defined. It is true that this is one of the fundamental conventions of MARC tagging (for both MARC 21 and UNIMARC) but, as always, there are some exceptions. One is field 490 (Series statement). That field was part of the USMARC format before the convention about tags with 9 was established and it continues to be defined in MARC 21 and is, thus, not available for local definition. Another exception is field 090. That field used to be defined in USMARC but was made obsolete in 1982 when the whole block of 09X fields were designated for local use and definition. Another of the underlying principles of the MARC format is that obsolete fields should not be reused for different purposes since existing records may continue to contain the obsolete fields. That's part of the reason, I believe, that several comments that I read suggested that field 090 was not a good choice. All of us in the MARC format world (libraries, local system vendors and utilities) have made use of various fields in the 9XX block, which is reserved for local use and definition in both MARC 21 (and its predecessor formats USMARC, CANMARC and UK MARC) so that raises some potential stumbling blocks in sharing data and defining fields for local use. For example, in both CANMARC and UK MARC, some of the 9XX fields (900, 910, 911, and 945 in UK MARC and 900, 910, 911, 930, 980, 981, 982, 983, and 990 in CANMARC) have in the past been used to embed authority cross references in bibliographic records. In addition, OCLC has either used itself or has verified that local systems have used the following additional 9XX fields: 901-907, 920-921, 935-936, 938-942, 944-953, 955-956, 961-962, 964-969, 971, 981-984, 987, 992, 994, 996 and 999. Amazingly enough, that does leave field 970 (one of the ones mentioned in the messages I saw) as available so that may be a good choice. I have also checked with one of my colleagues who knows more about UNIMARC than I do. He is not aware of any similar list of UNIMARC 9XX fields that have already been used for some purpose. I hope that this information is of use in your discussions. Glenn Patton Director, WorldCat Content Management OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. 6565 Frantz Rd. Dublin OH 43017-3395 Phone: +1.800.848.5878, ext. 6371 or +1.614.764.6371 Fax: +1.614.718.7187 Email: mailto:pattong@oclc.org

1 0

Re: [Koha] 090 Fields
by baljkas＠mb.sympatico.ca 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 22:34 CDT Just following up on the 090 problem ... "Albert P. Calame" <albert.p.calame(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: >Hi All! >I can't resist this one! I agree with Stephen that we should have a >MARC tag that Koha will use for "non-MARC linking" information. Actually, that's just a bit of a misnomer, Albert, as we're talking about a MARC field tag to be used within Koha! ;-) What we all mean, I think, is a tag for non-AACR2-prescribed data, like the format info Koha was storing in 090. >The philosophical underpinnings of MARC contain the convention that any >tag that contains a 9 in any position may be locally defined. Definitely. >As has been mentioned in earlier messages, the 090 field (actually most >of the 090's) have often been used to store local call number >information, by such august groups as the Library of Congress, OCLC, Hence the accidental overlap problem. >Additionally the 900 field was originally defined to hold local call >numbers in a diskette transfer format called MicroLIF prior to 1991. >(Post 1991 it changed to use 852, using subfield 9 to hold price). >Other ILS vendors used 999, 949, and 959 at various times to store the >same information - following the philosophy stated above. Other 900 >fields have been used for other functions but these are the only ones >I know of that have had any major significance. I remember downloading records from at least one of the University of California libraries that had detailed holdings and other (I guess they were) system/library specific coding and notations. Seen a lot of the 949 ones. One might experience minor problems when downloading copy if such systems became more widespread. >I'd like to suggest using the 930 or the 970 fields for any Koha >special needs. Neither, to my knowledge, has had any major use. >We could define the field or fields and subfields we need and publish >this as part of our system specifications. This would be appropriate >use of the MARC structure and would work in both MARC 21 and UNIMARC. I like your field suggestions, Albert, although David Bigwood pointed out that one could use the 655 for format in the way that Koha is using it and stay within the prescribed fields/tags. Albert's suggestions are clear for MARC21 and for UNIMARC (at least as far as the online conversion guidelines UNIMARC-->MARC21, and the historical field use list I have from LC, show). Do any European Koha folk know if there would be conversion problems with 930 or 970 based on experience with other ILS? If Koha goes forward with a 930 or 970, someone might want to submit the info to the MARC Development people at LC and see what they think (especially to see if they know about other systematic uses of those tags). It never hurts to know. Cheers, Steven F. Baljkas library tech at large Koha neophyte Winnipeg, MB, CANADA > Hope that helps. > >Regards, >Al Calame > >Librarian-at-Large, >Albert P. Calame Consulting >Montreal, Québec, Canada > >514-745-3424 >albert.p.calame(a)sympatico.ca > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Stephen Hedges" <shedges(a)skemotah.com> >To: "Bigwood, David" <Bigwood(a)lpi.usra.edu> >Cc: <koha(a)lists.katipo.co.nz> >Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:39 AM >Subject: RE: [Koha] 090 Fields > >> >> Bigwood, David said: >> > The call number in 050 and 090 are for the manifestation of the >> > work not the individual copy. 852, is for copy information, so >> > that would not be a good choice to map the info to. >> > Greg's records should have a field with copy info including a call >> > number, location within his institution, cost, fund info and >> > whatever his institution needs to attach to that copy. That is >> > good for 852. >> > >> > 050 and 090 classification information is not copy related. >> >> Would anybody out there like to suggest a MARC tag other than 090 or >> the 8xx or 9xx tags (too commonly used for holdings information) that >> would be "safe" for holding the non-MARC linking information to the >> Koha database? (Please remember that Koha should be international, so >> we need to consider unimarc format, too.) >> >> -- >> Stephen Hedges >> Skemotah Solutions, USA >> www.skemotah.com -- shedges(a)skemotah.com

2 1