The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
MARC Standards

MAC Meeting Minutes
MARC Advisory Committee

ALA Midwinter Meeting
Philadelphia, PA - January 25-26, 2014

MARC Steering Group Members:

Sally H. McCallum               LC                Library of Congress
Bill Leonard                    LAC               Library and Archives Canada 
Thurstan Young                  BL                British Library
Reinhold Heuvelmann             DNB               Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

MAC Chair and Secretary

Matthew W. Wise, Chair          NYU               New York University
Everett Allgood, Secretary      NYU               New York University

MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:

Sandra Barclay                  STS             Kennesaw State University 
Catherine Gerhart               OLAC            University of Washington
Stephen Hearn                   SAC             University of Minnesota
Shana L. McDanold               PCC             Georgetown University
Susan M. Moore                  MAGIRT          University of Northern Iowa
María Jesús Morillo Calero      BNE             Biblioteca Nacional de España
John Myers                      CC:DA           Union College
Cory L. Nimer                   SAA             Brigham Young University
Elizabeth O'Keefe               ARLIS/NA        Morgan Library and Museum
Robert Pillow                   AVIAC           VTLS, Inc.
Elizabeth Plantz                NLM             National Library of Medicine
Regina Reynolds                 ISSN            Library of Congress
Sandy Rodriguez                 MLA             University of Missouri-Kansas City
Katherine Timms                 LAC             Library and Archives Canada
Jay Weitz                       OCLC            OCLC
John Zagas                      LC              Library of Congress

Other Attendees:

Karen Anderson                  Backstage Library Works
John Attig                      Penn State University
Jean Altschuler                 Arnold & Porter, LLP
Thomas Dukleth                  Agogme
Gordon Dunsire                  JSC for Development of RDA
Scott Dutkiewicz                Clemson University
Kevin Ford                      Library of Congress
Deborah Fritz                   TMQ Inc.
Kathy Glennan                   University of Maryland
Rebecca Guenther                Library of Congress
William W. Jones                New York University
Nancy Kall                      Douglas County Libraries, Colorado
Kate Moriatry                   Saint Louis University
Tony Olson                      Northwestern University
Michael Panzer                  OCLC
Gary Strawn                     Northwestern University
Ken Wade                        UCLA

[Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network 
Development and MARC Standards Office.]

Introductions, etc.

MAC Chair Matthew Wise (Chair, NYU) welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the reconstituted MARC Advisory Committee (MAC). MAC advises the four international members of the MARC Steering Group: Library of Congress (LC), Library and Archives Canada (LAC), British Library (BL), and the German National Library (DNB).

MAC minutes shall be brief and will document actions and decisions, similar to the reports generated by MAC liaisons and representatives.

Library of Congress Report

MARC 21 Update 17 (Sept 2013) is available via the MARC website. PDF versions of the MARC 21 Concise format have been discontinued and LC will no longer maintain this separate edition. (This decision was based on the low number of downloads in recent years.) The last downloadable edition of the MARC Concise Formats was for 2012 and is still available online.



PROPOSAL 2014-01: Defining Indicator Values for Field 588 Source of Description Note in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Summary: This paper proposes defining the first indicator position of the 588 field as a display constant controller to facilitate the correct creation of the captions to the note and enable the data in the field to be treated more as a data element that could be readily mapped to other formats or used for other purposes.
Related Documents: 2013-DP05

MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: The Proposal was approved unanimously, with slight editorial revisions.

The Library of Congress will clarify the display constant recommendations and indicator value definitions based on concerns raised by the British Library. NLM also wondered whether MAC should consider changing the current 588 field name as the field is considered applicable for Cataloger Notes beyond Source of Description Notes.

Note of practice: Setting the 588 first indicator as 0 or 1 will enable generation of display constants. For libraries that want to continue using display text based on local macros or to use the 588 field for other cataloger-specific notes, set the 588 first indicator to blank.

[NOTE: The preferred wording of the 588 “Description based on …” note differs for RDA and the CONSER Serials program. The MARC 21 field examples may want to illustrate this to demonstrate that neither phrase is proscriptive.]

PROPOSAL 2014-02: Making Subfield $c Repeatable in Fields X10 and X11 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
Source: Canadian Committee on MARC (CCM)
Summary: Recording multiple location names in relation to conferences is sometimes needed (e.g., RDA Subfield $c (Location of meeting) is currently not repeatable in fields  110, 111, 610, 611, 710, 711, 810 and 811 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format and fields 110, 111, 410, 411, 510, 511, 710 and 711 of the MARC 21 Authority Format. Catalogers are instructed to record multiple adjacent locations in a single $c subfield, which does not support optimal machine parsing of the data, potentially impeding identification and retrieval activities.

MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: The proposal was approved unanimously as written. “Best practice” recommendations in the field definitions will be necessary for cataloger guidance.

The discussion described the distinction between the old AACR2 formulation of these Conference Name Headings held in multiple locations with the conjunction “and” inserted between each in a single subfield $c, and RDA Conference Name Headings wherein catalogers are instructed to record multiple locations only separated by a semicolon and no "and". As a large number of LC/NAF Conference Name records are being updated for RDA use by NACO catalogers, approving this MARC change soon is advisable.

[NOTE: Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) did some sampling of conference name headings in LC/NAF following the discussion. Of the roughly 2000 Conference Name headings he encountered with multiple locations recorded, just over 80% of the authority headings could be revised via machine processing. The remaining headings would likely need to be reviewed individually.]

PROPOSAL 2014-03: Renaming and Redefining 347 $f (Transmission speed) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: British Library
Summary: This paper proposes renaming and redefining 347 $f to reflect the changes which have taken place in the equivalent RDA sub-element.
Related Documents: 2011-08

MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: The proposal was approved unanimously as written.

This proposal represents an attempt to rename and broaden the scope of the 347 subfield $f – Rename as Encoded bitrate and broaden the scope to encompass all types of streamed content, not just audio and video.



DISCUSSION PAPER 2014-DP01: Designating Never Published in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper discusses a way to designate in a MARC bibliographic record that a bibliographic resource has never been published.

MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper may come back. The German National Library will explore the available ONIX values for 366 subfield $c (Trade Availability Information, Availability Status Code). If this proves sufficient for the need at hand, there is no need for a scond paper. If additional options surface or further clarification is needed, the paper will return as a proposal.

The British Library, ISSN Centres and several cataloging community constituencies welcomed this Discussion Paper as providing a desirable mechanism for encoding these records. An additional benefit of the British Library suggestion to pursue the 366 field option enhanced with ONIX data is that the publication status of these records would be updated automatically for those libraries with the ability to update their Bib records with ONIX data. Subfield $m (Identification of agency) provides a way to designate which institution is supplying the information contained in the field.

DISCUSSION PAPER 2014-DP02: Relationships between Subject Headings from Different Thesauri in the MARC 21 Authority Format
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper discusses a way to designate relationships between entries of different thesauri in a MARC authority record.

MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper may come back as a Proposal.

The German National Library proposes defining subfields $i (Relationship information) and $4 (Relationship code) in the 7XX block of MARC 21 Authority fields. The hope is that relationships among multiple subject thesauri may be described via the use of 7XX with the new $i and $4 subfields.

Some primary concerns: 1) Adding a third position for relationship designation to subfield $w in the MARC 21 Authority 7XX block of fields would cause confusion, as $w then would be defined differently than in the 5XX fields. 2) Describing multiple-to-one subject term relationships will be inherently difficult and complex. This will require careful thought and consideration, especially in order to address the MAC concerns specifically in the paper that comes back.

[NOTE: Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) suggested looking at the earlier MARBI Proposal 2002-13 (itself based on MARBI Discussion Paper 2002-DP03) addressing how FAST Headings were accommodated and also how the revision to the 7XX subfield $w was handled.]

DISCUSSION PAPER 2014-DP03: "Miscellaneous information" in Topical Term and Geographic Name Fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
Source: German National Library
Summary: "Miscellaneous information" in Topical Term and Geographic Name Fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper may come back as a Proposal.

The Discussion Paper proposes encoding qualifying or “Miscellaneous information” in repeatable subfield $g to distinguish topical and geographic subject terms (MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats). In addition, the paper proposes a re-definition of $g "Miscellaneous information" as repeatable, throughout the MARC formats. Concern was raised that subfield $g has not been defined uniformly across the MARC 21 format and trying to do so is likely to prove tricky.

There was general support for this Discussion Paper and recognition that a defined need for it has been identified by the German and Austrian library community. In fact, this DP describes a long-standing concern within MARC that has been raised in the past. That said, at least for now it appears unlikely that different cataloging contexts (as LCSH) will change their practices (i.e., retrospectively).

DISCUSSION PAPER 2014-DP04: Recording RDA Relationship Designators in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
Source: Canadian Committee on MARC (CCM)
Summary: This paper presents options for recording RDA relationship designators in the Bibliographic and Authority formats to ensure that user-friendly versions of the designators will be available for public display.
Related Documents: 2009-DP01/2; 2013-DP04

MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will not come back at this time. MAC recognized that these are early days for RDA Relationship Designators and allowing individual cataloging communities to develop “best practices” is prudent.

There was broad, general agreement that no one likes the parenthetical qualifiers within these RDA WEMI Relationship Designators (i.e., Work, Expression, etc.) – at least for display purposes. In fact, Gordon Dunsire mentioned that a Joint Steering Committee Task Force has been assembled for 2014 to address this display concern and determine a best path forward. Consequently, one year from now this topic may look a lot clearer and cleaner.

Meanwhile, there was also broad agreement that catalogers want and need to continue to encode FRBR relationships within MARC Linking Fields specifically enough that we are able to map them directly to URIs. As noted many times in MARBI meetings past though, what catalogers encode and what OPACS and User Interfaces display are two separate things.


Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood


The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
( 02/26/2014 )
Legal | External Link Disclaimer

Contact Us