According to the mock-up even if the $0 subfield of some field (e.g. field 100) of some bib record is populated with the right value, for which the MARC authority record exists, it doesn't mean that this field of bib record is linked to the corresponding MARC authority. Only when user manually create with link via action menu the link will be created. Is that correct? [KG: For the first phase we are supporting manual linking these are the following scenarios we should consider support. Need time to complete table.
| # | Scenario | How to handle MARC bib subfield $0 |
|---|---|---|
1 |
| Option 1: Do nothing. No change to the $0 field remains editable Option 2: Populate with Authority record 001 or 010 $a and make read only on UI |
| 2 |
| Option 1: Do nothing. No change to the $0 field remains editable Option 2: Make read only |
| 3 |
| Option 1: Do nothing. No change to the $0 field remains editable Option 2: Make read-only Option 3: Override $0 with Authority record 001 or 010 $a |
| 4 |
| Option 1: Do nothing. No change to the $0 field remains editable Option 2: Populate with Authority record 001 or 010 $a and make read only on UI |
| 5 |
| Option 1: Do nothing. No change to the $0 field remains editable Option 2: Populate with Authority record 001 or 010 $a and make read only on UI |
]
2. If we link "Tolkien, J. R. R., 1892-1973" in one MARC bib record to the authority record, does it mean, that we link "Tolkien, J. R. R., 1892-1973" in all fields of all other MARC bib records, that have exactly the same text ("Tolkien, J. R. R., 1892-1973")? [KG: No - not in the case for this manual action. Once we get to automating these links/matches then we can consider this requirement but for now the focus is on manual linking.]
If first answer is yes and second is no then:
To make linking user uses the dropdown menu, that is available for each row in MARC file. It basically means that the $0 subfield value is not enough for the creation of the link between bib and authority, but instead we link the row in bib record to the authority record, and therefore we need to save:
- The marc bib record id (from srs)
- The marc code (e.g. 100 or 700)
- In case of the 700 field, we also need the sequence number of the field to differentiate from one row to another.
- Also the authority id to which the row is linked to.
So we link the row, because we cannot base the linking on the $0 field (question 1), and we cannot base the linking on the text comparison (question 2). But it is only if first answer is yes and second is no.
3. If the second answer is no and there are 3 records (ex. Title1, Title2, Title3) with Lucas, Perer J and for one of the records (ex. Title1) user link the Lucas, Perer J to the authority record does it mean that:
- There will be 2 rows for Lucas, Perer J in browsing: one which is marked as linked and number of titles equals to 1 and another one not marked as linked and number of titles 2 [KG: Yes - since we are focused on manual workflow this is a possibility. Note that this may be intentional for catalogers as there may be two Lucas, Perer J.]
- There will be 1 row which is marked as linked and number of titles equals to 3 (because at least one is marked)
- There will be 1 row which is not marked as linked and number of titles equals to 3 (because not all are marked)
4. And small clarification: Did I get you correctly, that 001 of MARC Authority can be used as an identifier for the Authority? (Is it unique in scope of Folio installation?) [KG: 001 AND 010$a can be used but I need to review a few more records to see if we can always use 001 and 010$a as a fall back. Please review this requirement that relates
. I think we can extend to support user created authority files and base URLs. If you have thoughts about it then this should be discussed because it is a candidate for sprint starting this Monday. ]Jira server FOLIO Issue Tracker serverId 6ccf3fe4-3301-368a-983e-20c466b11a49 key MODINVSTOR-892