 |
 |
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. >