Re: New 856 subfields (John Law -- ProQuest) ERCELAA@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu 01 Dec 2000 22:25 UTC
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:31:24 -0500 From: "Law, John" <john.law@BELLHOWELL.INFOLEARNING.COM> Subject: Re: New 856 subfields (John Law -- ProQuest) Hello: As the product manager for ProQuest MARC Records, I would like to respond to the concerns expressed about inclusion of the 856 subfield y and inform the list of the action taken. Thanks to Helen Cahill for raising this issue and to J. Shore for the excellent piece of research. I was not familiar with the "implemented no earlier than 90 days" requirement. In addition, a customer recently reported difficulty load records into their OPAC with the new subfield y included. For these reasons, the 856 subfield y has been removed from ProQuest MARC Records until it is more widely accepted. A new set of sample records will be posted to our website on Monday December 4th. You can download these records and find more information about ProQuest MARC Records at http://proquest.com/hp/Features/Marc/. Again, thanks for raising this issue. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns. Regards, John _____________________________________________ John M. Law Director, ProQuest Delivery Systems Product Management 734-761-4700 ext 3729 Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48106 www.bellhowell.infolearning.com _____________________________________ > > Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:11:59 -0500 > From: "J. Shore" <shorej@THPL.ORG> > Subject: Re: New 856 subfields (Helen Cahill) > > Helen Cahill wrote: > > > ...While assessing the test records, I queried their use of the > > subfield $y in MARC tag 856 and was told that it's a new code which > > has been recently adopted. > > > > After checking our paper copy of MARC 21, and also the web version, > > I couldn't find that subfield listed. I eventually found my way to > > the MARBI discussion paper at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2000/2000-07.html > > which appears to have been approved by the MARC Advisory Committee > > meeting in July. > > > > If the subfield has been approved, does that mean that it's fine > > > to use it now on our own systems, or do we need to wait for them to > > appear as a revision in MARC 21? > > Helen, > > After lots of searching, I finally found the web page which lists > links to the "official documentation" of MARC: > http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/status.html > > From that page I followed the link for "changes since last update" > under Bibliographic Data: > http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/changes.bibliographic.html > > That page reads (in part): "The following changes have been > approved for implementation by the MARC Advisory Committee and the > Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information committee (MARBI). They > will be implemented no earlier than 90 days after the official > release of the next update for the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic > Data (scheduled for the Fourth Quarter 2000)" > --- snip --- > Field 856 (Electronic Location and Access): > Make $g obsolete and rename $u to Uniform Resource Identifier > (Proposal No.2000-02) > Define subfield $y (Link Text). (Proposal No. 2000-07) > > Now I'm not a lawyer, but I read that to mean that you (and ProQuest) > shouldn't be using that code until March or April 2001 (90 days past > the official update). > > HTH, > J. > -- > J. Shore > Serials Librarian / Cataloger > Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library > shorej@thpl.org > >