Comment 7 for bug 925776

Ben Shum (bshum) wrote :

Going back to James' original bug report, I think we can actually confirm that while we were still on 2.0, the located URI's behaved strangely for us. For whatever reason, the subfield 9 acted oddly when used at the library level vs. the system level. In our system, we have a three tier structure (CONS, SYS, BR) and subfield 9 entries at BR didn't behave as expected to restrict to only that BR for display while subfield 9 entries at SYS did; as far as restricting view of said located URIs.

I think this behavior began to change in 2.1+ to match expectations but whatever fixes there were never backported fully to 2.0. And since we had altered all our located URI's anyways, we didn't get to figuring out the actual problem itself.

Will try looking up more details when I get the chance (though 2.0 is dead to me!)