muscat
muscat copied to clipboard
rism-digital
Secondary literature: If 210 deleted, link remains in Sources but disappears from view
If I delete a 210$a in Secondary literature, then the linking remains in Sources.
Example: LutzenbergerP n.d. was deleted from https://muscat-test.rism.info/admin/publications/30025602
but we can see that the 14 linked sources remain:
This is fine, but when you are in Sources, the LutzenbergerP n.d. is no longer visible in the edit mode:
I think it is still there, though: even if I delete p.3 and save, there is still a ghost of a reference that is unlinked:
https://muscat-test.rism.info/admin/sources/650012018
and the record remains in the "Sources referring to this Secondary literature" list. The only way to remove the link is by completely deleting the 691 field in Sources.
The view in Sources is a bit misleading and confusing, and could lead to oversights on the part of forgetful catalogers. Is there a way to validate in Sources so that an "empty" 691 cannot be saved? Of course we have a validation in 691 already if someone forgets to enter the link to Secondary Lit, but we do not have a validation for the odd cases where maybe the link is gone from view.
And now I wonder if there are any records in Muscat with the ghost references.
The same phenomenon is happening when works without short titles are cited (likely in error). Example: https://muscat-test.rism.info/admin/sources/1001136554
If I start entering the name of the book, I find it:
But when I save, it is not visible. Only in the XML.
We'll work on correcting the misunderstandings, but the display does look confusing to users.
I will have a look on the first half of the ticket, but for the 691 the problem is that in $a we put the Publication short_name and that publication does not have it.
Thanks. Maybe the second problem is more of a validation issue. I will take that up elsewhere.
The autocomplete in 690 and 691 shouldn't include records that lack a 210 in Secondary Literature.