Skip to content

Search/match for agents is too loose #51

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
tufts-digital-collections-archives opened this issue Apr 29, 2019 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #53
Closed

Search/match for agents is too loose #51

tufts-digital-collections-archives opened this issue Apr 29, 2019 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #53

Comments

@tufts-digital-collections-archives

I attempted to import an object with an agent that exists but it errored out as : [More than one match found in the database]. There was an exact match, and there was also a loose match further disambiguated by date. So say I tried to import with Smith, Bill, and our database has both Smith, Bill, and Smith, Bill, 1919-1962, with dates added to further distinguish him from the first guy (as used to be the cataloging standard). It seems to me it would be better to link to the exact match and ignore the inexact match rather than failing to link the agent.

In another instance, there was no exact match, and I would have expected a corporate agent to be created, but it wasn't, because of loose matchiness. For example, let's say I entered The Boston School as a corporate agent; there is no agent with that name, but the words "Boston" and "School" are in a lot of corporate names, so I again got a : [More than one match found in the database] error. Was this discussed during initial development? Was this a purposeful decision?

@bobbi-SMR bobbi-SMR mentioned this issue May 8, 2019
@bobbi-SMR
Copy link
Member

We're working on this; hopefully the fix will be available next week

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants