I have a situation where we want to have non-public notes attached to biblio records. There doesn't appear to be any way of doing this, so I was thinking of doing something along the lines of having (MARC21) 595-599 as private biblio notes, and 590-594 as public ones. I'm wondering if a) there's a better approach, and b) if this is something that would be generally useful and worth upstreaming. I think it'll take little more than a change to the XSLT/templates for the OPAC. -- Robin Sheat Catalyst IT Ltd. ✆ +64 4 803 2204 GPG: 5957 6D23 8B16 EFAB FEF8 7175 14D3 6485 A99C EB6D
At 01:56 PM 11/16/2010 +1300, Robin S. wrote:
I have a situation where we want to have non-public notes attached to biblio records. There doesn't appear to be any way of doing this, so I was thinking of doing something along the lines of having (MARC21) 595-599 as private biblio notes, and 590-594 as public ones.
Wouldn't a 9xx be more appropriate? You might still have to massage the presentation of "user" rather than "admin" search functions. Paul
Paul schreef op ma 15-11-2010 om 20:18 [-0500]:
Wouldn't a 9xx be more appropriate? You might still have to massage the presentation of "user" rather than "admin" search functions.
Well, the 59X range is defined as "59X - Local Notes (R) - Reserved in MARC for local use and local definition.", which seems pretty appropriate. Also, (IIRC) Koha knows how to display notes, so it would require less changing. In this case, I'm not too worried about search results hitting on the hidden stuff. Hmm, I guess that I'll have to see if they mind that it'll show up in the MARC record, otherwise that'll have to be filtered on the OPAC too. -- Robin Sheat Catalyst IT Ltd. ✆ +64 4 803 2204 GPG: 5957 6D23 8B16 EFAB FEF8 7175 14D3 6485 A99C EB6D
2010/11/15 Robin Sheat <robin@catalyst.net.nz>:
I have a situation where we want to have non-public notes attached to biblio records. There doesn't appear to be any way of doing this, so I was thinking of doing something along the lines of having (MARC21) 595-599 as private biblio notes, and 590-594 as public ones.
I'm wondering if a) there's a better approach, and b) if this is something that would be generally useful and worth upstreaming. I think it'll take little more than a change to the XSLT/templates for the OPAC.
I think there are two different issues here: 1) Display of the fields 2) Indexing them 1) My experience is that 590 fields info is shown in "Descriptions" tab in the OPAC. Other fields$subfields can be added through XSLT to the view too. 2) If you want to be able to search those fields, yo have to add indexes to zebra. For example add: to zebradb/biblios/etc/bib1.att att 8032 LocalNote and to zebradb/marc_defs/marc21/biblios/record.abs melm 590$a LocalNote to add an index for 590$a To+
participants (3)
-
Paul -
Robin Sheat -
Tomas Cohen Arazi