 |
 |
Sorry - addressing the actual question, rather than the one in my head, the 856 field "is also repeated when more than one access method is used” - so my reading is you should be doing both: 856 40 $uhttp://example.com 856 70 $uhttps://example.com$2https Owen Owen Stephens Owen Stephens Consulting Web: http://www.ostephens.com Email: [log in to unmask] Telephone: 0121 288 6936 > On 18 Aug 2015, at 00:00, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > In theory the 1st indicator dictates the protocol used and 4 =HTTP. However, in all examples on http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd856.html, despite the indicator being used, the protocol part of the URI it is then repeated in the $u field. > > You can put ‘7’ in the 1st indicator, then use subfield $2 to define other methods. > > Since only ‘http’ is one of the preset protocols, not https, I guess in theory this means you should use something like > > 856 70 $uhttps://example.com$2https > > I’d be pretty surprised if in practice people don’t just do: > > 856 40 $uhttps://example.com > > Owen > > > Owen Stephens > Owen Stephens Consulting > Web: http://www.ostephens.com > Email: [log in to unmask] > Telephone: 0121 288 6936 > >> On 17 Aug 2015, at 21:41, Stuart A. Yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I'm in the middle of some work which includes touching the 856s in lots of >> MARC records pointing to websites we control. The websites are available on >> both https://example.org/ and http://example.org/ >> >> Can I put //example.org/ in the MARC or is this contrary to the standard? >> >> Note that there is a separate question about whether various software >> systems support this, but that's entirely secondary to the question of the >> standard. >> >> cheers >> stuart >> -- >> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky >