[Koha] Source of Acquisition

[Katrin Fischer]

Hi Charles,

in German libraries an acquisition number like this is very common.
There is a specific Koha item subfield for it already: 952$i =
stocknumber or inventory number. It is indexed in Zebra and there are
some value builders (like stocknumberAV.pl) to generate different
sequential number patterns that can be used with it or could be adapted
to generate what you currently have.

Hope this helps,

Katrin

On 04.12.19 05:58, Charles Kelley wrote:
> Hello, all!
>
>      I have been asked to add a new indexed item field (subfield, that is).
> Here's the story.
>
>      My library keeps track of its acquisitions in an old Access database.
> Each acquisition is given a unique ID number consisting of two parts: the
> year of acquisition and its sequence in the acquisition scheme for the
> year.
>
>          <acquisition year>-<sequence number>
>
>      For example the acquisition number of *A dictionary of Japanese and
> English idiomatic equivalents*, ISBN 0870111116, c. 1, is 1986-1003. The
> acquisition number of the same title, c. 2, ordered in the same batch as c.
> 1, is 1986-1003. This means, as you might already induce, that in 1986, c.
> 1 and c. 2 were the 1003rd books ordered. A third copy ordered later in the
> year would get the acquisition number 1986-1657. If a fourth copy is
> ordered in two years, it might get acquisition number 1988-0384; meaning it
> was the 384th work ordered in 1988.
>
>      I am building a Koha catalog this library's from a spreadsheet and
> Access database, I have been asked to preserve this acquisition number. It
> is very important to the staff, and I am too new to challenge the staff
> about it. I am confident that in a few years, we'll have a better different
> system in operation; but for the present, I think I ought to keep it.
>
>      Well, I can insert the number into the 952$e field. I could repurposed
> the 952$k field since that field is not in use. If I do the former (952$e),
> I can rely on the regular Koha indexing handle the number, the indexing,
> and so on. If I do the latter (952$k), I have to create and build a new
> index;* and I run the risk that Koha will dedicate 952$k to a function in
> the future.
>
>      Have libraries in this discussion list done 952$e? Have libraries in
> this discussion list done $952$k? Is there an alternative solution?
> Abandoning the porting is not, at this stage, an option although I concede
> that in the future, we will likely end up dropping this version of the
> acquisition number.
>
>      * I have read the sections on building an index on the Koha wiki.
>
>      Thanks for your help, everyone.
>