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

MARC Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List


MARC DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 2011-DP01

DATE: December 14, 2010
REVISED:

NAME: Changes to the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to Accommodate RDA Production, Publication, Distribution and Manufacture Statements

SOURCE: Library of Congress, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access (ABA) Directorate

SUMMARY: This paper proposes changes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format so that the RDA elements for production, publication, distribution and manufacture are given separate MARC elements.

KEYWORDS: Field 260 (BD); Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint) (BD); RDA; Production Statement; Publication Statement; Distribution Statement; Manufacture Statement

RELATED: 2008-DP05/4

STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/14/10 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.

1/9/11 - Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: There was support for Options 1 and 3, but less for Option 2. Another option was suggested to define one new field (rather than add an indicator to field 260 or add multiple new fields) with an indicator designating the function. Participants felt that we need to continue to be able to use 260 as we do now if the function is not clear. There was support for the suggestion to add a field for copyright date in the 26X block of fields. A proposal will be presented at the next meeting reflecting the preferences expressed and exploring the relationship between coding in other date fields (008/06, 046) and any new data elements.


Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP01: Changes to Accommodate RDA Production, Publication, Distribution and Manufacture Statements

1. BACKGROUND

RDA has separate elements for production, publication, distribution and manufacture statements, including place, name, and date. Currently in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format field 260 has no way to explicitly state whether the statement is one of production, publication or distribution, since $a and $b are defined as Place of publication, distribution etc. and Name of publisher, distributor, etc. Manufacturer has separate subfields in $e (Place), $f (Name) and $g (date).

Related to this issue is the fact that there is no explicit indication that a date is a copyright notice date, which is another separate element in RDA but not in MARC 21.

In Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP05/4 (Items Not Requiring MARC 21 Format Changes for RDA) the MARC Advisory Committee explored these issues and determined that there was not a recognized need for such granularity in the format. However, since RDA experimentation began, catalogers have found it difficult to apply RDA with the lack of a sufficient mapping between RDA and MARC 21, leading to some ambiguous displays in OPACs. Adding separate data elements would facilitate specialized searches, for instance searching for a specific movie distributor in moving image records.  In addition it would support the identification task if this information were available.

Field 260 is currently defined as follows:

2. DISCUSSION

2.1 Production, publication, distribution

There are several options that might be considered to allow for distinguishing between production, publication and distribution statements. Currently these are all contained in subfields $a, $b and $c. Manufacture already has separate subfields in $e, $f and $g. Note that production applies only to unpublished resources.

Option 1. Add a second indicator to field 260. One option is to add a second indicator (which is currently undefined) to specify what the statement is. However, the second indicator was previously defined as Added entry/publisher relationship with 2 values: 0 (Publisher, distributor, etc. not same as issuing body in added entry) and 1 (Publisher, distributor, etc. same as issuing body in added entry). It was made obsolete in 1990. A database search at the Library of Congress indicated that there are no records that use this indicator. It might be noted that the first indicator in field 260 was also previously defined (as Presence of publisher in imprint), but redefined in 2001 as Sequence of publishing statements. The second indicator might be redefined as follows:

Examples:

On source:  ABC Publishers, 2009
                   Distributed by Iverson Company, Seattle
260 #1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b ABC Publishers , $c 2009
260 #2 $a Seattle $b Iverson Company

On score:  Published in Boston, 2010;
                 Cambridge -- Kinsey Printing Company
                        No distribution information
260 #1 $a Boston : $b [publisher not identified], $c 2010
260 #3 $e Cambridge : $f  Kinsey Printing Company

Option 2. Add separate subfields for each function. Another option is to define separate subfields in field 260 for place, name and date of production, publication and distribution. It would not be desirable to redefine $a, $b, and $c for only one type of statement (probably publication is the most common usage), since existing records would still mix the functions of publication, distribution and production in those subfields. New subfields could be added for production, publication, and distribution (manufacture already has separate subfields). Subfields $a, $b, and $c could remain as is if the cataloger cannot distinguish which function was involved; this would also serve the purpose of accommodating data in existing records. The following could be defined to specify the separate elements in RDA.

Examples:

On source:  ABC Publishers, 2009
                   Distributed by Iverson Company, Seattle
260  ## $k [Place of publication not identified] : $l ABC Publishers, $m 2009 $n Seattle : $o Iverson Company

On score:  Published in Boston, 2010;
                 Cambridge -- Kinsey Printing Company
                        No distribution information
260 ## $a Boston : $b [publisher not identified], $c 2010 $e Cambridge : $f  Kinsey Printing Company

Option 3. Define new fields. The third option is to define separate fields. The cataloger could still use field 260 in case the functions cannot be distinguished or to grandfather data in existing records. Field 264, 266, 267 and 268 could be defined for production, publication, distribution, and manufacture, respectively. (Note that fields 261, 262 and 265 were previously defined and are obsolete; field 263 is defined as Projected Publication Date) . The following could be added:

264 Production statement
266 Publication statement
267 Distribution statement
268 Manufacture statement

Each field would use the first indicator as defined in 260 for current/latest and intervening production/publication/distribution/manufacture statements (although this may not be applicable to production statements). The fields would be defined as follows:

Note that “production” info applies only to unpublished resources; the other three categories apply only to published resources. Thus, records with field 264 for a  production statement will not have the other three fields.

Examples:

On source:  ABC Publishers, 2009
                   Distributed by Iverson Company, Seattle
266 ## $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b ABC Publishers, $c 2009.
267 ## $a Seattle $b Iverson Company

On score:  Published in Boston, 2010;
                 Cambridge -- Kinsey Printing Company
                        No distribution information
266 ## $a Boston : $b [publisher not identified], $c 2010
268 ## $a Cambridge : $b Kinsey Printing Company

2.2 Date of copyright notice

RDA contains a separate element for copyright date defined as: “a date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime. Copyright dates include phonogram dates (i.e., dates associated with claims of protection for sound recordings).”  When considering Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP05/4, the MARC Advisory Committee discussed coding copyright date in the then newly defined field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) subfield $g (Copyright date). However, further discussion suggested that field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)) would be a more appropriate place to encode the date of the copyright notice, because field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) may not be implemented by all institutions.  In addition this RDA element is not related to assessing whether an item is legally protected by copyright, but is a statement of the copyright notice on the item. During the discussion it was also suggested that the copyright and phonogram symbols would serve as flags for the date information. Experimentation suggests that a discrete place for this information is desirable.

A new field could be defined for date of copyright notice. Alternatively, a new subfield could be defined depending upon which option is chosen for recording production, publication, distribution and manufacture statements. If the option to use separate fields is selected, then the new subfield would need to be included with one of those functions. In addition there may be issues with multiple copyright dates. Consequently, it may be cleaner to define a new field for date of copyright notice. Which field depends upon the option chosen above. The new field could be defined as follows:

Example:
2XX ## $a©2002

3. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

3.1 Which option is best for this data?

3.2 What impact would each option have on existing data or functionality (e.g., match/merge software)?

3.4 Which approach best serves the user? Would separate fields rather than separate subfields make such identification easier? Would using 260 with a second indicator defined serve the user well?

3.5 Is it best to define a new field for date of copyright notice rather than to use a subfield in one of the options above?


HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
( 02/23/2011 )
Legal | External Link Disclaimer Contact Us