 |
 |
Re: " I have no idea why there are different practices or what the purpose was of leaving the non-working URL in 856|u." I'm not certain, but I can hazard a guess: because a URL may appear broken but either (a) come "back to life" later--i.e. the URL is only disabled at the time the cataloger is inspecting it, not permanently; or (b) still be locally-valid to some institutions? --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven C Shadle Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 5:04 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question re invalid URLs in 856 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 >