Larry Currie wrote:
We're getting ready to load item data from a file into our MARC records, and I proposed that the following fields be added to each MARC record:
945 b biblio.biblionumber c biblioitems.biblioitemnumber
seems OK to me.
946 a biblioitems.biblioitemnumber b biblioitems.itemtype c biblioitems.dewey
seems strange as 946 a = 945 c ? do you confirm or it's a keyboard mistake ?
and for each copy or, in the case of multivolume works, each volume, a 949 field with the following subfields:
949 a items.itemnumber b items.biblionumber c items.multivolumepart d items.biblioitemnumber e items.barcode f items.dateaccessioned g items.homebranch h items.price i items.datelast seen j items.issues k items.itemsnotes l items.holdingbranch
Seems OK to me : every item field MUST be mapped to the same tag. But the tag can be whatever you want.
My question is, I came upon this scheme only because it seemed to pass the Check MARC test within the MARC Related section of version 1.9.0, but is this the optimal scheme to use? I noticed that Paul Poulain has proposed that the 995 tag be used for the item data in conjunction with Biblio.pm and I can certainly make this change. Am I correct in assuming that there will be one such field for each volume and copy of a work (i.e., that the 949s or 995s will be repeatable)? What about the information I have chosen to go into 945 and 946 fields? Is this appropriate?
The 995 tag has been proposed because it's something "recommended" in unimarc. But i repeat : the only thing needed shall be "all item fields in the same tag". any other problem is a bug ! Note that your try will be a very nice debugging test for us ! -- Paul POULAIN Consultant indépendant en logiciels libres responsable francophone de koha (SIGB libre http://www.koha-fr.org)