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 856 4# $z Link no longer valid as of Dec. 4, 2000 $u http://www...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
>