Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:11:59 -0500
From: "J. Shore" <shorej@THPL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New 856 subfields (Helen Cahill)

Helen Cahill wrote:

> ...While assessing the test records, I queried their use of the
> subfield $y in MARC tag 856 and was told that it's a new code which has
> been recently adopted.
>
> After checking our paper copy of MARC 21, and also the web version, I
> couldn't find that subfield listed. I eventually found my way to the MARBI
> discussion paper at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2000/2000-07.html
> which appears to have been approved by the MARC Advisory Committee meeting
> in July.
>
> If the subfield has been approved, does that mean that it's fine to use it
> now on our own systems, or do we need to wait for them to appear as a
> revision in MARC 21?

Helen,

After lots of searching, I finally found the web page which lists links
to the "official documentation" of MARC:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/status.html

>From that page I followed the link for "changes since last update" under
Bibliographic Data:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/changes.bibliographic.html

That page reads (in part): "The following changes have been approved for
implementation by the MARC Advisory Committee and the Machine-Readable
Bibliographic Information committee (MARBI). They will be implemented no
earlier than 90 days after the official release of the next update for
the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data (scheduled for the Fourth
Quarter 2000)"
--- snip ---
Field 856 (Electronic Location and Access):
          Make $g obsolete and rename $u to Uniform Resource Identifier
          (Proposal No.2000-02)
          Define subfield $y (Link Text). (Proposal No. 2000-07)

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I read that to mean that you (and ProQuest)
shouldn't be using that code until March or April 2001 (90 days past the
official update).

HTH,
J.
--
J. Shore
Serials Librarian / Cataloger
Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library
shorej@thpl.org