We should rethink CONSER practice if it is causing problems. I think that
the basic reason for the difference was to follow OCLC's preferred
practice for indexing of the 856.

Les Hawkins
CONSER Coordinator

On Mon, 21 May 2012, Steven C Shadle wrote:

> Greta -- TBH, I have no idea why there are different practices or what the purpose was of leaving the non-working URL in 856|u. It was in place before we made the recent update to the CCM module. Anyone have any idea what the reasoning was behind the CONSER decision? --Steve
>
> Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian [log in to unmask]
> NASIG President
> University of Washington Libraries Phone: (206) 685-3983
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900 Fax: (206) 543-0854
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2012, Greta de Groat wrote:
>
> > I have a question about PCC practice for the URLs for internet resources that
> > are no longer available.
> >
> > LRI 9.7B says the following
> >
> > 2) If searching indicates that the resource is no longer available, create a
> > note to reflect this fact by changing subfield $u in field 856 to subfield $z
> > and modifying the subfield to show that the resource is no longer available,
> > indicating the last date that the resource was searched. ...
> >
> > and gives the example
> > revised record
> > 856 41 $z Electronic address (http://www.example.com) not available when
> > searched on [date]
> >
> > However CONSER cataloging module module 31 (dated March 2012) says:
> >
> > If the only link appearing on the CONSER record is an invalid link, it can be
> > left on the record and labeled as invalid in the subfield $z of the 856
> > field. Note that the second indicator is blank and that the non-working URL
> > is maintained in subfield $u of the 856. This coding differs from LC practice
> > documented in LCRI 9.7B where the non-working URL is moved to a subfield z so
> > that it does not appear on LC’s link checking reports repeatedly. The
> > example below is based on a recommendation from OCLC and is derived from
> > current system indexing needs and OCLC'€™s electronic address checking
> > software (see OCLC'€™s recommendation at:
> > http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/).
> > 856 4# $z Link no longer valid as of Dec. 4, 2000 $u http://www...
> >
> > So, we're confused about which practice to follow, since it seems that there
> > are two conflicting PCC practices. This is also causing us problems
> > internally in our opac, since we can't suppress the display of a hotlink if
> > the URL is in $u. And we don't quite understand why one would use a public
> > rather than non-public note ($x) for this.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Greta de Groat
> > Stanford University Libraries
> >
>