Ugh, I hadn't seen https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14198 before... that's not good. I'm not 100% sure on those indexes, Zeno, I'd have to double-check Zebra files and Koha code, but yeah... we definitely want to change how 264 is being indexed. I think it should be indexed the same as 260. Maybe a bit differently due to some conditions tied to indicators, but yeah... ugh. David Cook Systems Librarian Prosentient Systems 72/330 Wattle St Ultimo, NSW 2007 Office: 02 9212 0899 Direct: 02 8005 0595

-----Original Message-----

Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:38:48 +0200 From: Tajoli Zeno <z.tajoli@cineca.it> To: koha list <koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> Subject: [Koha] Indexing MARC21 tag 264, why not use indexes pl and copydate Message-ID: <5729C327.4060809@cineca.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed

Hi to all,

reading the log of 264 indexing setup, https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14198

I see that the final decision is to insert all 264 data into indexes Providera and pv.

As I have undestand, 264 doen't insert data into pl [place] and into copydate [year]. The comment speaks "Note that if you search again with pb only one record appear. This is because the suggestion of LOC". Can you link me the suggestion of LOC ? I don't find it.

And about the other two indexes, pl and copydate ? Why we dont' do something like those line ?

<index_subfields tag="264" subfields="a"> <target_index>pl:w</target_index> <target_index>pl:p</target_index> </index_subfields> <index_subfields tag="264" subfields="c"> <target_index>copydate:w</target_index> <target_index>copydate:s</target_index> </index_subfields>

In my MARC21 records we are starting to use 264 and we don't use 260 anymore [is an early adopter policy].

Thank you for everything. Zeno Tajoli

-- Zeno Tajoli / SVILUPPO PRODOTTI/ - Automazione Biblioteche Email: z.tajoli@cineca.it Fax: 051/6132198 *CINECA* Consorzio Interuniversitario - Sede operativa di Segrate (MI)