So finaly, it seems that DOI must be treated in MARC21
in two ways:
1) as an identifier accomodating with Other Standard
number.
2) as an URL address, accomodating with 856 - Uniform
Resource Identifier.
Second question, I asked to the forum regarding the
"Info" URIs. How should be rendered in MARC21 as I
found some examples in draft material of the Info URI
Scheme, for instances:
1) info:ddc/22/eng//004.678
where "ddc" is namespace and "22/eng//004.678" is
identifier of an information asset within that
namespace.
2) info:lccn/2002022641
where "lccn" is namspace and 2002022641 is identifier
for an information asset within that namespace.
Info URI also requires registration with the Info
Registry website just like the DOI which has place to
register with IDF (International DOI Foundation).
Any suggetion please. In case of any misunderstood,
please guide me.
with regards,
Rajesh
--- Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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/
> --
> -------------------------------------
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
