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.
