Personally, I'd probably convert any "Biblio number" into "Biblionumber," and if that needs explaining, it's the "Koha internal record number" or "Koha unique record identifier"
On 23/10/18 09:02, Barton Chittenden wrote: > 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. > -- -- Liz Rea Catalyst.Net Limited Level 6, Catalyst House, 150 Willis Street, Wellington. P.O Box 11053, Manners Street, Wellington 6142 04 803 2265 GPG: B149 A443 6B01 7386 C2C7 F481 B6c2 A49D 3726 38B7 _______________________________________________ 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/
