Everyone, So far I've figured out how to migrate the records, the patrons, and the circulation history from our current records into Koha. Now I'm looking into if/how to migrate a least part of the cataloging history. After discussions here, it sounds as if what we would most like to maintain, if possible, is the name of the original cataloger who added the record (most of our records are original cataloging) and the cataloger who last modified the record, with dates. Before I get too deep into this, I was wondering if anyone else has attempted this or something similar and/or what insights the someone might could give me on the feasibility of doing such a thing. I've looked at the |action_logs table and it appears doable to me, I just don't know if it's advisable.| Thanks in advance. -- Linda Culberson lculber@mdah.state.ms.us Archives and Records Services Division Ms. Dept. of Archives& History P. O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 Telephone: 601/576-6873 Facsimile: 601/576-6824
Hi Linda, On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Linda Culberson wrote:
So far I've figured out how to migrate the records, the patrons, and the circulation history from our current records into Koha. Now I'm looking into if/how to migrate a least part of the cataloging history. After discussions here, it sounds as if what we would most like to maintain, if possible, is the name of the original cataloger who added the record (most of our records are original cataloging) and the cataloger who last modified the record, with dates. Before I get too deep into this, I was wondering if anyone else has attempted this or something similar and/or what insights the someone might could give me on the feasibility of doing such a thing. I've looked at the action_logs table and it appears doable to me, I just don't know if it's advisable.
While you could backfill historical bib record changes into action_logs, since it sounds like you don't need to retain full history, sticking the creator and last updater information into 9XX fields might be the simplest thing to do. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton VP, Data Services Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 352-215-7548 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
Galen, Some of the records do have the creator of the record in a 9XX field, but it is a very small percentage. I was thinking of the database approach because we need to be able to generate reports on the data by date, collection and cataloger . My other thought was to save the information I need at the time of the migration in a separate database, and then use the action_logs for data after the migration. Then I just would need to merge the two when needed. Do you think that be the better approach? On 1/24/2011 12:26 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi Linda,
On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Linda Culberson wrote:
So far I've figured out how to migrate the records, the patrons, and the circulation history from our current records into Koha. Now I'm looking into if/how to migrate a least part of the cataloging history. After discussions here, it sounds as if what we would most like to maintain, if possible, is the name of the original cataloger who added the record (most of our records are original cataloging) and the cataloger who last modified the record, with dates. Before I get too deep into this, I was wondering if anyone else has attempted this or something similar and/or what insights the someone might could give me on the feasibility of doing such a thing. I've looked at the action_logs table and it appears doable to me, I just don't know if it's advisable. While you could backfill historical bib record changes into action_logs, since it sounds like you don't need to retain full history, sticking the creator and last updater information into 9XX fields might be the simplest thing to do.
Regards,
Galen -- Galen Charlton VP, Data Services Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 352-215-7548 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
-- Linda Culberson lculber@mdah.state.ms.us Archives and Records Services Division Ms. Dept. of Archives& History P. O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 Telephone: 601/576-6873 Facsimile: 601/576-6824
Hi, On Jan 24, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Linda Culberson wrote:
Some of the records do have the creator of the record in a 9XX field, but it is a very small percentage. I was thinking of the database approach because we need to be able to generate reports on the data by date, collection and cataloger . My other thought was to save the information I need at the time of the migration in a separate database, and then use the action_logs for data after the migration. Then I just would need to merge the two when needed. Do you think that be the better approach?
Since you need to run reports on this, getting creation and last edit information into action_logs is the way to go for now. If you've loaded your bibs and your staff users, inserting entries into action_log that look like this would do: +-----------+---------------------+------+-------------+--------+--------+--------+ | action_id | timestamp | user | module | action | object | info | +-----------+---------------------+------+-------------+--------+--------+--------+ | 1 | 2007-07-14 18:13:05 | 599 | CATALOGUING | ADD | 1 | biblio | | 2 | 2009-08-23 08:22:04 | 0 | CATALOGUING | MODIFY | 1 | biblio | Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton VP, Data Services Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 352-215-7548 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
Thanks, Galen. I especially appreciate the example. Linda On 1/24/2011 2:09 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On Jan 24, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Linda Culberson wrote:
Some of the records do have the creator of the record in a 9XX field, but it is a very small percentage. I was thinking of the database approach because we need to be able to generate reports on the data by date, collection and cataloger . My other thought was to save the information I need at the time of the migration in a separate database, and then use the action_logs for data after the migration. Then I just would need to merge the two when needed. Do you think that be the better approach? Since you need to run reports on this, getting creation and last edit information into action_logs is the way to go for now. If you've loaded your bibs and your staff users, inserting entries into action_log that look like this would do:
+-----------+---------------------+------+-------------+--------+--------+--------+ | action_id | timestamp | user | module | action | object | info | +-----------+---------------------+------+-------------+--------+--------+--------+ | 1 | 2007-07-14 18:13:05 | 599 | CATALOGUING | ADD | 1 | biblio | | 2 | 2009-08-23 08:22:04 | 0 | CATALOGUING | MODIFY | 1 | biblio |
Regards,
Galen -- Galen Charlton VP, Data Services Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 352-215-7548 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/
-- Linda Culberson lculber@mdah.state.ms.us Archives and Records Services Division Ms. Dept. of Archives& History P. O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 Telephone: 601/576-6873 Facsimile: 601/576-6824
Hi! I have been testing this problem and finally got some results, which might be interesting/important to users from countries with non-Latin scripts: We have Koha 3.0. with Marc21 and nozebra. Entries made in Items fields in Georgian, Russian or even Latin characters with diacritics (in UTF8) were corrupted at some moment :-( which was leading to corrupted nozebra indexes and finally problems with searching. As a result many searches on Georgian terms were unsuccessful - which obviously is irritating - OPAC which cannot search records! I have tested this on KOHA demo sites... all the same! We have no experience with Zebra or KOha 3.2 yet, but I am sure the same bug would corrupt records similarly. So what we have found is: when we create biblios with Unicode, everything goes fine, when we add, modify, delete,... items with Unicode, again everything is fine, but all fields in Items are corrupted when we make changes in biblio! I.e. correcting spelling in Title or Author fields do not result in any problems with "biblios" but all fields like "callnumber", Item Note (public or private), etc which contain non-latin characters are corrupted! Then we examined MySQL fields and found following: All entries in biblios and items tables are fine, while in biblioitems table all fields except MARCXML are fine and all corrupted characters are located in MARCXML field, in parts corresponding to 952 MARC subfields!
From this what I guess is (as I cannot find any documentation on this issues):
1. problems come from addbiblio.pl or some functions called from this file. 2. as all fields except MARC 952 are fine, the problems come from that "function" which takes data from MySQL fields (obviously from Items and Biblioitems tables) and converts it to XML record to be placed in MARCXML field. To proceed with this, we would appreciate any help from people who created this module (cataloguing): 1. excellent if you could provide appropriate patch, 2. or if you could guide me where to look for a bug in the code (which files at least). As I say, I believe this is important to all Koha versions and users as even demo versions have this problem. Thanks in advance Irakli
participants (3)
-
Galen Charlton -
Irakli Garibashvili -
Linda Culberson