Is it really true that newline characters are not allowed in a marc
value? I thought they were, not with any special meaning, just as
ordinary data. If they're not, that's useful to know, so I don't put
I'd ask for a reference to the standard that says this, but I suspect
it's going to be some impenetrable implication of a side effect of an
subtle adjective either way.
On 5/19/2011 2:19 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]>:
>> 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.
> Exactly. The CR and LF characters are NOT defined as valid in the MARC
> character set and should not be used. In fact, in MARC there is no
> concept of "lines", only variable length strings (usually up to 9999
>>  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
>>> 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.