<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid200204151155.g3FBtnJ21806@alma.athenscounty.lib.oh.us">
<pre wrap=""><br></pre>
</blockquote>
Stephen Hedges wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> If you're a little tired of looking
for errors in scripts, how about a philosophical question -- how many different
kohas should there be? <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
One, and only one <img src="chrome://editor/content/images/wink_n.gif"
alt=";-)" class="moz-txt-smily" height="19" width="19" align="middle">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I've noticed that there are some significant differences
in what libraries from different areas of the world expect their software
to do. For instance, while ten-digit barcodes seem to work well in the
South Pacific, in the US (and Canada?) the fourteen-digit barcode for both
book ID and 'member' ID seems to be becoming a de facto standard. And then
there's the whole MARC record discussion -- just whose MARC format are we
discussing? There's Paul's MARC standard in France, there's USMARC, and
I get the feeling MARC may not really be all that important Down Under.
And while tracking and storing information about ethnicity is necessary
in New Zealand, most libraries in the States would find that idea disturbing.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Note the "Paul's MARC standard" is UNIMARC. It means unified MARC. There
are only a few differences with USMARC. In fact, USMARC is UNIMARC compliant,
but UNIMARC is not USMARC compliant. (note I may be wrong here, as I'm not
fully aware) <br>
<br>
<SNIP> <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Let's use our library (Nelsonville Public Library,
Nelsonville, Ohio, USA) to illustrate my point. We have been investigating
the possibility of using koha to replace our current Sanderson system.
In listing the things we would need to change to make koha work for us,
we so far have identified: <br>
- lengthen the barcode fields <br>
- accomodate batch imports and exports of bibliographic records in USMARC
format <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
It's a MUST have for the next version. I think we must find a way to import
USMARC as well as UNIMARC. I've a few UNIMARC files, but haven't time
to test with the current MARC support. Note I'll be back on koha (half to
full time) in around 10 days <img
src="chrome://editor/content/images/wink_n.gif" alt=";-)"
class="moz-txt-smily" height="19" width="19" align="middle">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> - do away with the ethnicity fields <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Not important I think. If you don't mind this field, ignore it <img
src="chrome://editor/content/images/wink_n.gif" alt=";-)"
class="moz-txt-smily" height="19" width="19" align="middle">
In france, it's strictly forbidden to store such a value (as such a file
gave some help to nazis during 2nd world war)... <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> - add support for the Z39.50 protocol to allow us
to share catalog records with other libraries in the state of Ohio <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
OK with you. Z39.50 is the same all around the world <img
src="chrome://editor/content/images/wink_n.gif" alt=";-)"
class="moz-txt-smily" height="19" width="19" align="middle">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> - and add support for the NISO Circulation Interchange
Protocol (NCIP) to allow us to share user records with other libraries (and
thus participate in the statewide resource sharing system). <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
We need a plug-in system for sharing more than biblioitems I think, because
sharing is VERY important for libraries all around the world. <br>
I've no idea if there is such a standard in France. I will search. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">While these modifications are necessary to make koha
a viable alternative for our library, they would be useless for Paul Poulain's
library (or Roger Buck's library, or Steve Tonnessen's library, etc., etc.)
So let's put my original question a little differently -- is one version
of koha enough? Maybe there should be groups in different areas of the
world working to develop regional versions of koha. Or has that happened
already and we just aren't hearing anything about it? <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
In some cases, we could have a parameter to decide if yes or no something
is used. It's harder to code, but HIGHLY easier to maintain... <br>
In other cases, we must explain the users that we can't modify everything.
<br>
<br>
It's a BIG problem in open-source : every modification can be done. but some
modifications causes my version to be no more upgrabale with the "standard"
one, so any evolutions in the "standard" version must be checked and corrected
to fit my own modifications. That's why I think we must have only 1 version,
even if it causes some dis-agreements (not sure of this word in english
?) <br>
In the long time, it REALLY BETTER. <br>
-- <br>
Paul <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>