Sorry, seem to have replied by mistake to the poster and not to the list.
________________________________ From: Manos Petridis <egpetridis@yahoo.com> To: BWS Johnson <abesottedphoenix@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [Koha] Question on Z39.50 cross-format queries
Thank you for your welcome Brooke, and for your prompt reply. I do understand that my own installation can be either USMARC/MARC21 or UNIMARC. What I was enquiring about is Z39.50 look-ups. Why I am puzzled: a) It it were simply a case of either/or, then why can I select the MARC flavour of the various Z39.50 origins set up at my installation? What is the reason to let koha know of the MARC flavour/dialect, if it not able to use the data that each server sends? There must be some functionality behind the dropbox selections, even if it only defines the query statement dialect. b) From What I can see in the data presented (in the MARC form window) it sometimes is just a matter of mapping. For example, it seems that
in SUTRS, information is stored in the following keys: Title: 200 Author: 700_a, 700_b, 701_a, 701_b...Editon details 210 Physical descrition: 215 DDC*: 676_a DDC description: 676_9 Subjects: 606
in USMARC, information is stored in the following keys: Title: 245 Author: 700 Editon details 260 Physical descrition: 300 DDC*: 082 (revision and Category) Subjects: 650, 505 (fixed and free-form) LCCN: 010 in UNIMARC, information is stored in the following keys: Title: 200 Author: 700, 701Editon details 210 Physical descrition: 215 DDC*: 676 (revision and Category)Subjects: 606, 712 (fixed and free-form) This is what I meant when I wrote "I understand that both standards encode the same more-or-less information, differently" in my original message. There are bound to be differences, sure, but I'm looking for the gest in the MARC records, not the details that frankly I don't even know what they represent.
I understand that even the information retrieved via Z39.50 from same-flavour installations, passes some kind of mapping, from the MARC record form to the form of the various tables and fields/columns used by the specific software/implementation, koha in our case. I expect therefore that it would be a matter of utilising the appropriate mapping tables, as dictated by the MARC setting of each Z39.50 origin, so that koha could make use of "foreign" MARC records. kind regards, Manos Petridis--- From: BWS Johnson <abesottedphoenix@yahoo.com> To: "koha@lists.katipo.co.nz" <koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Koha] Question on Z39.50 cross-format queries
Salvete!
Welcome to the Community. :)
Question: I have selected USMARC/MARC21 as my installation's native format. This serves nicely when I perform Z39.50 queries against many USMARC/MARC21 sources. On the other hand, when I perform Z39.50 queries against UNIMARC sources, I don't get properly formatted results even though I have set-up those sources (origins) as UNIMARC in koha.
I understand that both standards encode the same more-or-less information, differently. Therefore - if I understand correctly - koha would have to request from an UNIMARC-only-capable source that they return UNIMARC-formatted results, and koha would need to map them - if and as possible - to the native format of my installation, i.e. USMARC/MARC21.
Apparently this doesn't happen. Is it normal?
That is very normal. MARC21/UNIMARC is an either or standard selection. You may have MARC21 or you may have UNIMARC. To my knowledge, you may not have both.
That said, when this last came up, I can see the point of wanting to be able to run both in parallel if you absolutely MUST have both. Suggestions for how to do that are here:
http://koha.1045719.n5.nabble.com/Software-error-td5114149.html
Cheers, Brooke
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha