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

[Yamil Suarez]

Mike,

Thanks for looking into this. Can you or anyone else tell me if I can just re-declare the two updated stored procedures (see below) and re-ingest the auth records on my test server to see the code in action? I guess I can just build a new test VM, but I want to know if I have another option.

Also, I made a mistake in my example when I placed the "Jazz England" auth record at the bottom. Thanks for catching that Mike.

Yamil



-------------------------

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION authority.normalize_heading( marcxml TEXT, no_thesaurus BOOL ) RETURNS TEXT AS $func$
DECLARE
    acsaf           authority.control_set_authority_field%ROWTYPE;
    tag_used        TEXT;
    nfi_used        TEXT;
    sf              TEXT;
    sf_node         TEXT;
 
 
 <snip>
 
 
END;
$func$ LANGUAGE PLPGSQL IMMUTABLE;
 
-------


CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION authority.simple_heading_set( marcxml TEXT ) RETURNS SETOF authority.simple_heading AS $func$
DECLARE
    res             authority.simple_heading%ROWTYPE;
    acsaf           authority.control_set_authority_field%ROWTYPE;

<snip>

END;
$func$ LANGUAGE PLPGSQL IMMUTABLE;




On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, on second thought, I think that bug is fine for this.  I'll
> just use that.  See:
> http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/collab/miker/authority-sf-file-order
> 
> --miker
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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