[DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

Wed Nov 2 11:14:53 MDT 2016

Thanks Kate.

I’ve added 856 links in response to requests from curators and from colleagues involved with photo-duplication (most of our duplication requests are not for copy-specific concerns). Like you, I think such links do more good than harm.

I try to name the copy used as source for the electronic reproduction. For example:

856 41 $y View an electronic reproduction of the Lewis Walpole Library copy $u http://images.library.yale.edu/walpoleweb/oneitemg.asp?itemid=lwlpr09882

I’m especially keen to hear the case for deleting existing 856 links (i.e., how does that benefit our users more?).

Francis

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Kate Moriarty
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:11 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] MARC 856 and links to electronic reproductions

Francis,

For us, the answer to 1 and 2 is yes and to 3 is no.

Our reasoning is that the benefits of providing openly available electronic access outweigh the fact that the e-version does not represent our copy. But now that you mention it, the language we use doesn't specify that the e-version is not based on our copy. From our procedures:

856 in OCLC record (HathiTrust used as example):
856 41 $u [URL of online resource] $z Available at the HathiTrust Digital Library

856 in local catalog record (in all cases; the text follows the automatically generated caption "Connect to" in the OPAC):
856 41 $u [URL of online resource] $z Freely available online version

I'm interested to hear what you and others do.
~Kate

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:

A brief exchange with a colleague about MARC field 856 has me wondering about community practice.

1.       If OCLC copy for a resource includes an 856 link to an openly available electronic reproduction of the same manifestation (but an electronic version not generated from the copy at your library), do you keep the link?

2.      For original cataloging, or when editing an OCLC master record, do you add an 856 field to link to an electronic reproduction, if you know of one?

3.      Should links to openly available electronic reproductions (in an 856 field) be avoided altogether, if the link is to a reproduction other than your own? If so, why?

 Francis

Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian

Dept. of Rare Books and Manuscripts

Yale Center for British Art

203.432.9672<tel:203.432.9672>  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

--
Kate S. Moriarty, MLS, MSW  |  Rare Book Catalog Librarian  |  Associate Professor  |  Pius XII Memorial Library  |  Room 320-2
Saint Louis University  |  3650 Lindell Blvd. |  St. Louis, MO 63108  |  (314) 977-3024 (tel)  |  (314) 977-3108 (fax)  |  moriarks at slu.edu<mailto:moriarks at slu.edu>  |  http://libraries.slu.edu/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__libraries.slu.edu_&d=CwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=os5apxqWEMHRuDI_piEunVdSLHRgvBH3aV2qza7GIJ4&s=m5z6g7ScpOR0dniQxM3CpwEtLRM0i2mqZ7ggjQ9DF4o&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161102/dc476c9b/attachment-0001.html>