[Koha] Koha Digest, Vol 119, Issue 23

[David Cook]

Hi Pablo:

While I agree that the 001 should be populated with a unique bibliographic control number, it's not the way that Koha is typically set up.

In theory, it's configurable, but there are parts of Koha that expect the biblionumber to be in the 999$c field (e.g. MARC21slim2OPACResult.xsl).

David Cook
Systems Librarian
Prosentient Systems
72/330 Wattle St, Ultimo, NSW 2007

> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:07:13 -0300
> From: Pablo Bianchi <pablo.bianchi at gmail.com>
> To: "Hernandez, Heather" <heather_hernandez at nps.gov>
> Cc: Koha-org - List <koha at lists.katipo.co.nz>
> Subject: Re: [Koha] System generated field 001 control number
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAH2zftHB59j7eHtooxjUCcjjV2xxGVkxJf3Fm1xSjzPWX_dvTA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Hi ​Heather,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Hernandez, ​​ Heather
> <heather_hernandez at nps.gov> wrote:
> 
> > Hi, Pablo--
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're asking--we use the 001 for a unique
> > bibliographic control number, which for us is the OCLC record number.
> >
> ​
> We wish to have 001 as unique bibliographic control number, but our library
> have nothing to do with OCLC.
> 
> Are you saying that you wish Koha could automatically generate a unique
> > control number in the 001?
> >
> 
> ​Yes.
> 
> 
> > Would you use this differently from the Koha record number in the 999
> > $c field?
> >
> 
> ​Yes. In fact we already have a control number on old records because they
> come from a migration, and this numbers could overlap with biblionumber
> (999$c). That's why ​​bug 9921 is not useful for us. We need on 001 a unique
> record number that is not equal neither with OCLC control number nor
> Koha's biblionumber.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pablo
>