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 <[email protected]>:
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.
