[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Duplicate entry in authors.tt2 (is this bug 958954?)

[Sarah Childs]

It seems that the current behavior is that there is always a parenthetical,
and if there is a subfield e present, it always displays as well.

I added a subfield 4 to a record, and it appears that what the bug fix does
is to use the code from the subfield 4 to replace the parenthetical
information with more descriptive information than the default.
Unfortunately, the subfield 4 is actually used really rarely, because it's
optional and catalogers never really got on board with it. So the vast
majority of the time you get the default, which is either (Author) for the
100 field or (Added Author) for the 100 field.  That's so general as to be
not particularly useful, since when it's accurate that information is
usually clear from the 245, which is displayed above it. For media it's
basically always wrong, and it's wrong pretty frequently for books, too.

Based on that, the main change I'd like to see is that the parenthetical
not be displayed when there is no subfield 4. Right now if we have both
subfield 4 and subfield e, both are displayed, so I wouldn't really
describe subfield e as a fallback.  I think if both are present we should
display one or the other, but I don't really feel strongly about which.
Whichever is easier is fine with me. :-)

A summary of what I propose:
If no subfield e or 4, no term should be displayed.
Display subfield e if present
Display terms based on codes in subfield 4 if present
If both subfield e or 4 are present, display one or the other. (Either is
fine with me)



On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> wrote:

>  Hi Sarah,
>
> Looking at the subfield e information in that bug, Dan says:
>
> Fall back to the $e if there is no explicit relator code;
>
> It sounds like you are proposing the opposite, use the $e and, if it's not
> available, fall back to the relator codes (subfield 4).
>
> I would support that change in direction.
>
> It sounds like an LP bug is in order! :)
>
> Kathy
>
>
> On 05/28/2015 03:15 PM, Sarah Childs wrote:
>
>  If the bug is not the same problem as the one Tony is describing, it's
> very closely related.  The bug does refer to the subfield e, the RDA terms,
> and it looks like that's what the non-parenthetical terms are in his
> example.
>
>  I would vote for ditching the parenthetical terms entirely. If there are
> relator terms, display them (subfield e).  If there are not, but there are
> relator codes (subfield 4), translate and supply those. (Don't give codes,
> give terms.)  If there is nothing, give nothing, just the names. The
> parenthetically supplied terms are usually not that useful and often are
> misleading, redundant, or both.
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Tony,
>>
>> I think this is a different issue. The issue here is that we previously
>> added (Author) or other relator information in parentheses for pre-RDA
>> records. Now that we have RDA records, the record is also now displaying
>> the relator information from subfield e.
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>> On 05/28/2015 02:41 PM, Tony Bandy wrote:
>>
>>  Hello everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> Quick check if you have a moment?  I’m working on TPAC cleanups for our
>> consortium and am noticing title results that include duplicate author
>> notations such as this:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Hillenbrand, Laura,
>> <http://blanchester-training.cool-cat.org/eg/opac/results?query=Hillenbrand%20%20Laura;qtype=author>*
>>  *author. (Author).* *Herrmann, Edward, 1943-
>> <http://blanchester-training.cool-cat.org/eg/opac/results?query=Herrmann%20%20Edward%201943;qtype=author>*
>>  *narrator. (Added Author)*
>>
>>
>>
>> Doing some digging around, this looks to me like Bug #958954 (see:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/958954)
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone encountered this?  Do you think this bug is the same thing?
>>
>>
>>
>> I can fix this somewhat by going into the authors.tt2 file and removing
>> the default label, but with that approach, if there is nothing in the
>> subfield, then there will be zero notation after the author’s name.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If I look at the details for the bug, Dan mentioned there was a fix
>> released?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have!
>>
>>
>>
>> --Tony
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony Bandy
>>
>> tonyb at ohionet.org
>>
>> OHIONET
>>
>> 1500 West Lane Ave.
>>
>> Columbus, OH  43221-3975
>>
>> 614-484-1074 (Direct)
>>
>> 614-486-2966 x19 <614-486-2966%20x19>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>> Kathy Lussier
>> Project Coordinator
>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>  Sarah Childs
> Technical Services Department Head
> Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
> 250 North Fifth Street
> Zionsville, IN 46077
> 317-873-3149 x13330
> sarahc at zionsvillelibrary.org
>
>
> --
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>
>


-- 
Sarah Childs
Technical Services Department Head
Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
250 North Fifth Street
Zionsville, IN 46077
317-873-3149 x13330
sarahc at zionsvillelibrary.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20150528/f293d418/attachment.html>