The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards

MARC Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List


MARC PROPOSAL NO. 2019-01

DATE: December 12, 2018
REVISED:

NAME: Designating Open Access and License Information for Remote Online Resources in the MARC 21 Formats

SOURCE: OCLC and the German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats

SUMMARY: This paper proposes improved ways of indicating open and restricted access, as well as license information, for remote online resources through coordinated changes to the MARC 21 fields 506 (Restrictions on Access Note), 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note), and 856 (Electronic Location and Access).

KEYWORDS: Access to online information resources (All formats); Electronic location and access (All formats); Field 506 (BD, HD); Field 540 (BD, HD); Field 856 (All formats); License information (BD, HD); Open access information (BD, HD); Restrictions on Access Note (BD, HD); Subfield $2, in field 540 (BD, HD); Subfield $7, in field 856 (All formats); Subfield $e, in field 856 (All formats); Subfield $f, in field 540 (BD, HD); Subfield $g, in field 506 (BD, HD); Subfield $g, in field 540 (BD, HD); Subfield $q, in field 506 (BD, HD); Subfield $q, in field 540 (BD, HD); Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note (BD, HD); Uniform Resource Identifier (All formats); Access status (All formats); Field 845 (HD); Access status (All formats); Field 845 (HD); URIs

RELATED: 2002-10; 2006-03; 2018-04; 2018-DP06; 2018-DP10; 2018-DP11

STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/12/18 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.

01/26/19 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Approved, with the following amendments:

  1. Field 506 indicator 1:
  2. Fields 506 and 540 $g: remove the reference to "for the end of an embargo" from the definition and limit its scope to the date when a resource changes its access status or its use and reproduction rights.  
  3. Field 856, subfield $7:
  4. Field 856, subfield $e:
  5. All applicable amendments to the MARC Bibliographic format will also be applied in the MARC Holdings format.

03/29/19 – Results of MARC Steering Group review - Agreed with the MAC decision.

05/15/19 – Publication of field 856 withheld for discussion of possibly deprecating several useless subfields crafted in the earliest days of the field, before URIs were developed, and then using those subfields to craft a simpler and better location for this important open access information. Fields 506 and 540 were published in MARC Update no. 28 per the results of the MAC discussion/decision.

06/20/19 – Amendment to proposal - The 856 could not adequately accommodate all of the information needed about access and about usage.  So the Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO) withheld that part of the proposal from MARC Update 28 and arranged to meet with the original proposers and authors of the proposal on 6/20/2019.  OCLC was represented by Jay Weitz, Robert Bremer, and Nathan Putnam; the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek was represented by Reinhold Heuvelmann; and NDMSO was represented by John Zagas, Sally McCallum, and Jodi Williamschen.  They discussed the partial information that could be encoded in 856 with its current constraints and the full information that would ideally be recorded so that the information more closely paralleled that in the 506 (access) and 540 (use).  Several pathways were examined including:

1) Making currently "unused" subfields in 856 obsolete to make room for full access and use information.  E.g., 

SUBFIELD   OCLC

DNB/
DACH

LC
j bits per second 484 0 4
k password 848 33 34
l logon 841 190 2

2) Defining a new field 857 (?) field that parallels the 856 but is to be used only for Open Access URIs.  It would carry over only the subfields from the 856 that are needed while adding the access and use subfields.

3) Defining a new field 857 (?) and making the 856 obsolete, keeping only the subfields needed today and adding the new ones needed for access and use.

In order to enable immediate implementation of an indication of open access, it was decided to put forward the use of $7 for the access codes using the values previously approved and not to define $e and $7 Position/1. It was agreed that this shorter version of $7 will be added to 856 as part of MARC Update 28. Furthermore, it was decided to leave the other aspects of fully indicating access and use conditions to a thorough examination of  the above pathways starting at the next Midwinter MAC meeting.  Jay Weitz agreed to begin writing the new Discussion Paper.

Proposed amendment: Define $7 in field 856 in all five MARC 21 formats as follows:

$7 - Access status (NR)
Code indicating the availability of access to the remote electronic resource the address of which appears in subfield $u. Subfield $7 applies to all subfields $u present in the field.

0 - Open access
The remote electronic resource is freely and openly accessible online to everyone, without restriction, login, or payment.

1 - Restricted access
The remote electronic recourse is not freely and openly accessible online

u - Unspecified

z - Other

06/21/19 - Results of MARC Steering Group review: Amendment Approved

07/10/19 – Second Amendment to proposal - Because of an oversight, the proposal to add field 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) to the MARC 21 Holdings Format introduced an unintended redundancy.  The Holdings format already includes field 845 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) (http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/hd845.html), which was expressly defined to be identical to the Bibliographic field 540.  In order to avoid this redundancy, the proposal to add field 540 to Holdings has been rescinded.  In its place, the four subfields that have been approved by MAC for addition to the Bibliographic 540 will also be added to the existing Holdings field 845, thereby keeping the two fields identical.

Proposed amendment: In field 845 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) of the MARC 21 Holdings format, define the following four new subfields:

$f - Use and reproduction rights (R)
Data taken from a standardized list of terms (e.g. Creative Commons or Rights Statements) indicating the use and reproduction rights.

$g - Availability date (R)
Date when the resource changes its use and reproduction rights. Preferred structure for the date is according to Date and Time (ISO 8601): yyyymmdd.

$q - Supplying agency (NR)
A MARC Organization Code, ISIL, or textual name of the organization or project responsible for the data in the field.

$2 - Source of term (NR)
MARC code that identifies the source of the term used to record the use and reproduction rights in subfield $f.  If terms from different sources are needed, separate fields should be used.  Code from: Access Restriction Term Source Codes.

07/11/19 – Results of MARC Steering Group review: Second Amendment Approved.

07/12/19 – Changes made to the MARC documentation as part of the July 2019 Addendum to MARC Update No. 28 (May 2019).


Proposal No. 2019-01: Designating Open Access and License Information for Remote Online Resources

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. Historical Background

For online publications it is important to know whether a given resource is available “free-to-read,” as it is defined, for instance, in NISO RP-22-2015 "Access and License Indicators" (http://www.niso.org/publications/niso-rp-22-2015-access-and-license-indicators):  “A work that is accessible to read online without charge or authentication (including registration) to any person with access to the internet.”

A designation of “open access” provides similar information, although as the NISO document notes, there are many differing definitions of that phrase. For the purposes of this proposal, the concept of “open access” regarding remote online resources is the one so cogently put forth in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, February 14, 2002 (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read):

[F]ree availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

After access has been provided, a user should be able to get information on what use rights are associated with the online resource. Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/) and Rights Statements (http://rightsstatements.org/en/) are but two of the many initiatives that have created vocabularies for this information.

On behalf of libraries in German speaking countries, the Committee on Data Formats ("Fachgruppe Datenformate") formed a subgroup, the Working Group on Licenses ("Themengruppe Lizenzangaben") in 2016. To improve ways on how to express open access and license information in MARC 21, the Working Group has defined its scope, identified needs, and analyzed existing elements in MARC 21, and is working on best practice recommendations. A liaison to a second Working Group with other metadata standards in scope has also been established.

For this proposal, only information about global, context-free access conditions and restrictions is in scope; that is, the designation that a resource is free to read or available under open access conditions, and is usable and reusable under specific conditions, such as Creative Commons or Rights Statements. License information about a publisher or vendor providing a customer or a group of customers access to a single resource or a package of resources under certain conditions, controlled by different technical means, is not dealt with in this proposal.

Discussion Paper 2018-DP06 and Proposal No. 2018-04, “Versions of Resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format,” have some relationship to these efforts: Distinguishing between different versions of a resource is important when a library intends to hold a variety of versions, and may make it easier for an end user to select a version that is “good enough” and openly available.

In the weeks leading up to the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) meetings at ALA Annual in June 2018, and unbeknownst to each other, both the German-speaking community’s Working Group on Licenses and OCLC were working on closely-related discussion papers to deal with these issues. By the time the two groups became aware of each other’s efforts, it was too late to make much more than minor adaptations of their respective papers, the German’s Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP11: “Open Access and License Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats” and OCLC’s Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP10: “Designating Access to Online Resources in Field 856 in the MARC 21 Formats.” This proposal attempts to combine and harmonize the suggestions from these two discussion papers and the results of the discussions during the MAC meetings into a unified proposal.

Several fields have been identified for closer analysis: field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note), containing "information about restrictions imposed on access to the described materials;" field 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note), containing "terms governing the use of the materials after access has been provided;" and field 856 (Electronic Location and Access), when similar information should be given in the context of a URI.

1.2. Current Definition of Field 506

Field 506 is structured identically in the MARC Bibliographic and Holdings formats; it is not defined in the Authority, Classification, or Community Information formats. The Bibliographic field 506 is currently defined as follows:

FIELD DEFINITION AND SCOPE

Information about restrictions imposed on access to the described materials.

For published works, this field contains information on limited distribution. For continuing resources, the restrictions must apply to all issues.

If a note merely indicates the intended audience of a publication and does not imply restrictions on access, it is recorded in field 521 (Target Audience Note.) Terms governing the use of materials after access has been allowed are recorded in field 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction).

1.3. Current Definition of Field 540

Field 540 is defined only in the MARC Bibliographic format; it is not defined in the Authority, Holdings, Classification, or Community Information formats. The Bibliographic field 540 is currently defined as follows:

FIELD DEFINITION AND SCOPE

Terms governing the use of the materials after access has been provided. The field includes, but is not limited to, copyrights, film rights, trade restrictions, etc. that restrict the right to reproduce, exhibit, fictionalize, quote, etc.

Information about restrictions imposed on access to the described materials is recorded in field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note).

1.4. Current Definition of Field 856

Field 856 is structured identically in the MARC Bibliographic, Authority, Holdings, Classification, and Community Information formats, although the definition and scope differ slightly from format to format. The Bibliographic field 856 is currently defined as follows:

FIELD DEFINITION AND SCOPE

Information needed to locate and access an electronic resource. The field may be used in a bibliographic record for a resource when that resource or a subset of it is available electronically. In addition, it may be used to locate and access an electronic version of a non-electronic resource described in the bibliographic record or a related electronic resource.

See the Guidelines for the Use of Field 856 for a more thorough discussion on the use of field 856.

Field 856 is repeated when the location data elements vary (the URL in subfield $u or subfields $a, $b, $d, when used). It is also repeated when more than one access method is used, different portions of the item are available electronically, mirror sites are recorded, different formats/resolutions with different URLs are indicated, and related items are recorded.

In a bibliographic record, field 856 may be used for a resource when that resource or a subset of it is available electronically. In addition, it may be used to locate and access an electronic version of a non-electronic resource described in the bibliographic record or a related electronic resource.

In an authority record, field 856 may be used to provide supplementary information available electronically about the entity for which the record was created.

In a holdings record, field 856 identifies the electronic location containing the resource or from which it is available. It also contains information needed to retrieve the resource by the access method identified in the first indicator position. The information contained in this field is sufficient to allow for the electronic transfer of a file, subscription to an electronic journal, or logon to an electronic resource. In some cases, only unique data elements are recorded which allow the user to access a locator table on a remote host containing the remaining information needed to access the resource.

In a classification record, field 856 may be used for a resource when that resource or a subset of it is available electronically. In addition, it may be used to locate and access an electronic version of a non-electronic resource described in the classification record or a related electronic resource. This field may also be used to link to an electronic resource intended to supplement the classification scheme, e.g. an image of a map.

In a community information record, field 856 contains the information needed to locate and access electronic information pertaining to a community service such as the service or event website or related resources.

2. DISCUSSION

2.1. Justification

Currently, catalogers may use field 856 in conjunction with fields 506 and 540 to denote restrictions on access, use, and reproduction of the resources linked in URIs contained in field 856. Indicating access using field 506 applies to an entire record and varies with the content of text strings used (see https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd506.html). Indicating use of the resources following the provision of access using field 540 likewise applies to an entire record and varies with the content of text strings used (see http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd540.html). OCLC and the German National Library propose that there is a need to consider field 856 as an individual field to determine access to an item, and as a complement to the current uses of fields 506 and 540 for the following reasons:

In provider-neutral cataloging (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PN-RDA-Combined.docx), there is “a single bibliographic record that describes all manifestations of an online resource regardless of which content publisher or aggregator is making the manifestation available.” Current P-N guidelines do not specifically provide for any indication of open access or restrictions to access in an easily identifiable machine-readable form. Use of field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note) is restricted “only for records for DLF Registry of Digital Masters, HathiTrust Digital Library, and other digital preservation projects.” But even in these instances, text strings may be misinterpreted or misused in ways that a coded value would not be. In the P-N guidelines, field 540 is not used at all. Field 856 is used only “under certain conditions,” with the following provisos: “Use $u for URLs that are general (not institution specific). Do not use $z for information that is institution specific. If the domain name is not specific enough, $3 may be used to record package/provider name.”

2.2. Proposed Changes to Field 506

Field 506 Indicator 1 for “Restriction” was added to the field in 2006 with the following defined values:

# - No information provided
0 - No restrictions
1 - Restrictions apply

We read field 506 Indicator 1 value "0" as an equivalent to what is now called "open access" and "free-to-read” from the aforementioned NISO RP-22-2015 "Access and License Indicators". To reinforce this understanding and usage, the definitions can be enriched, using more positive wording (our additions in bold):

0 - No restrictions
Field affirms an absence of access restrictions, e.g. open access.

1 - Restrictions apply
Field defines access restrictions to some or all of the material described, e.g. restricted or closed access.

Alternatively, the names of the indicator values themselves as well as the definitions may be enriched:

# - No information provided

0 - No restrictions, open access
Field affirms an absence of access restrictions, e.g. open access.

1 - Restrictions apply, restricted access
Field defines access restrictions to some or all of the material described, e.g. restricted or closed access.

Chronological information may play a role in licensing information, as already reflected in existing examples in MARC field 506, for instance:

506 ## $aClosed for 30 years;$dFederal government employees with a need to know.

506 1# $aRestricted: cannot be viewed until 2010;$dMembers of donor's family.

506 ## $aClosed until January 1, 2068.$fNo online access$2star

We propose a more specific way to express embargo information, a date when the resource becomes freely available, by defining a new subfield "$g" for an "availability date". This subfield should be able to support technical solutions to switch from "closed" to "open" as soon as the point in time expressed in the subfield has been reached.

Information may not always be valid or reliable. To express the source of information given in the field as a whole, an additional subfield "$q" for a "supplying agency" should be defined, containing a MARC Organization Code / ISIL or the textual name of the organization or project.

Some information regarding access and its restrictions may have to be handled at the local holdings level, in addition to what may be appropriate at the level of the bibliographic record. For example, an online resource is made available under open access conditions by a publisher, but the German National Library is not allowed to provide open access to the archived online copy on the DNB server because the publisher is interested in controlling access to its publications via its own web site. As a consequence, we propose that the existing field 506 extensions discussed here in this section be defined also in the Holdings format.

2.3. Proposed Changes to Field 540

At the same time in 2006 when Indicator 1 was added to field 506, subfields $f (Standardized terminology for access restriction) and $2 (Source of term) were also added, allowing data from controlled vocabularies such as "star" for the "Standardized Terminology for Access Restriction." Field 540 would benefit from the same additional subfield structure so that information taken from such sources as the list of Creative Commons licenses or the Rights Statements terminology can be carried in a more-than-textual way.

We propose adding subfield $f (Standardized terminology for use and reproduction rights) and subfield $2 (Source) to field 540. The same existing MARC code list for Access Restriction Term Source Codes can then be used for both fields 506 and 540.

We furthermore propose that the additional new subfields discussed for field 506, "$g" for "Availability date" and "$q" for "Supplying agency" also be defined in field 540.

If an attribution, the naming of a copyright holder, is mandatory, the information can be given as appropriate either in field 100, 110, 111, 700, 710, 711 or 720 with the relator code "cph", or in field 542 (Information Relating to Copyright Status).

Again, as in field 506, some information regarding use rights etc. may have to be handled at the local level, in addition to what may be appropriate at the level of the bibliographic record. As a consequence, we propose the definition of a new field 540, including the extensions discussed here in this section, in the Holdings format.

2.4. Proposed Changes to Field 856

Catalogers deal with open access electronic resources on a regular basis. Typically, an entire record has been marked as open access, if it is marked at all. In provider neutral-cataloging, however, multiple URIs may be attached to a bibliographic record representing different aggregators or publishers that may allow different degrees of access to the same resource for any number of reasons. Defining a new subfield in field 856 containing a numeric, language-neutral designator indicating accessibility as restricted or open would enable identification of the availability of full-text at the URI-specific field level. The formalization of identifying open access URIs enables library systems and librarians to surface specific URIs that lead their end users to open access content. This proposed change would enable library systems to look for a standardized code, associated with a specific URI, for open access and restricted access rather than attempting to identify open access items by vendor or URI structure. The proposed change also harmonizes with existing provider-neutral practices by allowing vendors to indicate access at the URI-specific level.

These changes could have significant positive impact on the discovery and access of articles, journals, monographs, etc. The proposed addition of subfield $7 Position/0 applies only to access to remote electronic resources, not to usage rights. The proposed addition of subfield $7 Position/1 applies only to access, use, and reproduction rights. The proposed changes are intended to apply only to “global” access to the remote electronic resource.  They are not intended to record institution-specific access information that may be dependent on the institution’s subscriptions.

Unlike many MARC subfields, which can take years to populate at any real scale, this newly-defined subfield may be populated in tens of millions of records through OCLC’s use of automated techniques in rapid order, thereby making this information widely available to institutions for use in their discovery systems.

Although maintaining the currency of data in the newly-defined subfield has come up for discussion, it must be pointed out that every data element in field 856 is subject to the same questions of currency. The volatility of URIs and all related information is simply a fact of bibliographic life, certainly not limited to the newly-proposed subfield.

We propose adding a newly-defined subfield $7 to field 856 to enable catalogers to associate a newly-defined numeric code to indicate restricted or open access to a remote electronic resource.

Subfield $7 has been defined and used in bibliographic records to indicate special MARC characteristics of the linked entry in fields 76X-78X (Type of Main Entry Heading, Form of Name, Type of Record, and Bibliographic Level) and in fields 800, 810, 811, and 830 (Type of Record and Bibliographic Level). In the Bibliographic field 533 (Reproduction Note), subfield $7 contains coded information pertaining to the reproduction (Type of date/Publication status; Date 1; Date 2; Place of Publication, Production, or Execution; Frequency; Regularity; and Form of Item). In all instances, the definition of each code is position-dependent.

In the 7XX and 8XX cases, the use of subfield $7 was limited to MARC structural characteristics corresponding to an existing field indicator or MARC Leader value. In the case of field 533, the coded data elements correspond to various existing 008 character positions, which are both MARC structural characteristics and substantively reflective of the resource itself. The use of subfield $7 within the context of this proposal may be seen as an extension of the way it has been used in field 533, in the sense of containing coded data substantively reflective of the resource itself.

Because subfield $u is repeatable in field 856, subfield $7 must also be repeatable. Concerns about depending upon the order of subfields seem out of place. Most MARC fields depend upon a stable order of their constituent subfields for their coherence and meaning. Think of such fields as those for personal and corporate names or for titles and statements of responsibility and how we count on subfield order to convey meaning.

To provide additional information as an equivalent to fields 506 and 540, but in conjunction with a URI in field 856, the definition of a new subfield $e was explored in 2018-DP11. Based on the MAC discussions during the ALA Annual meetings in June 2018, we propose the definition of subfield $e in field 856 as an equivalent to the subfields $a, $f, and $u, in fields 506 and 540. The new subfield $e is to be named "Information governing access, use, and reproduction". In the definition it should be made clear that either a free-text term, a standardized term, or a URI may be used.

There may be the need to express which kind of information is contained in subfield $e. Similar to subfield $2 in fields 506 and 540, setting the context for the respective subfields $f, this may be given in coded form. Here another position in subfield $7 is proposed, position /1, named "Source of controlled vocabulary for access, use, and reproduction".

In field 856 (identical in the MARC Bibliographic, Authority, Holdings, Classification, and Community Information Formats), define new subfield $7:

Subfield $7 – Control Subfield (R)
Character positions that indicate special characteristics of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) in subfield $u. Subfield $7 must follow directly the subfield $u to which it applies. Generally, subfields $u and their corresponding subfields $7 may be repeated only when both a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and a Uniform Resource Name (URN), such as a PURL or a DOI, or multiple URNs are recorded.

Position/0 – Access to Electronic Resource
Code indicating the availability of access to the remote electronic resource the address of which appears in subfield $u.

0 - Restricted Access
The remote electronic resource is not freely and openly accessible online.

1 - Open Access
The remote electronic resource is freely and openly accessible online to everyone, without restriction, login, or payment. See the definition in the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read) for additional details.

n - Not applicable
u - Unspecified
x - No attempt to code
z - Other

Position/1 – Source of controlled vocabulary for access, use, and reproduction
Code indicating the source of the information used to record the access, use, and reproduction rights in subfield $e.

0 - Standardized terminology for access restriction (star)
1 - Creative Commons (cc)
2 - Rights Statements (rs)
m - Mixed
u - Unspecified
x - No attempt to code
z - Other

In field 856, define new subfield $e:

$e - Information governing access, use, and reproduction (R)
The subfield provides information about access rights, use rights, and reproduction rights. It may contain a free-text term, a standardized term, a URI, or a mixture of them.

2.5. Possible Future Actions

2.5.1. "Hybrid" Open Access
In the original Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP10, a third code for “hybrid” open access with some restrictions was suggested, but it proved to be among the more contentious aspects of the paper. In defense of the third code were cited such instances as journals with restrictions at the serial level but open access at the level of some individual articles. In opposition to the third code, the case was made that only a binary choice between open or restricted had any real bibliographic meaning. That third code option has been dropped from this proposal, but in the interest of possible future discussion, it is preserved here:

2 - Restrictions Apply in Part, Hybrid Open Access.
Access restrictions apply to some or all of the remote online resource. These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, temporal restrictions (such as embargoes for a certain length of time), geographical restrictions, audience restrictions (such as availability limited to people with authorization or having a particular membership or affiliation), technical restrictions (requiring specialized software), etc.

2.5.2. Reformulation or Replacement of Field 856
In both the original Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP10 and in the ensuing discussion, the possibilities of a complete reformulation of field 856 or the definition of an entirely new field were raised. Field 856 was originally defined early in the internet era, before the development of the URI, leaving many of the currently-defined subfields no longer necessary or useful. In the future, the MARC Advisory Committee may want to consider such a reformulation of field 856 or, given MAC’s understandable reluctance to reuse previously-defined elements, a scrapping of field 856 and the definition of a new field. Such considerations, however, are not within the scope of this proposal.

3. EXAMPLES

3.1. Journal, Restricted Access Designation in Field 856

https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/137342807

245 00 $a Science & education.
856 40 $3 Google $u http://books.google.com/books?id=nMklAQAAIAAJ
856 40 $u http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=0926-7220 $7 0 $z Full-text available from Springer LINK
856 40 $u http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=0926-7220 $z Science & education -- Springer Online Journal Archives (Through 1996)
856 40 $z Full-text via EUI LINKS $u http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?CustID=s3136966&groupid=main&authtype=ip,guest&db=edspub&type=44&bQuery=AN%2062478&direct=true&site=pfi-live

3.2. Journal, Open Access Designation in Field 856

https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/39264520

245 04 $a The sociological review.
856 40 $3 Full text available: Feb 1975-. (Due to publisher restrictions, the most recent 12 months are not available.). $u http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?db=aph&jid=%22SOR%22&scope=site
856 40 $3 Google, n.s. v.20 1972 $u http://books.google.com/books?id=SHQ5AAAAMAAJ
856 40 $3 Google $u http://books.google.com/books?id=sU0ZAAAAIAAJ
856 40 $3 HathiTrust Digital Library, Full view $u http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/1654047.html $7 1
856 40 $u http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/rd.asp?goto=journal&code=sore

3.3. Article, Open Access Designation in Field 506

LDR 01153naa a22002775i 4500
001 10.1057/s41599-017-0034-z
003 DE-He213
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 171117s2017    xxk|    s    |||| 0|eng d
024 7# $a 10.1057/s41599-017-0034-z $2 doi
100 1# $a Lams, Lutgard.
245 10 $a Othering in Chinese official media narratives during diplomatic standoffs with the US and Japan $h [electronic resource] /$c by Lutgard Lams.
260 ## $a London : $b Palgrave Macmillan UK : $b Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan, $c 2017.
506 0# $a Open Access $u http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/OpenAccess
710 2# $a SpringerLink (Online service)
773 1# $t Palgrave Communications$gvolume:3 $g number:1 $g pages:1-11 $g date:12.2017 $g day:21 $g month:11 $g year:2017 $x 2055-1045 $7 as
856 40 $u http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0034-z

3.4. Article, Field 506 with Availability Date, Field 540 with Creative Commons Information

(Based on http://d-nb.info/1152210440)

LDR 03747nam a2200565uc 4500
001 1152210440
003 DE-101
007 cr||||||||||||
008 180212s2017    gw |||||o|||| 00||||eng  
024 7# $a 10.2143/RTPM.84.2.3269053 $2 doi
024 7# $a urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-146567 $2 urn
041 ## $a eng
044 ## $c XA-DE-BW
100 1# $0 (DE-588)1147512124 $0 http://d-nb.info/gnd/1147512124 $0 (DE-101)1147512124 $a Radeva, Zornitsa $e Verfasser $4 aut $e Rechteinhaber $4 cph
245 00 $a From reconstruction to reformation: Jacob Thomasius's use of Aristotle in the debate on the origin of the human soul
264 #1 $a Freiburg$bUniversität $c 2018
500 ## $a Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales. 84, 2 (2017), 427-463, DOI 10.2143/RTPM.84.2.3269053, issn: 1783-1717
506 1# $a Closed access $g 2019-02-07
520 ## $a Abstract: This article sheds new light on [...]
540 ## $a Creative Commons Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen $f CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 $2 cc $u http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de
856 40 $u http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-146567 $x Resolving-System
856 #0 $u http://d-nb.info/1152210440/34 $x Langzeitarchivierung Nationalbibliothek
856 4# $q application/pdf $u https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/14656 $z kostenfrei

3.5. Article, Access Information Including Availability Date and License Information in Field 856 Subfields $e and $7

LDR 03747nam a2200565uc 4500
001 1152210440
003 DE-101
007 cr||||||||||||
008 180212s2017    gw |||||o|||| 00||||eng 
024 7# $a 10.2143/RTPM.84.2.3269053 $2 doi
024 7# $a urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-146567 $2 urn
041 ## $a eng
044 ## $c XA-DE-BW
100 1# $0 (DE-588)1147512124 $0 http://d-nb.info/gnd/1147512124 $0 (DE-101)1147512124 $a Radeva, Zornitsa $e Verfasser $4 aut $e Rechteinhaber $4 cph
245 00 $aFrom reconstruction to reformation: Jacob Thomasius's use of Aristotle in the debate on the origin of the human soul
264 #1 $a Freiburg $b Universität $c 2018
500 ## $a Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales. 84, 2 (2017), 427-463, DOI 10.2143/RTPM.84.2.3269053, issn: 1783-1717
520 ## $a Abstract: This article sheds new light on [...]
856 40 $u http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-146567 $x Resolving-System
856 #0 $u http://d-nb.info/1152210440/34 $x Langzeitarchivierung Nationalbibliothek
856 4# $e Closed access, Embargo: 2019-02-07 $e CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 $q application/pdf $u https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/14656 $7 0m

3.6. Printed Resource, Enriched by Information About Electronic Versions in Field 856 Subfields $e and $7

LDR 02031nam a2200385 c 4500
001 BV038963812
003 DE-604
007 t
008 020829s1575             |||| 00||| ita d
026 ## $e amea Sita i,Po stme 3 1575R $2 fei
035 ## $a (OCoLC)886439526
041 0# $a ita
100 1# $a Sansovino, Francesco $d 1521-1583 $e Verfasser $0 (DE-588)119255901 $4 aut
240 10 $a Ritratto delle più nobili et famose città d'Italia
245 10 $a Ritratto Delle Piv Nobili Et Famose Città D'Italia Di M. Francesco Sansouino$bNel Qval Si Descrivono Particolarmente gli edifici sacri & profani così publici come priuati, le famiglie illustri, gli huomini letterati, i personaggi di conto così morti come uiui & i dominij loro : Con Altre Cose Notabili Che In Esse Si contengono per ordine di Alfabeto : Con Le Reliqvie De' Santi, Le Fertilità De Territori la qualità de paesi, et il numero de gli habitanti
246 13 $a Città d'Italia
264 #1 $a In Venetia $c MDLXXV.
300 ## $a145 Blätter, 1 ungezähltes Blatt$c4
500 ## $a Bibliographischer Nachweis: EDIT16 - CNCE 60583
751 ## $a Venedig $0 (DE-588)4062501-1 $2 gnd
776 08 $i Elektronische Reproduktion $d Rom : Bibliotheca Hertziana, 2007
776 08 $i Elektronische Reproduktion$dMünchen : Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 2012 $ ourn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10162119-7
856 4# $e http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/ $u http://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10162119-7 $x Resolving-System $z kostenfrei $3Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 4 Ital. 376 $7 12
856 4# $u http://rara.biblhertz.it/Bb780-1750 $x Digitalisierung$zkostenfrei $3 Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: Rom, Bibliotheca Hertziana -- Bb 780-1750 raro

4. BIBFRAME DISCUSSION

Whether the new information will require additions to BIBFRAME vocabulary will be dependent on how the extensions are implemented.  Fields 506 and 540 both have corresponding object properties in BIBFRAME so there is some flexibility.

5. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

5.1. Field 506

5.1.1. In field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note) of the MARC Bibliographic and Holdings formats, revise the names and definitions of Indicator 1 values as follows:

First Indicator - Restriction

0 - No restrictions, open access
Field affirms an absence of access restrictions, e.g. open access.

1 - Restrictions apply, restricted access
Field defines access restrictions to some or all of the material described, e.g. restricted or closed access.

5.1.2. In field 506, define the following two new subfields:

$g - Availability date (R)
Date for the end of an embargo, when the resource becomes freely available.

$q - Supplying agency (NR)
A MARC Organization Code, ISIL, or textual name of the organization or project responsible for the data in the field.

5.2. Field 540

In field 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) of the MARC Bibliographic format (proposed to be added to Holdings), define the following four new subfields:

$f - Standardized terminology for use and reproduction rights (R)
Data taken from a standardized list of terms (e.g. Creative Commons or Rights Statements) indicating the use and reproduction rights.

$g - Availability date (R)
Date for the end of an embargo, when the resource changes its use and reproduction rights.

$q - Supplying agency (NR)
A MARC Organization Code, ISIL, or textual name of the organization or project responsible for the data in the field.

$2 - Source (NR)
MARC code that identifies the source of the term used to record the use and reproduction rights in subfield $f. If terms from different sources are needed, separate fields should be used. Code from: Access Restriction Term Source Codes.

5.3. Field 856

5.3.1. In field 856 (Electronic Location and Access), identical in the MARC Bibliographic, Authority, Holdings, Classification, and Community Information formats, define new subfield $7 as follows:

Subfield $7 – Control Subfield (R)
Character positions that indicate special characteristics of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) in subfield $u. Subfield $7 must follow directly the subfield $u to which it applies. Generally, subfields $u and their corresponding subfields $7 may be repeated only when both a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and a Uniform Resource Name (URN), such as a PURL or a DOI, or multiple URNs are recorded.

Position/0 – Access to Electronic Resource
Code indicating the availability of access to the remote electronic resource the address of which appears in subfield $u.

0 - Restricted Access
The remote electronic resource is not freely and openly accessible online.

1 - Open Access
The remote electronic resource is freely and openly accessible online to everyone, without restriction, login, or payment. See the definition in the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read) for additional details.

n - Not applicable
u - Unspecified
x - No attempt to code
z - Other

Position/1 – Source of controlled vocabulary for access, use, and reproduction
Code indicating the source of the information used to record the access, use, and reproduction rights in subfield $e.

0 - Standardized terminology for access restriction (star)
1 - Creative Commons (cc)
2 - Rights Statements (rs)
m - Mixed
u - Unspecified
x - No attempt to code
z - Other

5.3.2. In field 856, define new subfield $e as follows:

$e - Information governing access, use, and reproduction (R)
The subfield provides information about access rights, use rights, and reproduction rights. It may contain a free-text term, a standardized term, a URI, or a mixture of them.


HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
(07/12/2019)
Legal | External Link Disclaimer Contact Us