| Time |
S |
Nick |
Message |
| 13:23 |
|
owen |
kados: I notice call numbers aren't appearing on the opac-detail page. Could that be what Gloria is talking about? |
| 13:28 |
|
kados |
hmmm ... maybe |
| 13:31 |
|
owen |
kados, when you get a chance could you look at permissions again |
| 13:33 |
|
kados |
owen: yep, changed back now |
| 13:33 |
|
kados |
I've eliminated SearchMarc.pm now |
| 13:33 |
|
kados |
all search routines are now in Search.pm |
| 13:34 |
|
kados |
and I'm gonna be working on refining support for the old API a bit today |
| 13:34 |
|
kados |
owen: as far as call numbers, if you want them to show up in the detail page, change 'classification' to 'dewey' |
| 13:34 |
|
owen |
Still no luck |
| 13:34 |
|
kados |
owen: but note that next time I migrate they will need to be changed back |
| 13:34 |
|
kados |
owen: how about now? |
| 13:35 |
|
kados |
(too many damn synlinks :-)) |
| 13:37 |
|
owen |
Finally! |
| 13:37 |
|
kados |
hehe |
| 13:37 |
|
kados |
sorry |
| 13:49 |
|
owen |
kados: are there additional options for what information can be displayed with the Amazon reviews? I'm thinking reviewer name, review date, and rating |
| 13:49 |
|
kados |
rating should be there |
| 13:49 |
|
kados |
but yea, we can add stuff |
| 13:50 |
|
kados |
anything exposed in the API can be added |
| 13:50 |
|
owen |
Average rating is there, but not individual reviewer ratings |
| 13:56 |
|
kados |
ahh, right |
| 13:56 |
|
kados |
last time I checked that wasn't available in the API |
| 13:56 |
|
kados |
but it may be now |
| 14:24 |
|
owen |
kados, are you still around? |
| 14:24 |
|
kados |
owen: yep |
| 14:24 |
|
kados |
owen: oapcnav gone? |
| 14:24 |
|
kados |
musta lost it with my last cvs update |
| 14:24 |
|
owen |
Take a look at this: http://zoomopac.liblime.com/cg[…]ail.pl?bib=171479 |
| 14:25 |
|
owen |
Under "Format:" we're getting one of the notes fields |
| 14:25 |
|
kados |
huh ... |
| 14:25 |
|
kados |
it's in 520 a |
| 14:59 |
|
kados |
the field in the Format line is 'abstract' |
| 15:00 |
|
kados |
and abstract is linked to 530 $a |
| 15:00 |
|
kados |
520 $a even |
| 15:00 |
|
kados |
owen: what should it be linked to? |
| 15:01 |
|
kados |
maybe we just need to change the name of the label to 'Abstract'? |
| 15:02 |
|
kados |
well ... 'Summary' maybe |
| 15:02 |
|
owen |
I expect the data under "Format:" to be 245h |
| 15:02 |
|
owen |
The abstract is already showing up with the other notes |
| 15:02 |
|
kados |
I see |
| 15:03 |
|
kados |
so NPL musta co-opted abstract by calling it format |
| 15:03 |
|
kados |
I mean that they put format data into abstract |
| 15:03 |
|
kados |
and by they I mean we :-) |
| 15:04 |
|
owen |
It was working before: http://search.athenscounty.lib[…]ail.pl?bib=171479 |
| 15:04 |
|
kados |
yep ... but we've got a completely new framework now |
| 15:05 |
|
kados |
so I just need to adjust that slightly |
| 15:06 |
|
kados |
but for the rest of the world, we shouldn't assume that they are mapping format to abstract |
| 15:06 |
|
kados |
can we just have the format show up as part of the title or something? |
| 15:07 |
|
kados |
do we need to have it in it's own spot? |
| 15:07 |
|
kados |
(if so i can just add a new column to the biblioitems table for it) |
| 15:09 |
|
owen |
There's no reason why it couldn't show up with the title |
| 15:10 |
|
kados |
ok, I've got an idea ... give me a sec |
| 15:15 |
|
thd |
I am back |
| 15:15 |
|
thd |
kados: are you there? |
| 15:17 |
|
kados |
thd: yep |
| 15:17 |
|
thd |
kados: were you asking about a fast method of adding '--' subfield subdivisions? |
| 15:17 |
|
kados |
well ... I was ... |
| 15:17 |
|
kados |
I looked at the getMARCsubjects code |
| 15:18 |
|
kados |
and I think I can use that as a point of reference |
| 15:18 |
|
thd |
kados: that code relied upon MARC in SQL but the same idea should work. |
| 15:19 |
|
kados |
yep |
| 15:20 |
|
thd |
kados: to join subfields in a particular order would be making the same design mistake which the original MARC Koha design had in proscribing the order instead of reading it from the record. |
| 15:21 |
|
thd |
kados: getMARCsubjects corrected that design mistake for subjects. |
| 15:23 |
|
thd |
kados: 245 $h is the general material designation and had been misapplied for abstract in the original MARC 21 framework. |
| 15:26 |
|
thd |
kados: if you read the MARC data from the marc_subfields instead of from the original Koha SQL bibliographic subfields you should not have any actual abstracts in your 245 $h. |
| 15:30 |
|
thd |
kados: If it was not clear from earlier, the search links should match the whole subject as previously. When there is some time, we could add support for mix and matching the individual subject subdivisions independently in an intelligent manner and not progressively in a crude manner. |
| 15:31 |
|
thd |
kados: I have a question. |
| 15:32 |
|
thd |
kados: I have noticed during the past few days that some important Z39.50 targets have 000/09 which actually lies about the record encoding. |
| 15:34 |
|
thd |
kados: I have even noticed national libraries lying about the actual encoding, although, I have not noticed that for LC. |
| 15:34 |
|
thd |
kados: we need an encoding lie detector. |
| 15:35 |
|
thd |
kados: do you have some code that can be partly used for detecting encoding lies? |
| 16:01 |
|
thd |
kados: where did you go? |
| 16:01 |
|
kados |
thd: sorry ... super busy today |
| 16:02 |
|
thd |
kados: I thought that you were busy fixing all the problems in Koha :) |
| 16:02 |
|
thd |
kados: does that mean you have no time for my question? |
| 16:11 |
|
kados |
I didn't notice it :-) |
| 16:11 |
|
kados |
I don't have any code for that |
| 16:11 |
|
kados |
but I have noticed the problem |
| 16:11 |
|
thd |
kados: do you not have code for detecting encoding problems in records? |
| 16:12 |
|
kados |
yes |
| 16:12 |
|
kados |
but it's suspect code because it relies on the MARC::* stuff |
| 16:12 |
|
thd |
kados: show me please, maybe I can adapt it in some way |
| 16:12 |
|
kados |
which we're still not 100% sure works |
| 16:13 |
|
thd |
kados: well If it does not work I will prod Ed summers to fix it. |
| 16:14 |
|
thd |
kados: the MARC::* stuff has to be made to work if we are using it and Ed seems eager if there are good tests. |
| 16:26 |
|
kados |
I agree |
| 16:56 |
|
chris |
kados: u about? |
| 16:57 |
|
kados |
chris: yep |
| 16:57 |
|
chris |
just want to run something past you for sanity checking before i post to the list |
| 16:57 |
|
kados |
sure |
| 16:57 |
|
chris |
one of the public libraries here in nz using koha are quite keen to do more copy cataloguing |
| 16:58 |
|
kados |
cool |
| 16:59 |
|
chris |
the way they would like the system to work is, they order items in full acquisitions, then when it arrives they get the marc record for it, and load it into the reserviour .. then they would like a way the marc bit to choose to replace a record with one from the reserviour |
| 16:59 |
|
kados |
yep, pretty common technique |
| 17:00 |
|
chris |
so before i go to write something to do it, i wanted to check we cant already do it in koha? |
| 17:00 |
|
kados |
SMFPL need the same thing |
| 17:00 |
|
kados |
http://wiki.liblime.com/doku.php?id=koha226bugs |
| 17:00 |
|
kados |
look under critical enhancement requests |
| 17:00 |
|
chris |
sweet |
| 17:00 |
|
kados |
we can't do it currently |
| 17:01 |
|
kados |
but ... |
| 17:01 |
|
chris |
well i have to do an estimate |
| 17:01 |
|
kados |
with zebra it is really simple |
| 17:01 |
|
kados |
you just do a specialUpdate |
| 17:01 |
|
kados |
with the bib number |
| 17:01 |
|
chris |
right |
| 17:01 |
|
chris |
what i will try to do |
| 17:01 |
|
kados |
in the old koha it might be more tricky |
| 17:01 |
|
chris |
is build the interface first |
| 17:01 |
|
kados |
yep |
| 17:01 |
|
kados |
well I'd do it with the MARC editor |
| 17:02 |
|
chris |
which can be used in head/dev_week/and 2.2 |
| 17:02 |
|
chris |
yep |
| 17:02 |
|
kados |
what you want is to overlay stuff |
| 17:02 |
|
kados |
and prompt the user to approve changes |
| 17:02 |
|
chris |
yeah |
| 17:02 |
|
kados |
I think |
| 17:02 |
|
chris |
i was thinking side by side |
| 17:02 |
|
kados |
yep |
| 17:02 |
|
kados |
that's how a lot of marc editors work |
| 17:02 |
|
kados |
but while you're at it ... |
| 17:03 |
|
kados |
might be a good time to look at the whole MARC editor |
| 17:03 |
|
kados |
cuz you're talking pretty major interface change |
| 17:03 |
|
chris |
i was actually thinking a step before the editor |
| 17:03 |
|
kados |
that's the kind of thing you'd want to do in xul or something |
| 17:03 |
|
kados |
also ... |
| 17:03 |
|
chris |
because i want it to be able to work with opencataloguer too |
| 17:04 |
|
kados |
Evergreen's already done it |
| 17:04 |
|
kados |
so I bet you could nab their editor |
| 17:04 |
|
kados |
wrap it around a Koha API |
| 17:04 |
|
kados |
yea ... ++ on the opencataloger stuff |
| 17:04 |
|
kados |
this community has always had good ideas |
| 17:04 |
|
kados |
we just don't have the resources to make them happen :-) |
| 17:04 |
|
chris |
ie i was planning to do something not tied to the existing marc editor |
| 17:04 |
|
chris |
yep |
| 17:05 |
|
kados |
cool |
| 17:05 |
|
kados |
one thing that's gonna be important |
| 17:05 |
|
chris |
should get better now i hope |
| 17:05 |
|
kados |
is using the frameworks |
| 17:05 |
|
chris |
yep |
| 17:05 |
|
kados |
in fact, what I"ve seen of opencataloger thusfar is pretty impressive |
| 17:05 |
|
chris |
i think im gonna do a 2 setp |
| 17:05 |
|
chris |
or 2 level process |
| 17:05 |
|
kados |
best bet might just be talking to paul/toins about that |
| 17:06 |
|
chris |
yeah was gonna mail the list, was just checking it didnt exisit already |
| 17:06 |
|
kados |
right |
| 17:06 |
|
kados |
we need a good spec to work from |
| 17:06 |
|
chris |
my 2 levels would be |
| 17:06 |
|
chris |
1/ simply replacing a holding record |
| 17:07 |
|
chris |
where you just choose the new marc, choose the little placeholder and overwrite it totally, then add your barcode |
| 17:07 |
|
chris |
2/ fixing up full records with other newer/better full records |
| 17:07 |
|
chris |
thats where the side by side thing comes in |
| 17:08 |
|
kados |
right |
| 17:08 |
|
kados |
that makes sense |
| 17:09 |
|
chris |
cool, ill think some more and do a post to the list, and maybe a page on the wiki |
| 17:10 |
|
chris |
just didnt want to spend the day thinking about things,and then find out someone has done it already :) |
| 17:10 |
|
chris |
i will look at evergreen, and i will pester toins and paul |
| 17:10 |
|
kados |
still haven't head back from gary |
| 17:11 |
|
chris |
bummer |
| 17:11 |
|
chris |
i got the list of reserves showing in the opac |
| 17:11 |
|
kados |
sweet |
| 17:11 |
|
chris |
so its really just the issuing/returning and the postage labels to go |
| 17:12 |
|
chris |
plus a little change to placing reserves if gary says thats nessecary |
| 17:12 |
|
kados |
sweet |
| 17:12 |
|
kados |
right |
| 17:12 |
|
chris |
so less than a days work |
| 17:13 |
|
thd |
chris: what is "the little placeholder"? |
| 17:13 |
|
chris |
just a little record you make when you placing an order in full acquitisions |
| 17:13 |
|
chris |
usually just title, author, itemtype, isbn |
| 17:14 |
|
chris |
then when your order arrives |
| 17:15 |
|
chris |
you want to either catalogue the rest, or hopefully use an existing record |
| 17:16 |
|
chris |
its a process libraries like to use ... i think mostly cos what you order isnt always what you get, so they dont like to spend a bunch of time cataloguing it before they have it in their actual hand |
| 17:17 |
|
chris |
at least in nz thats the case |
| 17:27 |
|
kados |
http://zoomopac.liblime.com/cg[…]ail.pl?bib=136919 |
| 17:27 |
|
kados |
in related links |
| 17:27 |
|
kados |
first link works ... second one doesn't :( |
| 17:36 |
|
chris |
right |
| 02:35 |
|
osmoze |
hello |
| 07:57 |
|
kados |
thd: you awake? |
| 07:57 |
|
kados |
thd: http://zoomopac.liblime.com |
| 07:57 |
|
kados |
thd: I believe I've done as you asked with the faceted searches ... |
| 07:57 |
|
kados |
thd: need you to verify it's working as expected |
| 07:58 |
|
kados |
faceted results I mean of course :-) |
| 09:42 |
|
thd |
kados: that is very nice but not what I meant recently. |
| 09:43 |
|
thd |
kados: that is close to what I had suggested as the least that might be done for subject displays. |
| 09:45 |
|
thd |
kados: A basic issue with what you have done is that I do not see how the user has a browse path to any fully completed subject assignment with all subdivisions. |
| 09:46 |
|
thd |
kados: a fully specified subject with all subdivisions should not disappear from a result set list. |
| 09:47 |
|
thd |
kados: are you there? |
| 09:48 |
|
kados |
thd: helly |
| 09:48 |
|
kados |
hello even :-) |
| 09:48 |
|
thd |
kados: do you see above? |
| 09:48 |
|
kados |
thd: the browse path _is_ to a fully completed subject assignment with all subdivisions |
| 09:48 |
|
kados |
it may be that NPl doesn't have any of those though :-) |
| 09:49 |
|
kados |
for instance |
| 09:49 |
|
kados |
do a search on 'neal stephenson' |
| 09:49 |
|
thd |
kados: I mean you have made the full form which was actually found disappear |
| 09:49 |
|
kados |
and expand the first faceted subject result |
| 09:49 |
|
kados |
please expand a bit |
| 09:51 |
|
thd |
yes |
| 09:52 |
|
thd |
the result number has disappeared past the table width |
| 09:52 |
|
kados |
ahh ... yes, of course, that is a display issue |
| 09:53 |
|
kados |
but just a minor detail |
| 09:53 |
|
kados |
what I'm asking is whether the actual results are allowing you to browse the subjects as you wanted |
| 09:53 |
|
thd |
kados: but I see it would have had a '0' for the catalogue as a whole. |
| 09:54 |
|
kados |
? |
| 09:54 |
|
kados |
ahh yes |
| 09:54 |
|
kados |
that is another one of those search anomolies |
| 09:54 |
|
kados |
I'm working with ID to resolve it |
| 09:54 |
|
kados |
(sorry :-)) |
| 09:55 |
|
kados |
(bad example ) :-) |
| 09:55 |
|
thd |
kados: I had thought that was the point you were trying to make until I reminded myself that you did not have the data to make that point :) |
| 09:56 |
|
kados |
hehe |
| 09:58 |
|
thd |
kados: I see in this case there are now subdivided subjects really for the result set or I have not found them yet |
| 09:59 |
|
thd |
kados: I found one 650 $a Kings and rulers $v Fiction |
| 10:00 |
|
thd |
oops |
| 10:00 |
|
kados |
it still needs some work of course :-) |
| 10:00 |
|
thd |
kados: I found one 650 $a Kings and rulers $x Succession $v Fiction |
| 10:00 |
|
kados |
you did? |
| 10:00 |
|
kados |
where? |
| 10:00 |
|
kados |
(that should show up ... if it's not I have a coding bug somewhere) |
| 10:01 |
|
thd |
kados: yes, the system of the world has a few |
| 10:01 |
|
kados |
k, I'll look |
| 10:02 |
|
kados |
system of the world doesn't |
| 10:02 |
|
kados |
ahh |
| 10:02 |
|
kados |
I see |
| 10:02 |
|
kados |
hmmm ... no idea why we're losing that $x |
| 10:03 |
|
thd |
kados: however, su = kings and rulers succession fiction fails |
| 10:04 |
|
kados |
yes, that is a zebra problem |
| 10:04 |
|
kados |
I've been working with ID to fix it |
| 10:04 |
|
kados |
thd: if you expand 'Kings and rulers' it shows 'Kings and rules Succession Fiction' |
| 10:05 |
|
kados |
thd: Isn't that correct? or do you want it to expand even further to allow: |
| 10:05 |
|
kados |
kings and rulers |
| 10:05 |
|
kados |
-> Succession |
| 10:05 |
|
kados |
-> Fiction |
| 10:05 |
|
kados |
? |
| 10:06 |
|
thd |
kados: one point is that it should have both |
| 10:06 |
|
kados |
this works btw: |
| 10:06 |
|
kados |
su="kings and rulers" and su="Succession" and su="fiction" |
| 10:06 |
|
kados |
so with some clever trickery we can trick zebra into giving us what we want with those links |
| 10:07 |
|
thd |
kados: have you had any response about why the other is not working? |
| 10:07 |
|
kados |
not yet |
| 10:07 |
|
thd |
kados: so let me explain what I think would be good here |
| 10:08 |
|
thd |
kados: use the example of Kings and Rulers--Succession--Fiction [1] |
| 10:09 |
|
thd |
kados: you should have one link or linking mechanism that specifies that fully |
| 10:10 |
|
thd |
kados: another set of links should be ... |
| 10:11 |
|
thd |
Kings and rulers [all with at least this] |
| 10:12 |
|
thd |
-> Succession [all with this and above] |
| 10:12 |
|
thd |
-> [choose another subdivision] |
| 10:13 |
|
thd |
-> Fiction [all with this and above] |
| 10:14 |
|
thd |
-> [choose another form subdivision] |
| 10:16 |
|
thd |
kados: to which you could add options for choosing other free floating subdivisions, geographic, and chronological, etc. |
| 10:16 |
|
kados |
hehe |
| 10:16 |
|
kados |
you're nuts :-) |
| 10:16 |
|
kados |
I'm not sure I can add the '[choose another subdivision]' bits |
| 10:16 |
|
kados |
but I can probably do the rest |
| 10:17 |
|
kados |
thd: one thing I don't understand is |
| 10:17 |
|
kados |
thd: how are the subject fields supposed to be ordered? |
| 10:17 |
|
kados |
thd: or should they always follow the order in which they appear? |
| 10:17 |
|
thd |
kados: why could you not do the choose another parts you only need a table of which subdivisions go together |
| 10:17 |
|
kados |
thd: (restricting ourselves to the 650 for now) |
| 10:18 |
|
kados |
I don't have that table |
| 10:18 |
|
thd |
kados: there is a usual preferred order which may have changed over time |
| 10:19 |
|
thd |
kados: you may not have that table but you could create one from bibliographic records alone without authorities |
| 10:19 |
|
kados |
even if it works in 99% of the cases it would greatly simplify my task |
| 10:19 |
|
kados |
first I'd like to get this working without authorities |
| 10:21 |
|
thd |
kados: you could create the previous table without authorities and you would primarily miss the ability to search without knowing what the correct authorised form is. |
| 10:23 |
|
thd |
kados: so the usual order at present for 650 seems to be $a, $b, $c, $d, $e, $x $z, $y, $v |
| 10:24 |
|
kados |
thanks |
| 10:25 |
|
kados |
should they nest that way too? |
| 10:25 |
|
kados |
$a |
| 10:25 |
|
kados |
|-$b |
| 10:25 |
|
kados |
|-$c |
| 10:25 |
|
kados |
|-$d |
| 10:25 |
|
kados |
etc? |
| 10:25 |
|
thd |
kados: if you look at my ISBD system preference, the usual order is specified for many fields when that was not overridden by an ISBD specified order |
| 10:26 |
|
thd |
kados: no nesting is a little of a misnomer |
| 10:26 |
|
kados |
hmmm ... well the faceted results nest :( |
| 10:27 |
|
thd |
kados: the nesting is not continuous |
| 10:28 |
|
kados |
so there are only two levels? |
| 10:28 |
|
kados |
subject |
| 10:28 |
|
kados |
subdivision |
| 10:28 |
|
kados |
? |
| 10:28 |
|
thd |
kados: and I have found a mistake in my ordering for one of those rare ones |
| 10:28 |
|
kados |
how do I represent the subjects properly in a tree? |
| 10:28 |
|
kados |
Kings and rulers |
| 10:29 |
|
kados |
|-Succession |
| 10:29 |
|
kados |
|-Fiction |
| 10:29 |
|
kados |
? |
| 10:29 |
|
kados |
(wehre the 'Succession entry links to both 'Kings and rulers' and 'Succession') |
| 10:29 |
|
kados |
(and the 'Fiction' entry links to all three) |
| 10:30 |
|
kados |
? |
| 10:30 |
|
thd |
kados: I spent about ten hours one day on the subject subdivisions and never checked anything except for some annoying problems about the backwards design and the fact that it was a big improvement over the previous suggestion for a value which had ignored the ISBD rules |
| 10:31 |
|
thd |
s/subject subdivisions/my ISBD preference/ |
| 10:32 |
|
thd |
kados: the hierarchical order with the correction should be something like ,,, |
| 10:32 |
|
thd |
650 $a |
| 10:35 |
|
thd |
->$b # I may have been wrong about my mistake and had it right the first time |
| 10:35 |
|
thd |
[that should be only one level of indentation above] |
| 10:36 |
|
thd |
$c |
| 10:36 |
|
thd |
->$d |
| 10:38 |
|
thd |
kados: let me start again I would have typed this already using vim |
| 10:38 |
|
kados |
ok :-) |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
kados: ok now we have with the possible uncertainty of the place for $b-$e which are too uncommon for me to know well. |
| 10:41 |
|
kados |
let's stick with the common ones |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
650 $a |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$b |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$c |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$d |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$e |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$x |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$z |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$y |
| 10:41 |
|
thd |
$v |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
hmmm ... |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
I don't understand how $x can be parallel with $a |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
should not $a be the root of the tree |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
$a |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
$b |
| 10:42 |
|
thd |
yes it is |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
$c |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
$d |
| 10:42 |
|
kados |
$e |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
$x |
| 10:43 |
|
thd |
$a is not indented |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
$z |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
$y |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
oops |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
ok, I think I get it |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
so our example would be: |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
Kings and rulers |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
->Succession |
| 10:43 |
|
kados |
->Fuction |
| 10:44 |
|
kados |
Ficting even :-) |
| 10:44 |
|
thd |
kados: you have it I started with the 650 and it loaded as if everything were on the same level |
| 10:44 |
|
kados |
ok |
| 10:44 |
|
kados |
so there are three levels only |
| 10:44 |
|
kados |
root, branch1, branch2 |
| 10:44 |
|
thd |
kados: yes only three levels |
| 10:44 |
|
kados |
and branch2 should or should not be automatically expanded? |
| 10:44 |
|
kados |
and should it be a branch directly from $a or from one of the others? |
| 10:45 |
|
kados |
ie, how are $z, $y, $v related to $a? |
| 10:46 |
|
thd |
kados: you could have as the root node a fully subdivided subject which when the link is clicked will search the whole thing |
| 10:46 |
|
kados |
(are they branches off of $x? |
| 10:46 |
|
kados |
I could do it several ways ... |
| 10:46 |
|
kados |
I could attempt to represent the hierarchy as it exists |
| 10:47 |
|
thd |
kados: expanding the fully subdivided subject should bring up the hierarchy starting with $a |
| 10:47 |
|
kados |
and have each successive link automatically include the previous link when clicking |
| 10:47 |
|
kados |
but I still need to know where $z,$y,$v branch from ... is it $a or $x? |
| 10:49 |
|
thd |
kados: $z $y and $v branch from $a if $x is absent otherwise they branch from $x |
| 10:49 |
|
kados |
ok, great! |
| 10:49 |
|
kados |
now I'll get coding :-) |
| 10:51 |
|
thd |
kados: I am uncertain whether $b-$e branch from $a or elsewhere depending on how they are encoded but would say that the branch from whichever more important subfield preceeds them |
| 10:52 |
|
kados |
for now I will only deal with a, x, and zyv |
| 10:52 |
|
kados |
we can add the others anytime once we prove it's working properly |
| 10:52 |
|
kados |
with those |
| 10:53 |
|
thd |
kados: don't go yet: automatically including the previous elements is the week way that many implementations incorrectly imagine the hierarchy |
| 10:53 |
|
kados |
? |
| 10:53 |
|
kados |
please explain what you mean |
| 10:54 |
|
thd |
kados: much better would be to have a checkbox next to each element which is checked by default |
| 10:56 |
|
thd |
kados: the user can remove a particular subdivision by unchecking the adjacent checkbox |
| 10:58 |
|
thd |
kados: sometimes removing the term would be good and sometimes removing the whole subdivision containing two repeated $z for example would be good |
| 10:59 |
|
thd |
kados: do you understand why automatically including everything above one point is weak? |
| 11:01 |
|
kados |
thd: thd I'm still here |
| 11:01 |
|
thd |
kados: do you understand why automatically including everything above one point is weak? |
| 11:01 |
|
kados |
i do understand |
| 11:02 |
|
kados |
and that part is purely interface |
| 11:02 |
|
kados |
the tricky part for me is how to code the hierarchy so it comes out correctly |
| 11:02 |
|
thd |
kados: most systems naively assume that everything is one hierarchy at successively lower levels |
| 11:04 |
|
thd |
kados: and those are the ones which actually do something interesting as opposed to the ones that give you the whole search or the individual subdivisons without connecting them to the rest as you had done recently |
| 11:06 |
|
thd |
kados: what is difficult about a three level hierarchy even if the levels do change in the absence of $x. |
| 11:06 |
|
kados |
thd: you code it :-) |
| 11:06 |
|
kados |
thd: I'm not a programmer :-) |
| 11:06 |
|
thd |
kados: you need some loops and a test for $x |
| 11:07 |
|
kados |
yes, i know how now that I know how it's supposed to be |
| 11:07 |
|
kados |
should be done in about an hour |
| 11:07 |
|
thd |
kados: what are you, if you are not an x? |
| 11:09 |
|
thd |
kados: do not say that you are a non-x even if that would be implied logically we know that two valued logic will not work well for answering what you are. |
| 11:12 |
|
kados |
thd: ok ... $x is correctly nested now I think |
| 11:12 |
|
kados |
and searches should work too |
| 11:15 |
|
thd |
kados: the searches search for the subdivision without including other parts of the hierarchy |
| 11:15 |
|
kados |
not the ones I've tried |
| 11:15 |
|
kados |
use Kings and rulers as an example |
| 11:15 |
|
kados |
Succession is the subdivision |
| 11:15 |
|
kados |
and it searches both |
| 11:15 |
|
kados |
when you click on subdivision |
| 11:16 |
|
thd |
kados: I chose one that is impossible Kings and rulers--Operating systems |
| 11:16 |
|
kados |
? |
| 11:16 |
|
kados |
I don't think Operating systems is a branch of Kings and rulers |
| 11:17 |
|
thd |
kados: where did Operating systems come from as a subdivision of Kings and rulers? |
| 11:17 |
|
kados |
Operating systems is a $a |
| 11:17 |
|
kados |
it's not |
| 11:17 |
|
kados |
how did you get that impression? |
| 11:17 |
|
kados |
only the items inside the folder are subdivisions of a given subject |
| 11:18 |
|
kados |
I agree the root subjects should probably all have the same icon |
| 11:18 |
|
kados |
do you understand now? |
| 11:19 |
|
thd |
kados: most 650 $a can also be $x although they need a logical combination relating to the material catalogued |
| 11:20 |
|
kados |
ok, now I'll do $v |
| 11:20 |
|
kados |
as our next test |
| 11:22 |
|
thd |
kados: where do the subjects outside the folder originate? |
| 11:23 |
|
kados |
they are $a |
| 11:23 |
|
kados |
parallel to the folder |
| 11:23 |
|
kados |
(root elements with no subdivisions) |
| 11:23 |
|
thd |
kados: in the same result set? |
| 11:23 |
|
kados |
yes |
| 11:24 |
|
kados |
all of the faceted results are pulled from the first page or results only (for now) |
| 11:24 |
|
kados |
s/or/of/ |
| 11:25 |
|
thd |
kados: so I was confused because they did not have a top level icon which I imagined would always be a folder |
| 11:26 |
|
kados |
yes, I see that now |
| 11:26 |
|
kados |
the icons must be changed to reflect more libraryish things anyway :-) |
| 11:28 |
|
thd |
kados: my own experiments did not have Icons so I did not have any icons to confuse me :) |
| 11:30 |
|
kados |
:-) |
| 11:57 |
|
kados |
thd: I've removed the icons for now |
| 11:57 |
|
kados |
thd: hopefull it's less confusing |
| 11:58 |
|
kados |
(though the font will need to be changed I think ...) |
| 11:58 |
|
thd |
kados: that looks like my secret experiment except for no checkboxes |
| 11:58 |
|
kados |
hehe |
| 11:58 |
|
kados |
(almost) |
| 11:58 |
|
kados |
still need to add the other sub subdivisions |
| 11:59 |
|
kados |
well ... starting with $v |
