On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:39 PM Liz Rea <l...@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
> The term bibliographic number is easily confused with "inventory number" > and any local or old internal record numbers that migrated MARC may have. > Agreed, bibliographic number is confusing. > > I think the most accurate long form representation is "Koha internal > record number", as the biblionumber has nothing at all to do with MARC, and > wouldn't necessarily be carried over to another system if the record was > moved (not that anybody would *leave* Koha, amirite). > > With that in mind, I don't see why we would need to drop biblionumber at > all - it references exactly what it is, is specific to Koha, and can be > understood and trained in that context, fully independent of MARC. > I think the use of biblionumber is fine in context -- that's generally used specifically when database tables are being mentioned. The term 'Biblio number' (containing a space) is what I'm more concerned about. I don't know that the marc editor was the only place that I saw that used.
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
