Why not split the second $u out into its own 856 at the same time
that the new $y is being added? If it's not known which $u should
get the new link text, then the record and links need a
reexamination anyway.
Dan Robinson
Indexing Services
H.W. Wilson Company
Bronx, NY
[log in to unmask]
On 17 Jul 00, at 14:29, Greene,Richard wrote:
> I hope this is something that will be addressed in the guidelines that MARBI
> asked LC to draft.
>
> Rich Greene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 4:52 PM
>
>
> Either I am missing something, or we could have a potential mishap. In
> older USMARC records the subfield u was repeatable. If someone wanted to
> go back and add a subfield y (display this instead of subfield u) to the
> second subfield u, how would we distinguish which u and y go together?
>
> Annamarie Erickson
> Notis Customer Support
> epixtech, inc.
|