I think the question is not whether the DOI is "by its nature" an
identifier but whether or not you want to present it to the user as a
clickable link that will locate the item. If you do, then you need to
have it in 856 in a MARC record, because that's what the 856 is for. The
identifiers in the 024 are not locators for catalog users. You can
display the contents of an 024 in a display, of course, just in the same
way that you can display the ISBN (which, when entered into Amazon,
takes you directly to the book).
The DOI presents particular problems in this regard, however, because
even an actionable DOI may not take the user to the resource itself but,
for example, to the home page of a publisher from which the resource can
be purchased. I wouldn't want to place an actionable DOI in an 856
without first seeing what it links to. If it doesn't take the user to
the resource, then I would be reluctant to treat it as a location, and
would instead add it to the record as an identifier.
kc
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 00:50, Rajesh Chandrakar wrote:
> Don't you think that DOI is an unique identifier for
> any electronic resource. Not even as a location
> presentation of DOI, if you click on the DOI number in
> any search engine browser like google.com, you will
> directly be taken to the respective website of the
> resource, which I feel as a part of OpenURL Framework.
>
> What about the InfoURI, where you want to keep it,
> will not go in 856?
>
> Rajesh
> --- Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it depend on whether the DOI is presented
> > as actionable
> > (i.e. with
> > "http://dx.doi.org/10.1228/0103000001002") or not
> > (i.e.
> > doi:10.1228/0103000001002 ) ? There's also a
> > question of purpose. If the
> > purpose in the MARC record is for the user to click
> > on it to locate the
> > material, then an 856 would be appropriate. If the
> > DOI is being used as
> > an identifier and you don't intend for the user to
> > go directly to the
> > site the DOI resolves to, then it would be an 024.
> > And I can see no
> > reason why you couldn't have both (although it
> > shouldn't be considered
> > necessary to have both):
> >
> > 024 $a doi:10.1228/0103000001002 $2: doi
> > 856 $u http://dx.doi.org/10.1228/0103000001002
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 23:46, Rajesh Chandrakar
> > wrote:
> > > Dear Renecca.
> > >
> > > But, in last discussion some one in the list told
> > that
> > > the DOI number should be represented with 856
> > field
> > > with the electronic information?
> > >
> > > If MARC come out with the separate field like as
> > you
> > > suggested 024 with $2 for idenfification, would be
> > > better. But I would like to know, that in print
> > card,
> > > in area it should be accomodated, will it be in
> > note
> > > area as we represent the ISBN number. Whether it
> > > should be accomodated with the same line or should
> > be
> > > in separate line. What could be the excact place
> > for
> > > it in print card.
> > >
> > > Rajesh Chandrakar
> > > Scientific & Techical Officer
> > > Information and Library Network Centre,
> > > Ahmedabad, India
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > Yes, the 024 is the appropriate place. We are
> > adding
> > > > a code to be used in
> > > > subfield $2 for "doi" to specify the type of
> > > > identifier.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^ Network Development and MARC Standards
> > Office
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^ Library of Congress
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115
> > (FAX)
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^ [log in to unmask]
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^
> > > > ^^
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Liisa Sten wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Could anybody give an advice where to put DOI
> > > > (Digital Object
> > > > > Identifier) in MARC21?
> > > > > One logical place could be 024, 1st indicator
> > 7,
> > > > subfield 2?
> > > > > Thank you for your help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liisa Sten
> > > > > System Librarian
> > > > > Helsinki University Library
> > > > > [log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
> > Try it!
> > > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
> > --
> > -------------------------------------
> > Karen Coyle
> > Digital Library Specialist
> > http://www.kcoyle.net
> > Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
> > --------------------------------------
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------
