Tha'ts internally consistent to it's own logic... and it leaves us
unable to tell (with software; a human MIGHT be able to tell by reading
human readable $3, $y, or $z) whether an 856 represents full text or
not, even when the standard is followed with fidelity.... no? Which is
in fact _the most important thing_ one would want to know about an 856
in current context.
So, when I brought this up in the context of the inconsistent use of $y,
$z, and $3 in 856 in actual records, that was my point. Yeah
inconsistent $y, $z, and $3 are annoying, but the BIGGEST problem with
856s is even worse.
On 6/2/2011 2:35 PM, john g marr wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Walker, David wrote:
>
>> 856 40 indicates that the link it to the resource, but not
>> necessarily the *whole* resource.
>
> Correct. As OCLC puts it:
>
> "The electronic location in field 856 is for the same resource
> described by the record as a whole ... If the data in field 856
> relates to a constituent unit of the resource represented by the
> record, use subfield 3 to specify the portion(s) to which the field
> applies."
>
> You would probably have separate 856s for the entire "same resource
> as described by the record as a whole" and any constituent part (e.g.
> contents) linked individually.
>
>> ... table of contents links ... are also often coded as ind 2 = 1 (a
>> version of the resource), but so are many full-text links, so that
>> doesn't help.
>
> Right again. It's the same idea:
>
> "The location in field 856 is for an electronic version of the
> resource described by the record. In this case, the item represented
> by the bibliographic record is not electronic, but an electronic
> version is available. If the data in field 856 relates to a
> constituent unit of the resource represented by the record, use
> subfield 3 to specify the portion(s) to which the field applies."
>
> John G. Marr
> Cataloger
> CDS, UL
> Univ. of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131
> jmarr_at_unm.edu
> jmarr_at_flash.net
>
>
> **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
> the box."
>
> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
> sharing is permitted.
>
Received on Thu Jun 02 2011 - 15:10:21 EDT