[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Question re: MARC exports - lots of brokenness?

[Joshua D. Shaw]

Hi Brad-

Didn't catch the reversal of the deprecation. The tool tip still indicates that its deprecated, so minor issue with that.

Ticking the publish on the sub note part did the trick. For our legacy data, we'll have to remember to go in and edit all of our notes/subnotes and tick all of publish checkboxes.  So.....Is there a way to override the publish option on a global or per record basis - i.e. ignore the publish on/off-ness and publish anyway?

Looks like I jumped the gun in filing the two reports (AR-1339 & AR-1440). I don't think I can cancel/close them myself.

Thanks,
Joshua

From: Brad Westbrook
Reply-To: Archivesspace Users Group
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:28 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Question re: MARC exports - lots of brokenness?

Hi, Joshua,

1.       Regarding number one, we reversed the deprecation in the 1.3.0 release (see AR-1147<https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/AR-1147>).  For the time being, folks can record vital dates in the name form sub-record and in the Dates of Existence sub-record.
2.
Regarding number two, are all of the sub-parts of the note(s) marked to “Publish”?

Brad



From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Shaw
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:22 AM
To: Archivesspace Users Group
Subject: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Question re: MARC exports - lots of brokenness?

Hi All-

Just wondering if others have noticed that there are a lot of broken bits in the MARC export with 1.3 (haven't tested 1.4 yet). Here's what I've noticed so far.

  1.  The dates of the agent existence are still being pulled from the now deprecated "Dates" field in the Name Form subrecord instead of the Dates of Existence subrecord.
  2.  Multipart notes are not pulling the content from the sub note, so you wind up with a lot of blank bits - e.g.:

     *       <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="500"/>

    <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="500">
      <subfield code="a">Processing Information: </subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="500">
      <subfield code="a">Processing Information: </subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield ind1=" " ind2=" " tag="506"/>
    <datafield ind1="2" ind2=" " tag="520"/>
Just wondering if this is a local to us issue and - if not - if I've missed a bug report or three in the tracker? If I haven't missed the bug report(s)...guess its time to file a couple!

Thanks!
Joshua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20151008/65d51c98/attachment.html>