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 Squire Guenther
215 W. 75th St. Apt. 16H
New York, N.Y. 10023

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