 |
 |
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 any there! 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 > char). > > kc > >> >> -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. >> > > >