Esther Ernst
My feedback
11 results found
-
289 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
152 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
264 votes
Hello everyone, for those who raised comments about the correction of 830 $v, could you please provide a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the scenario in which this subfield gets overwritten?
Esther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
156 votes
I wonder if this request takes into account that certain fields in the 1XX/6XX/7XX have different first indicator definitions in the MARC21 standard for Bibliographic fields compared to their corresponding Authority fields. In such cases, copying the first indicator from the Authority to the Bibliographic heading would result in incorrect data. Is the reqeust is about Names only? Hans, I would recommend consulting with AAFG group for a detailed spec where this requested behavior is valid to which fields.
An error occurred while saving the comment Esther Ernst
commented
Having to set the first indicator manually when linking a bibliographic field with an authority record is a huge source of mistakes. It would save a lot of time to the data cleaning teams and to the cataloguers, as well as significantly improve data quality, if the first indicator could be copied into the bibliographic field automatically from the authority record by linking with F3.
Esther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
241 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
85 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
79 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
41 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
439 votes
This idea is under review for the NDE UI
Esther Ernst
supported this idea
·
-
51 votesEsther Ernst
supported this idea
·
This enhancement is absolutely essential. We use several authority files in our catalogue. Advanced search is intended for more precise and targeted retrieval, so users should not lose the benefits of authority enrichment simply because they choose a specific subject vocabulary instead of the generic Subject field.
It is also important to note that "local" subject fields do not necessarily represent small, institution-specific vocabularies. In our case, they are based on the GND, the largest authority file in the German-speaking world. Users naturally expect equivalent access through preferred and non-preferred terms regardless of which subject field they search. The current behaviour, where searches with a 4XX term retrieve records in the generic Subject field but fail in the corresponding local subject field, is inconsistent and counterintuitive.
In practice, if non-preferred terms (4XX) are not indexed for a specific authority vocabulary, searching that vocabulary loses much of its value: users must already know and enter the preferred form (1XX) to retrieve relevant records, which largely defeats the purpose of maintaining authority records with rich synonym and variant-term references.