...
- Bestehende Daten müssen angepasst werden?
- Ist es sinnvoll zwei Ziele in ein Feld einzutragen, oder sollten nicht zwei Felder angewendet werden?
- 506 1# $a Access restricted to registered users by appointment. Plan your visit and view user policies here: $u https://library.columbia.edu/libraries/rbml/usingcollections.html $0 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec
- Es könnten Nutzungshinweise in einem eigenen Feld beschreiben werden.
- Es sind präzisere Anleitungen notwendig, um die möglichen Vorteile vollständig nutzen zu können.
Erste schriftliche Kommentare von DACH-Seite an die MARC-E-Mail-Liste (Monatsarchiv unter MARC Archives - January 2024)
"
While we think that we understand the need here, we do not support the approach taken by this
paper. We were one of the parts of the MARC community who quite recently drove the enrichment of
fields 506, 540 and 856 for Open Access and license information, and we are heavily and growingly
using these format elements. We are not convinced that, as the authors of the paper noted, "the
existing subfield $u in field 506 serves a different purpose than subfields $0 or $1 would." The
existence of subfields $0 or $1 is quite unusual in fields of the 5XX range, and mostly for good
reasons, from our perspective. It would become too complicated to look for possibly the same
information in three subfields. According to the discussions last summer, the distinction between
subfields $0 and $1 is unclear and still to be clarified. So we recommend to explore whether subfield
$u is sufficient.
"
Nebenthema: zur unklaren Unterscheidung von $0 einerseits und $1 andererseits
Protokoll des MAC-Treffens Juni 2023: 2023 MAC Annual Meeting Minutes
darin Abschnitt "MAC Discussion: URIs in Subfields $0 and $1 of the MARC 21 Formats"
Dokumentation in MARC, z.B. bei MARC Bibliographic: Appendix A: Control Subfields