[OPEN-ILS-DEV] What are authorities sorted in the cataloging "manage authorities" view?

[Mike Rylander]

The primary cause of the sort order you're seeing is the code at lines
277 through 279 of Open-ILS/src/sql/Pg/011.schema.authority.sql.

For each tag that we're going turn into simple heading, primarily for
browsing authority records, we look only at the subfields that we've
been told to.  However, instead of looping over the subfields in
record-order, we pull them out of the tag in configuration order.
IOW, record order is not preserved for sorting.

I think this needs a new bug, since the old one you pointed out has a
muddled history, and doesn't call out the problem specifically.

The fix for this is relatively straight forward, and I'll see if I can
put that together soon.

One last thing, however, regarding your cataloger's desired sort
order; it would look like the following (note the placement of the
"Jazz -- England" line in your desired example):

150 $aJazz

150 $aJazz $y1921-1930

150 $aJazz  $y1931-1940

150 $aJazz  $y1941-1950

150 $aJazz  $zEngland $y1941-1950.

150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1921-1930.

150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1931-1940.

150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1941-1950.

150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1921-1930.

150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1931-1940.


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Yamil Suarez <ysuarez at berklee.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My catalogers are confused by how authorities are sorted in the cataloging "manage authorities" view. I wanted to understand the approach being taken by the current code, versus what the catalogers are expecting.
>
>
> For example in our EG 2.2 and our now EG 2.4 system if we search for subject "jazz" the results look something like this (though the sub-field letters are not displayed)…
>
>
> 150 $aJazz
>
> 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1921-1930.
>
> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1921-1930.
>
> 150 $aJazz  $y1931-1940
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1931-1940.
>
> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1931-1940.
>
> 150 $aJazz  $y1941-1950
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zEngland $y1941-1950.
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1941-1950.
>
>
> The catalogers would prefer that the sorting should instead look like this….
>
> 150 $aJazz
>
> 150 $aJazz $y1921-1930
>
> 150 $aJazz  $y1931-1940
>
> 150 $aJazz  $y1941-1950
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1921-1930.
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1931-1940.
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zFrance   $zParis   $y1941-1950.
>
> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1921-1930.
>
> 150 $aJazz $zNorth Carolina $zGastonia $y1931-1940.
>
> 150 $aJazz  $zEngland $y1941-1950.
>
>
> Which is the way that the authorities searches look like within OCLC Connexion client when searching the OCLC authority file. I wonder if part of the confusion is that sometimes authority subfield letters are not sued in alphabetical order. For example, in these subject authority the subfield are used in this order $a, $z, $y.
>
> My understanding is that this old LP bug is referring to this sorting issue.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/781008
>
> This old bug needs to be re-filed because it combined more than one issue at a time, and I am just trying to research authority sorting to see if it should be refiled or turned into a wish-list item, etc.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Yamil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Mike Rylander
 | Director of Research and Development
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com