MARC field | MARC type | Validation rule |
---|
LDR | Holdings | - The Leader must contain 24 characters, including null spaces
- Only positions 5,6,17, and 18 can be edited in the Leader
|
---|
004 | Holdings | - Required field for MARC Holdings record
- Is a valid instance record HRID with Source = MARC
- No indicators or subfield codes supported
- Can only have one 004
|
---|
006 | Holdings | - No change from MARC bib validation
|
---|
007 | Holdings | - Unexpected length of the field
- No change from MARC bib validation
|
---|
008 | Holdings | Unexpected length of the field |
---|
010 | Holdings | - Subfield length should be more than 3 characters
- No change from MARC bib validation
|
---|
01X - 999 | Holdings | Only 2 indicators with one-character values can exist |
---|
245 | Holdings | - Not required for a MARC holdings record
|
---|
852 | Holdings | - One 852 is required for a MARC Holdings record
- $b = a location code setup in Settings > Tenant > Locations
|
---|
aaa-zzz | Holdings | Alphabetical fields are restricted |
---|
3 Comments
Laura Daniels
Not sure why we need validation to not allow 006, 007, 245 fields in holdings?
Khalilah Gambrell
Thanks Laura Daniels for the feedback. We are not changing 007 quickMARC validation and so a user will be able to add/update a 007 value as s/he is able to do today when editing a bib record via quickMARC.
Having a 245 is required and a validation rule for editing/deriving a bib record via quickMARC. So I thought it better to just not allow a user to add a Holdings record with a 245. But I could just make 245 not required and have no validation rule at all. What are your thoughts?
Laura Daniels
I have a hard time imagining anyone trying to add any of these three fields to a holdings record, so I would expect no validation rules around them.