TPAC search results don't display RDA 264 publisher info

[Ben Shum]

Evergreen version: master

As noticed by one of our libraries, the RDA tag 264 for publisher information was not displaying the Publisher information on the search results page as part of the short summary of the bib. Further investigation pointed out that in Record details, we use the split variables pubplace, publisher, and pubdate whereas in Results we only use a combined variable pubinfo.

The problem arises due to this block in the misc_util.tt2 file that tries to find matching 880s for the pubinfo, starting around line 117 in master's version of that file:

        graphic_880s = [];
        get_graphic_880s(target_field='260');
        args.graphic_pubinfos = graphic_880s;
        args.pubinfos = [];
        FOR pubinfo IN args.graphic_pubinfos;
            args.pubinfos.push(pubinfo.primary.value);
        END;
        args.pubinfo = (args.pubinfos.size) ? args.pubinfos.0 : '';

The args.pubinfo is broken if the tag is 264 (RDA) instead of tag 260. Removing this graphic_880s lookup for pubinfo does resolve the issue of displaying the proper 264 tag entry on search results, but breaks facets and the feature of 880 linked entries.

So I guess the question is how to deal with this and whether 880s even apply to 264 RDA tags? Off to do some more research...

[Dan Scott (denials)]

Based on a quick read of the code, I suspect the problem could be mitigated by just adding a

get_graphic_880s(target_field='264');

right after the existing get_graphic_880s(target_field='260'); line, similar to what we do for authors of the 100, 110, 111 variety.

880s can apply to pretty much every field in MARC *ahem* RDA as expressed in MARC; http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html shows the $8 subfield for linked fields, for example.

If we do not have any sample RDA records in our sample records, it would be great to have some so we can more easily test out these theories! Can you supply a few?

[Dan Scott (denials)]

Ben tried out the fix informally and found it worked as anticipated; I've pushed a branch with a formal fix to http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/dbs/lp1243746_tpac_rda_pubinfo_880 - thanks Ben!

[Ben Shum (bshum)]

Works for me, thanks Dan!

I've signed off and pushed the bug fix to master and rel_2_4. rel_2_3 is unaffected because that's from before the graphic 880 was introduced to Evergreen.