The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> StandardsThe Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
DATE: December 18, 2024
REVISED:
NAME: Redefining Subfield $7 to Accommodate its Use with Subfield $g in Fields 856 and 857 of the MARC 21 Formats
SOURCE: University of Washington Libraries in consultation with OCLC
SUMMARY: This paper proposes redefining subfield $7 (Access status) in fields 856 (Electronic Location and Access) and 857 (Electronic Archive Location and Access) of the MARC 21 Formats by adding subfield $g (Persistent identifier) in the definition as an additional possible paired subfield, in addition to the existing subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier). Either a subfield $g or a subfield $u fulfills the needs of a subfield $7–namely, a URI. When the subfield $g (Persistent identifier) was added to fields 856 and 857, the $7 was not updated to reflect the new possible source of URIs which might need data about access.
KEYWORDS: Field 856 (All formats); Electronic Location and Access (All formats); Field 857 (All formats); Electronic Archive Location and Access (All formats); Subfield $7, in field 856 (All formats); Subfield $7, in field 857 (All formats); Access Status (All formats); Subfield $g, in field 856 (All formats); Subfield $g, in field 857 (All formats); Persistent Identifier (PID) (All formats); Subfield $u, in field 856 (All formats); Subfield $u in field 857 (All formats); Uniform Resource Identifier (All formats)
STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/18/24 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
01/29/25 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: The paper was generally supported by MAC. A motion was approved to convert the paper into a Fast-Track proposal with the following amendments: 1) Add the phrase "in order to include both URIs" at the end of the revised definition of subfield $7, as well as make other minor editorial changes to the paper (i.e., change "URL" to "URI" in the revised definition; add the word "subfield" where it is missing); 2) Add an example for a blended situation where some URIs are open-access and others are closed. The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final processing and approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
Subfield $g in the 856 field (Electronic Location and Access) in the MARC 21 Formats was defined as a Persistent Identifier (PID), a type of URI, by Proposal No. 2022-08. Subfield $7 was already being used in this field to specify access status information for URIs identified in subfield $u. Subfield $7 was not also redefined to encompass the contents of $g. Field 857 (Electronic Archive Location and Access) was defined by Proposal No. 2023-01 in the MARC 21 Formats, and includes subfield $g, subfield $u, and subfield $7. Subfield $7 was also defined as only applying to the contents of $u in field 857. This appears to be an oversight.
As with a URI that could be included in subfield $u in field 856 or 857, a persistent identifier (PID) in subfield $g may also identify an open access resource. A PID URI for the same resource as a URI in $u in the same 856 or 857 field should not have a different access status. Currently, if a cataloger wants to include access status information about a PID using subfield $7, they must repeat the PID from $g in a $u within the same 856 or 857 field in order for the subfield $7 to be valid. For example:
856 40 $g https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010066723 $u https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010066723 $7 0
856 40 $g http://hdl.handle.net/1773/45500 $u http://hdl.handle.net/1773/45500 $7 0
This workaround is inefficient and unnecessarily duplicative. It should be permissible to include just the subfields $g and $7 in such cases.
In fields 856 (Electronic Location and Access) and 857 (Electronic Archive Location and Access) of the five MARC 21 Formats, redefine the subfield $7 as follows (added text in bold and underlined):
$7 - Access status (NR)
Code indicating the availability of access to the networked electronic resource, the address of which appears in subfield $g and/or subfield $u. Subfield $7 applies to all subfields $g and $u present in the field. If a persistent identifier in subfield $g has a different access status from a URL in $u, repeat the field.
856 40 $g http://hdl.handle.net/1773/45500 $7 0
857 40 $b Internet Archive $d 2008-05-25 $g https://n2t.net/ark:/13960/t1fj2jq69 $7 0
The MARC-to-BIBFRAME conversion can be modified to include this change, probably as a bf:status designation.
6.1. Do you agree that subfield $7 in fields 856 and 857 should apply to both subfields $g and $u?
6.2. Does the proposed revised definition of subfield $7 adequately address this issue?
6.3. Are there any other issues that should be addressed in this proposal?
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards (04/24/2025) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |