Sorry, I'm a little fixated on this, partly due to the archival and historical nature of our collection. I am desperately looking for a way to keep barcodes and accession numbers separate, but searchable. A while back I asked where to put accession numbers and it was the general consensus to put them in the barcode subfield (p) of 952. I understand why you do this, because it is a) part of the item information and b) can be searched discretely. But this means you have to print out your own barcodes, a process I would rather avoid given our inflexible*** networked printer (which is on a different floor!) My questions, then. If I decide to use some other subfield (perhaps adding one in) how hard would it be for my IT wizard to create a discrete search for it in the staff mode (similar to the barcode search)? I suppose the process would have to be repeated for each update of the software? I experimented with putting it into the public note. This displays well enough, but you can't actually search on this field, and a string of numbers in a keyword search brings up roughly half of the items in my test collection. Clearly, that's not very useful. Is there any chance an accession number subfield in the item record is in the pipline for a later release? Or, alternatively, I could use some advice on barcode printing equipment. Stand alone barcode printers vs a desktop laser printer? Does printing them yourself make sense if you've got 10,000+ items? Unfortunately, our numbering system is a little quirky using similar runs of numbers with different prefixes for different types of material, so getting a straight run of pre-printed labels would be awkward, and matching them up to the material would be a heck of a job. Thanks for any help! -- Elaine ***I usually use much stronger language when referring to this unholy contraption.
You could put the accession number in several places, depending on whether you want it visible in staff and OPAC and whether it needs to stay tied to the item, not the title. If it can go into the title record, a 505 field would be a good choice since that's visible by default in the main part of the OPAC display and is also indexed. Several of the item fields are indexed, and others could be. Acquisition source (952e) is already indexed, but I don't think it displays. The public note field (952z) should be indexed by default -- it isn't on your system? Alternatively, could you use the accession number as part of the call number (952o)? That's indexed and displays. Jane Wagner Library Systems Analyst PTFS Inc. Content Management and Library Solutions 6400 Goldsboro Road, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20817 (301) 654-8088 x 151 jwagner@ptfs.com -----Original Message----- From: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz [mailto:koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of Elaine Bradtke Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:07 AM To: Koha list Subject: [Koha] Accession numbers, again Sorry, I'm a little fixated on this, partly due to the archival and historical nature of our collection. I am desperately looking for a way to keep barcodes and accession numbers separate, but searchable. A while back I asked where to put accession numbers and it was the general consensus to put them in the barcode subfield (p) of 952. I understand why you do this, because it is a) part of the item information and b) can be searched discretely. But this means you have to print out your own barcodes, a process I would rather avoid given our inflexible*** networked printer (which is on a different floor!) My questions, then. If I decide to use some other subfield (perhaps adding one in) how hard would it be for my IT wizard to create a discrete search for it in the staff mode (similar to the barcode search)? I suppose the process would have to be repeated for each update of the software? I experimented with putting it into the public note. This displays well enough, but you can't actually search on this field, and a string of numbers in a keyword search brings up roughly half of the items in my test collection. Clearly, that's not very useful. Is there any chance an accession number subfield in the item record is in the pipline for a later release? Or, alternatively, I could use some advice on barcode printing equipment. Stand alone barcode printers vs a desktop laser printer? Does printing them yourself make sense if you've got 10,000+ items? Unfortunately, our numbering system is a little quirky using similar runs of numbers with different prefixes for different types of material, so getting a straight run of pre-printed labels would be awkward, and matching them up to the material would be a heck of a job. Thanks for any help! -- Elaine ***I usually use much stronger language when referring to this unholy contraption. _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
On Dec 18, 2009 3:23pm, "Wagner, Jane" <jwagner@ptfs.com> wrote:
The public note field (952z) should be indexed by default --
it isn't on your system? Alternatively, could you use the accession
number as part of the call number (952o)? That's indexed and displays.
I was unclear about that. 952z is indexed, but you can't limit the search to only that field. Doing a general keyword search with a string of numbers, even in our small test set of records brings up far too many false positives. Our accession numbers relate directly to each item itself, so in order for this link to stay intact, I think it will have to go in the 952 somewhere. Ian's suggestion might work: It might be easier to come up with a hack... if you accession numbers are less than 10 characters, you could wedge them into the 'stack' field, which I've not yet found a use for. 'more_subfields_xml' is also a possibility, since it's primarily used for UNIMARC installations. I'm not sure if putting something in there for MARC21 would break things, though. I tried using the stack field and Koha changed what I entered - 12345 to 127 by some weird digital magic. I think there's a link in the MARC format to some sort of authority file which might be the culprit. I can see if it works when I disable the link. Otherwise, I was wondering if one could use double letters for a subfield (952pp?). Elaine
Elaine, To add a new, searchable subfield to the 952 field, I think you'd need to: 1. Modify the MARC Framework to include that subfield. You'd probably need to use a symbol, since nearly all the letters and numbers are taken. I tried to use # once as subfield, and it worked, but screwed up some of the displays. 2. Modify the Zebra files a. ccl.properties and cql.properties to define a new searchable index b. marc21/record.abs to set up field mappings c. bib1.att to set up the attribute sets 3. Reindex 4. Modify the search script to allow searching on the new index 5. Modify the search screen to display the option to search on this index I may be wrong about the details of all this; I haven't done it myself yet, but that's what the code looks like to me. Any Zebra experts want to correct me? It might be easier to come up with a hack... if you accession numbers are less than 10 characters, you could wedge them into the 'stack' field, which I've not yet found a use for. 'more_subfields_xml' is also a possibility, since it's primarily used for UNIMARC installations. I'm not sure if putting something in there for MARC21 would break things, though. My thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth. Ian Walls Systems Integration Librarian NYU Health Sciences Libraries 550 First Ave., New York, NY 10016 (212) 263-8687 -----Original Message----- From: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz [mailto:koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of Elaine Bradtke Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:07 AM To: Koha list Subject: [Koha] Accession numbers, again Sorry, I'm a little fixated on this, partly due to the archival and historical nature of our collection. I am desperately looking for a way to keep barcodes and accession numbers separate, but searchable. A while back I asked where to put accession numbers and it was the general consensus to put them in the barcode subfield (p) of 952. I understand why you do this, because it is a) part of the item information and b) can be searched discretely. But this means you have to print out your own barcodes, a process I would rather avoid given our inflexible*** networked printer (which is on a different floor!) My questions, then. If I decide to use some other subfield (perhaps adding one in) how hard would it be for my IT wizard to create a discrete search for it in the staff mode (similar to the barcode search)? I suppose the process would have to be repeated for each update of the software? I experimented with putting it into the public note. This displays well enough, but you can't actually search on this field, and a string of numbers in a keyword search brings up roughly half of the items in my test collection. Clearly, that's not very useful. Is there any chance an accession number subfield in the item record is in the pipline for a later release? Or, alternatively, I could use some advice on barcode printing equipment. Stand alone barcode printers vs a desktop laser printer? Does printing them yourself make sense if you've got 10,000+ items? Unfortunately, our numbering system is a little quirky using similar runs of numbers with different prefixes for different types of material, so getting a straight run of pre-printed labels would be awkward, and matching them up to the material would be a heck of a job. Thanks for any help! -- Elaine ***I usually use much stronger language when referring to this unholy contraption. _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha ------------------------------------------------------------ This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message. Please note, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The organization accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. =================================
participants (4)
-
bradtke.e＠googlemail.com -
Elaine Bradtke
-
Wagner, Jane -
Walls, Ian