Add ISBN subfield q to record summary.

Bug #1779319 reported by Jason Stephenson
60
This bug affects 13 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Evergreen
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Many recent MARC records come with the format information in the 020 subfield q instead of tacked on the end of the subfield a. For these records the format does not display in the record summary in the OPAC or Staff client but the format does display for the older records that have it tacked onto the end of subfield a.

This branch adds the subfield q to the information gathered for display in the OPAC:

http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/dyrcona/lp1779319-add-isbn-subfield-q

NOTE: CW MARS is already using this code in a custom template in production.

description: updated
Changed in evergreen:
assignee: Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) → nobody
milestone: none → 3.2-beta
Revision history for this message
Mike Rylander (mrylander) wrote :

Jason, looking at the code, shouldn't the expression in the inner FOR loop be "isbn.findnodes('../*[@code="q"]')" rather than "xml.findnodes('../*[@code="q"]')"?

Secondarily, should we set up a display field entry for this, either instead of or in addition to?

tags: added: pullrequest
Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

Mike, you are correct. I typed this over again rather than copy and paste from the custom misc_util.tt2. I'll fix that and force push.

I'll defer to you on the display field question. I was asked to add the subfield q and this looked like the easiest way to do that at the time.

Jane Sandberg (sandbej)
tags: added: needsreleasenote
Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

I rebased the branch on current master and added a commit with some very simple release notes. I force pushed over the prior branch.

Mike's question about display fields is still open, but the existing OPAC code does not use display fields here, so I'm inclined to keep what I've done. We can always revisit this at a later date.

tags: removed: needsreleasenote
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 3.2-beta → 3.2-rc
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 3.2-rc → 3.2.1
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 3.2.1 → 3.2.2
milestone: 3.2.2 → 3.next
Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

Moved the target milestone to 3.next as this seems new featurish to me.

Dan Wells (dbw2)
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 3.next → 3.3-beta1
Revision history for this message
Dan Scott (denials) wrote :

I think as currently written this will result in the contents of $q being expressed as part of the schema:isbn RDFa, which would be an unfortunate side-effect.

Perhaps the isbn variable could be restructured to carry the isbn_id and isbn_qualifier separately?

Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 3.3-beta1 → 3.3-rc
Changed in evergreen:
milestone: 3.3-rc → 3.next
Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

In response to Dan Scott's comment # 5, perhaps it should be restructured, but I'd like to point out that many (most?) ISBNs have the qualifier that is now in subfield q tacked on to subfield a. It's one of the things that made parsing ISBN data from MARC a bit tricky in the past.

Revision history for this message
Meg Stroup (mstroup) wrote :

This has been on the SCLENDS cataloging workgroup's wishlist for quite awhile. We do add qualifiers and would like them to display.

Changed in evergreen:
assignee: nobody → Rogan Hamby (rogan-hamby)
Revision history for this message
Rogan Hamby (rogan-hamby) wrote :

works for me, sign off at user/rogan/lp1779319_signoff

Changed in evergreen:
assignee: Rogan Hamby (rogan-hamby) → nobody
tags: added: signedoff
Revision history for this message
Galen Charlton (gmc) wrote :

As of bug 1744385, the OPAC templates do use display attributes for the ISBN, so the question of adding a definition that includes the subfield $q in the display entry is more significant.

Also, I have a display question: https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd020.html suggests that a display convention is to include the qualifier in parenthesis. Should we include that?

Setting to needsrepatch for now.

tags: added: needsrepatch
removed: pullrequest signedoff
Revision history for this message
Elaine Hardy (ehardy) wrote :

+1 to including the qualifier in parenthesis.

Revision history for this message
Janet Schrader (jschrader) wrote :

If you mean should the system supply the parentheses I'd say no. The LOC documentation apparently doesn't use parentheses but I'd say 99% of OCLC records we import already have the text in subfield q in parentheses. If the system added them they would be doubled, much like the commas that separate the relator terms if a person is both author and illustrator.
In the MARC record each subfield e is separated by a comma and the field ends with a period both of which Evergreen supplies so that:
Carle, Eric, $e author, $e illustrator.
becomes:
Carle, Eric, (author,,illustrator.).
with two commas and two periods.

Version 3.2.4
Chrome browser

tags: added: cataloging needswork
removed: needsrepatch
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers