LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  May 2011

CODE4LIB May 2011

Subject:

Re: is this valid marc ?

From:

James Lecard <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 19 May 2011 19:16:24 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (95 lines)

I'll dig in this one, thanks for this input Jonathan... I'm not so so
familiar with the library yet, I'll do some more debugging but in fact what
is happening is that I have no value with an access such as
record['856']['u'] field, while I get one for record['856']['q']
And the marc you are seeing is copy/pasted from a marc editor gui, its not
the actual marc record, I edited it so that its data is not recognisable
(for confidentiality).

James


2011/5/19 Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

> 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 [1]:
>>
>> "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 [2]. 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 $u
>> is provided, the first subfield should indicate access method (in this case
>> "4" for HTTP). Maybe that's what's causing the problem? [3]
>>
>> Anyway, I think having these two parts of the same URL data on separate
>> lines is definitely Not Right, but I am not sure if it adds up to invalid
>> MARC.
>>
>> -dre.
>>
>> [1] http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd856.html
>> [2] I am not a cataloger. Don't hurt me.
>> [3] I am not an expert on MARC ingest or on ruby-marc. I could be wrong.
>>
>> On 5/19/2011 12:37 PM, James Lecard wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using ruby-marc ruby parser (v.0.4.2) to parse some marc files I get
>>> from a partner.
>>>
>>> The 856 field is splitted over 2 lines, causing the ruby library to
>>> ignore
>>> it (I've patched it to overcome this issue) but I want to know if this
>>> kind
>>> of marc is valid ?
>>>
>>> =LDR  00638nam  2200181uu 4500
>>> =001  cla-MldNA01
>>> =008  080101s2008\\\\\\\|||||||||||||||||fre||
>>> =040  \\$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$qtext/html
>>> =856  \\$uhttp://www.this-link-will-not-be-retrieved-by-ruby-marc-library
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James L.
>>>
>>
>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager