866-868 doesn't parse information into specific subfields, since it's considered a free text field. If you want to separately identify the pieces of information you use the parsed fields (863-865). That's why originally changes to MARC for holdings didn't do much specific subfield coding in fields 866-868.

Rebecca


Rebecca Squire Guenther
215 W. 75th St. Apt. 16H
New York, N.Y. 10023
703-298-0157


On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:51 AM Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Subfield $o is valid in holdings fields 853/855 and 863/865, but not in 866/868.  It seems like it should be valid in order to correctly convert from paired fields to textual fields.  Any ideas on why it wasn’t made valid?

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917