[Koha] Koha Digest, Vol 182, Issue 10

[dcook at prosentient.com.au]

Hi Peter,

Without rewriting the Koha code, it's impossible to authority control 2 subfields in a field. There's a few reasons why. 

First, there is only one "9" subfield available for the linkage to the authority record. 

Second, Koha is hard-coded to authority control only the "a" subfield. I have gotten it to work with the 260$b but only if there is no authority control on 260$a. 

Ultimately, it can't really done without rewriting some core parts of Koha. 

My suggestion would be to use "Authorized Value Lists" instead of authorities for the 260$a and 260$b instead, although I imagine that the customer won't like that. 

Someone else might have other ideas but that's my 2 cents.

David Cook
Software Engineer
Prosentient Systems
Suite 7.03
6a Glen St
Milsons Point NSW 2061
Australia

Office: 02 9212 0899
Online: 02 8005 0595

-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:16:32 +0100
From: Peter Korsten <pkpublic at severity-one.com>
To: koha <koha at lists.katipo.co.nz>
Subject: [Koha] Authority controlled fields for publisher
Message-ID:
	<CAML7JVGh+8L0EEG7cqvAjhS=JRsRbgMozSAGvfGAQwpqQvuRbg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

The topic has been asked before, but not exactly in the specific circumstances that I'm facing.

My company (essentially, yours truly) is installing Koha for a customer, and migrating data. They insist on having fields 260$a and 260$b to be authority controlled. I solved that by modifying the BKS framework, setting 260$a to be a GEOGR_NAME and 260$b a CORPO_NAME. So far, so good.

The trouble starts when you try the little icon to look up an authority record. If I click on that icon for 260$b (name of the publisher) and choose an existing one, the value instead ends up in 260$a.

Now I don't think that this is a bug in Koha, but I do think that I'm not understanding this facility entirely, and the documentation doesn't seem to address this issue either. I'm aware that field 260 is supposed to contain transcribed data, and we've pointed this out to the customer, but this is what they want.

Could somebody please enlighten me, whether I've taken the correct approach?

Thanks,

- Peter