We expect UNIMARC and CNMARC tag 100 could be treated as a Control Field in NRs like MARC 008 field.
We have an issue with UNIMARC/CNMARC field 100 which is not considered as Control Field when using Normalization Rules
The current incorrect behavior is that the UNIMARC/CNMARC tag 100 cannot be changed using a NR for "replaceControlContents" - "Failed during compilation of drools files". Changing the NR to "replaceContents" produces no error but is not working (as 100 is a Control Field)
We expect UNIMARC and CNMARC tag 100 could be treated as a Control Field in NRs like MARC 008 field.
A new function was added to enhance the Alma DROOLS to support the normalization of UNIMARC and CNMARC 1XX fixed position fields. As a result of the enhancement, UNIMARC and CNMARC tag 1XX are treated as Control Fields in Normalization Rules and no error messages are displayed.
For more information please see Alma November Release Notes
-
Catherine Bellet commented
I fully agree and it should also include all Unimarc fixed fields, for example 105, 110, 115, etc ...
Catherine -
Ling Jiang commented
Yes, comparing MARC21 field 008 with CNMARC field 100 you can see they save similar data, and they should be treated in similar way as control field. So that their value could be manipulated per digit or position. Now MARC21 008 is a control field but CNMARC 100 is not.