Publication date fields in Koha
Hello everyone, I'm trying to clean up some data from the RDA-related changes when we updated our framework a while back and have a few topics/questions regarding the publication fields (particularly the dates): - Can someone explain to me where the publisher, location, and date come from in the OPAC's search results? The reason I ask is that Koha seems to be pulling it from EITHER field 260 OR 264, is that correct? I've run a SQL query that shows I have the publisher information in only one of those fields for every record, but Koha still displays it. - Should I be "worried" that for some records I have the publication data in marcxml field 260 and for others I see it in 264, even for recently-added records within the same framework? Shouldn't the data show up in the same place if using the same framework? - How do the biblio.copyrightdate and biblioitems.publicationyear dates get populated? It doesn't seem like I have anything in 'biblioitems.publicationyear' at all.should I? And I see the biblio.copyrightdate for those records where the 264$c marcxml field is populated, but not the ones that have the publication information in the 260$c marcxml field. In case anyone else cares to look at publication date information in their own environment, here's a SQL query that shows you all of the various copyright date/publication year fields I mention above for ALL your biblios: SELECT items.biblionumber,items.itype,biblio.title,items.barcode,biblio.copyrightda te,biblioitems.publicationyear,biblio.frameworkcode,ExtractValue(marcxml,'// datafield[@tag="260"]/subfield[@code="c"]') AS marc260c, ExtractValue(marcxml,'//datafield[@tag="264"]/subfield[@code="c"]') AS marc264c FROM items LEFT JOIN biblioitems on (items.biblioitemnumber=biblioitems.biblioitemnumber) LEFT JOIN biblio on (biblioitems.biblionumber=biblio.biblionumber) ORDER BY items.biblionumber ASC Hope this makes sense.just trying to figure out where the publication data SHOULD be and why it doesn't seem consistent in my environment. Thanks in advance! Steve
Hi, Steve-- I can chime in a bit about the 260 and 264 fields. The 264 field is new, and came along with RDA--records that were cataloged according to previous rules (AACR2, etc.) would have a 260 field. So, yes, ideally, a bib record has either a 260 or a 264 field, but not both. I don't think you need to be worried--a lot of records out there are older records, cataloged before RDA was implemented, and they have perfectly formatted and valid 260 fields, and a lot of libraries are not cataloging according to RDA, so they are still creating records with perfectly formatted and valid 260 fields. So records will probably continue to use one or the other field for some time. The copyright date in a pre-RDA record should be in a 260 $c, and in an RDA record should be in a 264 _4 $c. How Koha then handles these fields & comes up with the display is a bit beyond me, though! So, really, as long as there are records cataloged according to different cataloging rules in the MARC21 format, which there probably always will be, then we will have records using either a 260s or 264s. It's not a simple thing to just map data from 260s into 264s, since the 264 field must have a second indicator set to indicate the type of information (e.g., production, publication, distribution, copyright notice, etc.), and this isn't always evident from looking at the 260--so most libraries will be maintaining databases with older records using 260s and newer ones using 264s for some time. So it sounds to me like your database is fine, having records using either the 260 or the 264! I hope this helps! Cheers, Heather ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov http://www.nps.gov/safr/learn/historyculture/museum-collections.htm "The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail."--Gustaf Lindborg
participants (2)
-
Hernandez, Heather -
Steven Nickerson