Now whether it _means_ what you want it to mean is another question,
yeah. As Andreas said, I don't think that particular example _ought_ to
have two 856's.
But it ought to be perfectly parseable marc.
If your 'patch' is to make ruby-marc combine those multiple 856's into
one -- that is not right, two seperate 856's are two seperate 856's,
same as any other marc field. Applying that patch would mess up
ruby-marc, not fix it.
You need to be more specific about what you're doing and what you mean
exactly by 'causing the ruby library to ignore it'. I wonder if you are
just using the a method in ruby-marc which only returns the first field
matching a given tag when there is more than one.
On 5/19/2011 12:51 PM, Andreas Orphanides wrote:
> From the MARC documentation :
> "Field 856 is repeated when the location data elements vary (the URL
> in subfield $u or subfields $a, $b, $d, when used). It is also
> repeated when more than one access method is used, different portions
> of the item are available electronically, mirror sites are recorded,
> different formats/resolutions with different URLs are indicated, and
> related items are recorded."
> So it looks like however the URL is handled, a single 856 field should
> be used to indicate the location . I am not familiar enough with
> MARC to say how it "should" have been done, but it looks like $q and
> $u would probably be sufficient (if they're in the same line).
> However, since the field is repeatable, the parser shouldn't be
> choking on it, unless it's choking on it for a sophisticated reason
> (e.g., "These aren't the subfield tags I expect to be seeing"). It
> also looks like if $u is provided, the first subfield should indicate
> access method (in this case "4" for HTTP). Maybe that's what's causing
> the problem? 
> Anyway, I think having these two parts of the same URL data on
> separate lines is definitely Not Right, but I am not sure if it adds
> up to invalid MARC.
>  http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd856.html
>  I am not a cataloger. Don't hurt me.
>  I am not an expert on MARC ingest or on ruby-marc. I could be wrong.
> On 5/19/2011 12:37 PM, James Lecard wrote:
>> I'm using ruby-marc ruby parser (v.0.4.2) to parse some marc files I get
>> from a partner.
>> The 856 field is splitted over 2 lines, causing the ruby library to
>> it (I've patched it to overcome this issue) but I want to know if
>> this kind
>> of marc is valid ?
>> =LDR 00638nam 2200181uu 4500
>> =001 cla-MldNA01
>> =008 080101s2008\\\\\\\|||||||||||||||||fre||
>> =040 \\$aMy Provider
>> =041 0\$afre
>> =245 10$aThis Subject
>> =260 \\$aParis$bJ. Doe$c2008
>> =490 \\$aSome topic
>> =650 1\$aNarratif, Autre forme
>> =655 \7$abook$2lcsh
>> =752 \\$aA Place on earth
>> =776 \\$dParis: John Doe and Cie, 1973
>> =856 \2$qtext/html
>> James L.