discussion: should brief record add include "Identifier" field?

[Andrea Neiman]

Breaking this off from Jennifer's comment here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1959616/comments/1

Comment text below:

When you create a new record using "Cataloguing -> Create New MARC Record" Evergreen automatically adds the 001 field when you save the record. Possibly acq should just let Evergreen do this when the records are loaded into the catalogue rather than letting staff manually enter a value.

[Christine Morgan (cmorgan-z)]

I think Jennifer's suggestion makes sense.

[Jennifer Pringle (jpringle-u)]

The conclusion of a discussion during the AIG meeting is that yes, the brief record from should include the identifier because libraries where the TCN and database ID is different may need to be able to enter it.

The term "identifier" is causing confusion since it's usually to refer to ISBNs, ISSNs, UPCs, and other standard identifiers (and is used in this way on the purchase order). We think the field should be renamed "Control Number" in stock Evergreen as that's what the 001 is called in the MARC Standards.

I am unclear if the column header "Is Identifier" in Line Item MARC Attribute Definitions also needs to be updated as I don't know if it's meaning an identifier such as an ISBN, ISSN, UPC, etc. or something different.

Existing libraries can update the term that shows on the brief record form themselves by going to Acquisitions Administration -> Line Item MARC Attribute Definitions and changing the description field from Identifier to Control Number (or whatever terminology the library prefers). Caveat: I don't know what else is affected if you change this so advise testing first.