856 is most definitely a holdings field which can also be used as a
bibliographic field. The tag was chosen in the 85X range because it was
considered something that is "holdings" in nature; the equivalent of an
852 for an electronic item (thus, "Electronic location"). It can be used
at the bibliographic or holdings level.
For more explanation about its use in bibliographic vs. holdings see the
856 guidelines (there's a section that covers this):
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/856guide.html
Rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Mitch Turitz wrote:
> Beth:
> The 856 is not a part of the MARC format for holdings and
> locations. It IS a part of the Bibliographic record.
> Some systems, (Innovative Interfaces, for one) allow you to put a
> URL into an attached ITEM record. For serials, this can be very
> useful if you have paper issues checked in and you also have a link
> to the online version of the same issue. However, that's a lot of
> maintenance, adding a new URL every time you check in a new issue, as
> opposed to just having one URL for the entire run.
> Also, you may want to check with your vendor. If your web catalog
> supports HTML, you MAY (emphasize MAY) be able to put URL links
> wherever you want, via the HTML linking, but you will have to
> customize your bib. records in doing so.
> Additionally, regarding your dilemma - 856 is a repeatable field -
> so you can have as many "different" 856s in your record, both the
> "free" and the "institutional" links - why not include both and let
> the $z differentiate?
>
> -- Mitch Turitz
>
> At 10:12 AM -0400 9/6/01, Beth Guay wrote:
> >Hello!
> >A couple of years ago on this list there was discussion on use of
> >the 856 in holdings
> >vs. bibliographic records. As the University System of Maryland (a consortium
> >of 16 institutions) is in the process of implementing a **single
> >bibliographic
> >record catalog,** a topic of discussion is 856 in bib vs. holdings.
> >
> >To me, the phrase "hooks to holdings" conjures up the idea that from
> >**outside**
> >the catalog pointing in, 856 urls ought to be where their print counterparts
> >are--in the holdings records. If, however, every mechanism which invokes the
> >hooks to holdings functionality can ensure also the linking to bibliographic
> >856s, is there then no problem?
> >
> >Our dilemma is that among the members of the consortium, there is a desire to
> >offer immediate access from **within** the "global" catalog to all electronic
> >materials which are either free or part of the federal depository
> >collection of
> >one institution--a regional depository for all; and to at the same time
> >suppress institutional specific urls from display. The idea is that free and
> >federal depository urls might appear to be unavailable to all campuses if they
> >are part of the holdings records-a "con" against 856s in holdings.
> >(I suppose a
> >potential solution would be for a loader or other program to create some sort
> >of pseudo-holdings records for each of the non-"holding" institutions which
> >would serve to link to the depository institution's holdings record
> >(an offered
> >"Link to holdings through the University of Maryland, College Park catalog"
> >which would process a system # (same for all) search to link to the depository
> >institution's holdings records-if that's possible!!!!).
> >
> >A further "con" against 856s in holdings is that urls will have to be removed
> >from the bib records by loader programs or manually. Finally, if any resource
> >is "owned" by one institution in the consortium, the next campus acquiring the
> >resource from the same source (or vendor) would have to take a few additional
> >steps to clone the 856 (should cloning be a logical objective).
> >
> >Another option that is being considered is to store the url in the
> >bibliographic and holdings records: in the bibliographic records the urls of
> >free and common to all institutions will display in the "global" view and
> >those which are owned by only one or more but not all will be suppressed from
> >display. This would require some fancy loader programming and more
> >manual labor
> >not to mention the user education and maintenance issues.
> >
> >I suppose this issue has been addressed since the discussion
> >mentioned earlier,
> >I apologize if I'm repeating the discussion. Any advice which will help us to
> >deal with this issue is greatly appreciated. My thanks to you in advance.
> >Beth
> >
> >----------------------
> >Beth Guay
> >Serials Cataloger
> >Cataloging Dept., McKeldin Library
> >University of Maryland
> >College Park, Maryland 20742
> >
> >(301) 405-9329
> >fax (301) 314-9971
> >[log in to unmask]
>
>
> --
> _^_ _^_
> ( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
> | | | |
> | | Mitch Turitz | |
> | | Serials Librarian | |
> | | San Francisco State University Library | |
> | | President, SFSU California Faculty Association| |
> | | voice: (415) 338-7883 | |
> | | CFA: (415) 338-6232 | |
> | | | |
> ( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
> V V
>
|