Thomas Saudargas, Chair RUSA College Center for Library Automation Karen Coyle RUSA California Digital Library Michael Fox ALCTS Minnesota Historical Society Helen Gbala LITA Ex Libris (USA) Inc. William W. Jones LITA New York University Bruce Rennie RUSA Kansas City Public Library Marc Truitt LITA University of Notre Dame Mitch L. Turitz ALCTS San Francisco State University Martha Yee ALCTS UCLA Film and Television Archive
MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Sally McCallum Library of Congress Margaret Stewart National Library of Canada
Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group John C. Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Paul Cauthen MLA University of Cincinnati Sherman Clarke VRA New York University John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Michael Fox SAA Minnesota Historical Society Susan Goldner AALL University of Arkansas at Little Rock/Pulaski County Law Library Rich Greene OCLC OCLC, Inc. Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Robert Hall PLA Concord Free Public Library Maureen Killeen AG A-G Canada Sally McCallum LC Library of Congress Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Margaret Stewart NLC National Library of Canada
Jacqueline Radebaugh LC Library of Congress
Danielle Adams Harvard Medical School John Albright Thomas Technology Solutions Kathleen Ashe Southwest Minnesota State University Elizabeth Black University of Toronto Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester Tadeja Bresar IZUM–Slovenia Donna Cranmer Siouxland Libraries Stephen Hearn University of Minnesota Diane Hillmann Cornell University Charles Husbands Harvard University Kris Kiesling University of Texas at Austin Bill Leonard National Library of Canada Elizabeth Lilker New York University Daniel Lovins Yale University Elizabeth Mangan LC, Retired Giles Martin OCLC Robert Maxwell Bingham Young University Ellen McGrath University of Buffalo Christina Meyer University of Minnesota Glenn Patton OCLC Pat Riva McGill University Ann Sitkin Harvard University Frank Sadowski University of Rochester Keiko Suzuki Yale UniversityNotes:
AACCCM - Anglo-American Cataloguing Committee for Cartographic Materials
AALL - American Association of Law Libraries
ALCTS - Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
ARLIS/NA - Art Libraries Society of North America
ARSC - Association for Recorded Sound Collections
BL - British Library
CC:DA - Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (of ALCTS CCS)
CCM - Canadian Committee on MARC
CDS - Cataloging Distribution Service (of LC)
CIS - Community Information Section (of PLA)
CCS - Cataloging and Classification Section (of ALCTS)
FCLA - Florida Center for Library Automation
FGDC - Federal Geographic Data Committee
FRBR - Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
GMD - General Material Designation
ISSNIC - ISSN International Centre
JSC - Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
LC - Library of Congress
LITA - Library and Information Technology Association
MAGERT - Map & Geography Roundtable
MLA - Music Library Association
NAL - National Agricultural Library
NDMSO - Network Development and MARC Standards Office (of LC)
NIMA - National Imagery and Mapping Agency
NLC - National Library of Canada
NLM - National Library of Medicine
OLAC - Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.
OAI - Open Archives Initiative
PLA - Public Libraries Association
RUSA - Reference and User Services Association
SAA - Society of American Archivists
SAC - Subject Analysis Committee (of ALCTS CCS)
VRA - Visual Resources Association
Thom Saudargas, MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. The proposed agenda was adopted and the minutes of the previous meeting www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-03.html) were accepted by a voice vote.
Proposal 2003-04: Definition of Field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) to the MARC 21 Authority Format
Glenn Patton (OCLC) introduced the paper which proposes adding field 024 (Other standard identifier) to the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data. This will enable recording standard identifiers relevant to the entities described in authority records. Because Glenn Patton (OCLC) has participated in the development of the ISTC, his presentation focused mainly on its application in the MARC 21 authority format.
Joe Altimus (RLG) pointed out a possible discrepancy between the description of the ISTC in the paper and the definition used in the ISTC FAQ. The definition of the ISTC in section 2.2 of the proposal states that it uniquely identifies an individual textual work "regardless of the various editions, languages and/or formats in which the works appear." However, the ISTC FAQ states that "adaptations or translations should be given separate ISTCs." Glenn Patton (OCLC) replied that OCLC would like the ISO TC 46/SC 9 WG3 to use more precise terminology in the standard. For example, although the group responsible for the ISTC has studied the effects of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) on authority records, the terms used in the draft standard may not correspond exactly to those included in the FRBR model.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked whether more than one ISTC may be assigned to a single heading. John Attig (OLAC) envisioned that one must repeat field 024 to code multiple ISTCs. Glenn Patton (OCLC) agreed with him. Karen Coyle (RUSA) then expressed concern about using multiple ISTCs in the same record. She wondered what the intention would be in doing this. Glenn Patton (OCLC) stated that he imagined that the description of what is represented by the ISTC may be different from the heading. Different ISTCs could be linked to appropriate headings, perhaps using subfield $8. He thus did not think that using many to many linking in one record would be difficult to accomplish.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) expressed concern that the ISTC is not yet an official standard. Ms. Coyle (RUSA) also reported that the work done on the ISTC by the ISO TC 46/SC9 WG3 has been slow. Margaret Stewart (NLC) reported that TC 46 is waiting for a business plan from the group before ISO goes on to the next step in making the ISTC an ISO standard. John Attig (OLAC) also expressed concern that each of the four standards in the paper uses different definitions of works and expressions.
Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that music catalogers have been consulting what could be described as "databases of standard work identifiers," (such as thematic catalogs) for years. Sometimes these identifiers are incorporated into the headings themselves. These identifiers and the form of headings in the reference sources in which they are defined have always been only one of possible multiple references consulted in the creation of a heading used to represent a work. These standard work identifiers, the form of the heading associated with the work in the list of identifiers, and their relationship to the heading for the work being established by the authority record have been controlled by coding field 670 (Source data found). Alternative headings are given in the 4XX (See from tracing) fields. Mr. Cauthen (MLA) expressed that encoding ISO standard identifiers in a modified authority format field 670 (Source data found) would be consistent with current music cataloging practice. It would also allow catalogers the opportunity to document differences between cataloging and ISO practices in terms of what constitutes a work, and in heading construction, while at the same time linking an ISO number to a work. Moreover, it would provide the option of indexing other categories of standard numbers in the authority format. John Attig (OLAC) agreed with using field 670 (Source data found) to document the ISTC in an authority record. Glenn Patton (OCLC) however, stated that the MARC community has regretted mixing description and access information in the same MARC fields in the past. Using the 670 (Source data found) field to record standard identifiers causes the same type of problem. Paul Cauthen (MLA) however, expressed concern that the standard number may reflect a totally different heading than what is in the 1XX (Headings) field. He also stated that the music community would probably continue to record standard numbers in field 670 (Source data found), regardless of whether field 024 is defined in the authority format.
Marti Scheel (NLM) suggested that the first two sentences in the proposed definition of field 024 in the authority format be combined to read: “This field contains a standard number or code associated with the entity named in the 1XX field which cannot be accommodated in other standard number fields (i.e., field 020 (International Standard Book Number), 022 (International Standard Serial Number)).” The group agreed with her suggestion.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) questioned whether value 8 (Unspecified type of standard number or code) in the first indicator position (Type of number or code) should be defined in field 024. She asked whether the source of a record containing no occurrences of subfield $2 (Source of number or code) would be considered unspecified. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered yes. The group, however, decided to include value 8 in the first indicator position to make the indicator definition consistent with what is defined in field 024 of the bibliographic format.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) then asked whether a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) could be coded in field 024. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered that DOIs have been coded in field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) of the bibliographic format. Although DOIs may be assigned at any FRBR level, Ms. Guenther (LC) could not imagine that a DOI would be assigned at the authority level since it is essentially a manifestation identifier and recorded in the bibliographic format.
John Attig (OLAC) expressed concern about defining subfield $c in field 024 since “Terms of availability” are not usually associated with authority data. Joe Altimus (RLG) agreed that a new authority definition is needed for subfield $c. Karen Coyle (RUSA) suggested that a note be included in the field documentation instructing users not to use subfield $c. Rebecca Guenther (LC), however, felt that subfield $c could contain qualifier information and thus be used for general notes in the field. She suggested that LC will look further into its definition.
Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) motioned to accept the proposal with the following amendments: 1) the revised field definition as proposed by NLM; and 2) a new definition of subfield $c that NDMSO will research and modify based on its findings.
The vote was 6-2 in favor of the proposal as amended.
Discussion Paper 2003-DP04: Defining Subfield $2 in Fields 155, 455 and 555 of the MARC 21 Authority Format
John Attig, representing the Bibliographic Standards Committee, Rare Book and Manuscript Section, introduced Robert Maxwell from Bingham Young University (BYU). Mr. Maxwell (BYU) presented the paper to the group.
Discussion Paper 2003-DP04 considers the definition of subfield $2 (Source) in the Genre/form term 155, 455 and 555 fields of the MARC 21 authority format. Defining subfield $2 would allow for greater processing flexibility and control of field 655 (Index term--Genre/form) in the bibliographic format.
Robert Maxwell (BYU) expressed four main points to the group. These were: 1) There are many different authority thesauri used in creating genre/form headings. Identifying these may be difficult using the present coding conventions; 2) Identifying a thesaurus from a shared authority file is also difficult using the present coding conventions; 3) Subfield $2 (Source of term) is important information in bibliographic field 655 (Index term--Genre/form) to control, however, now there is no present way to do so; 4) BYU has been successfully controlling field 655 subfield $2 using the authority record for several years.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) reiterated Paul Weiss’s (University of California, San Diego) e-mail from June 12, 2003. Mr. Weiss (University of California, San Diego) wrote that he did not “see the need for this proposal. All 1XX, 4XX, and 5XX fields in an authority record should be from the same scheme. That already has a place in the format. The “biggies” are identified in the 008 field and the others are identified in the 040 field subfield $f. Headings from other schemes go in 7XX fields, where subfield $2 is already defined.”
Moreover, John Espley (VTLS) stated that the VTLS library system has identified the use of multiple thesauri using the previously-established techniques. He would not want to see the technique changed, especially since the present approach works. Joe Altimus (RLG) also felt that coding field 008/11 (Subject heading system/thesaurus) or 040 (Cataloging source) subfield $f and subfield $2 in field 155 (Heading--Genre/form term) would put extra work and stress on catalogers.
Robert Maxwell (BYU) however, asked how libraries can control catalogers from entering wrong headings in field 655 (Index term--Genre/form) using the present coding conventions. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) responded that the present coding methods do allow libraries to control and report catalogers’ errors.
Marti Scheel (NLM) stated that NLM does not agree with the principle that one authority record should contain headings from only one thesaurus. However, NLM suspects that the change proposed by Mr. Maxwell (BYU) is ultimately a “work around” for his system’s inability to support the MARC 21 formats. NLM does, however, encourage the MARC Advisory Group to work on enhancing the functionality of the 7XX (Heading linking entry) fields in the future.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that Mr. Maxwell’s system provides no support for identifying thesauri in authority records. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that the MARC Advisory Committee does not make changes to the format to help individual libraries deal with system problems. She suggested that Mr. Maxwell’s library control the headings using local fields or subfields.
The group agreed not to bring this paper back as a proposal.
Report: JSC Format Variation Working Group--Update for MARBI
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) reported about the work accomplished by the JSC Format Variation Working Group. Ms. Bowen (University of Rochester) stated that although the Working Group has been very busy dealing with its charges from the JSC, it is too early to contribute an official discussion paper to the MARC Advisory Committee.
According to Ms. Bowen (University of Rochester), the JSC requested that the Working Group propose additions to Chapter 25 (Uniform Titles) of the AACR2 that would allow catalogers to construct uniform title-like headings to identify not only a particular work, but also a particular expression of a work. The Working Group recommends that headings at the expression level would remain optional within the AACR2. The headings would serve as specialized tools for some catalogers.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) responded that creating uniform titles for all expression level data does not correlate with national level cataloging requirements. Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) reiterated, however, that creating the new uniform title-like headings would not be mandatory.
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) then spoke about “deconstructing the GMD.” The JSC asked the Working Group to explore the feasibility of breaking down the GMD to represent the mode of expression embodying physical format and form of carrier.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) reported that the California Digital Library system ignores the GMD in field 245 (Title statement) subfield $h (Medium) and takes mode of expression information from the fixed fields. She acknowledged, however, that other communities may have different needs and uses for the GMD.
Martha Yee (ALCTS) asked Ms. Bowen about the Working Group’s definition of “Mode of expression.” Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) answered that the Working Group uses FRBR definitions. Martha Yee (ALCTS) then expressed appreciation that the Working Group is conducting a detailed analysis of the GMD. She felt that it is important that the Working Group acknowledge that GMDs reside at different bibliographic levels. The group agreed with her.
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) also described how the Working Group is cooperating with several system vendors and utilities that are currently implementing the FRBR model into their databases. As a part of that effort, the group would like to establish a connection with any vendor that has an interest in this area (whether or not it is currently implementing FRBR). The group felt that this was a good direction in which the Working Group to go.
Proposal 2003-03: Definition of Data Elements for Article Level Description
Karen Coyle (RUSA) introduced the paper which proposes additional data elements in the bibliographic format that contain parsed citation information for the description of journal articles. These additional data elements will facilitate both translation of non-MARC citation data into the MARC format and linking to citation-related services. The paper presents two options. These are: 1) Definition of a subfield in field 773; and 2) Definition of a new field 363.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) recommended that adding field 363 (Option 2) would allow more room for article level description. Linda Miller (LC) also preferred Option 2 for field 363 conforms with the enumeration syntax used in the holdings format. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reminded the group, however, that a new link code for subfield $8 must be defined if Option 2 passes. Sally McCallum (LC) asked the group if anyone presently codes subfield $8 in the bibliographic format. Marti Scheel (NLM) answered that although NLM codes subfield $8, it is used more like a flag, than like a link.
Bill Jones (LITA) preferred Option 1 for he felt that defining field 363 (in Option 2) only adds subfield delimiters to the Option 1 solution. He did wonder, however, whether the angle brackets in the SICI string would cause problems if it were expressed in XML. No one could, however, respond to his concern. Marti Scheel (NLM) reported to the group that NLM also supports Option 1, however, it feels that full article pagination should be expressed in the SICI-string. Ms. Scheel (NLM) also wondered whether the information in subfield $q contains a link to the full citation. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered that although Option 1 uses the syntax of the SICI, subfield $q may not actually contain an officially-assigned SICI.
Maureen Killeen (AG) asked Karen Coyle (RUSA) whether the idea of recording the first number in a pagination string originated with index companies. She answered yes. Karen Coyle (RUSA) then stated that full citation pagination is useful for ILL activities, however, it may not be useful for article level description. Bill Jones (LITA) suggested that the pagination range could be recorded in field 773 (Host item entry) subfield $g (Relationship information). He was concerned, however, that information in subfield $g (Relationship information) may be difficult to read.
Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) thought that the SICI accommodated full range pagination. Karen Coyle (RUSA) doubted this, however. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that NDMSO would check into it.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked the group how the SICI string represents interrupted page ranges, such as pages 1-8, 10, 12. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) suggested that the SICI string uses punctuation to represent interrupted pagination. It was suggested that an example be added in the format to show the use of full article pagination in the SICI-like string.
A straw poll was taken about which option the group felt most met the needs of the MARC 21 community. 12 people voted for Option 1 and 2 people voted for Option 2. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) motioned to accept Option 1 as written. Bill Jones (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7-1 in favor of Option 1 in the proposal. NDMSO will further investigate whether the SICI string displays full article pagination.
Proposal 2002-14/9R: Definition of Fields 365 (Trade Price) and 366 (Trade Information) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the paper for Alan Danskin (BL) because he could not attend the meeting. Proposal 2002-14/9R suggests adding fields 365 and 366 to the bibliographic format to carry information needed by book trade agencies.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked the group whether any parties in the room plan to use the proposed fields. A few participants expressed their support for fields 365 and 366 because they felt that the fields may be useful when importing and standardizing ONIX data into their databases. Karen Coyle (RUSA) also wondered whether vendors would implement the fields. John Espley (AVIAC) stated that VTLS would probably treat fields 365 and 366 as non-indexed note fields. Rich Greene (OCLC) reported that OCLC currently has no plans on how it would implement the fields.
Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) maintained that recorded trade information belongs in the holdings format. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) disagreed with him, however. Ms. Hillmann (Cornell University) asked whether this information would be maintained. Karen Coyle (RUSA) thought that it may be used to generate such projects as the UK’s Books in Print publication. Marti Scheel (NLM) agreed with her, however, like Mitch Turitz (ALCTS), she did not think that acquisition data belonged in bibliographic records. Bruce Rennie (RUSA) asked whether this information fit more appropriately in the number and code fields (01X-04X) of the bibliographic format. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered that there is no room for this information in those fields.
Marti Scheel (NLM) also wondered whether fields 363 and 364 should be used for this information since Option 2 (Definition of field 363 as article level designation) in Proposal 2003-03 (Definition of data elements for article level description) was not approved. There was no tag preference voiced by the group, however.
Bill Jones (LITA) questioned why field 366 subfield $a (Publishers' compressed title identification) contains title information. He suggested that this information should be recorded in field 246 (Varying form of title). Sally McCallum (LC) replied that field 366 subfield $a contains very specialized title information that falls outside the scope of field 246 (Varying form of title).
Bill Jones (LITA) also asked why subfield $2 (Source of availability status code) in field 366 references subfield $c (Availability status code). According to Mr. Jones (LITA), in most MARC 21 fields, subfield $2 references subfield $a. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that subfield $2 was added to the field to record sources of availability status codes (coded in subfield $c) that are from different schemes other than the ONIX code list.
Elizabeth Black (University of Toronto) suggested that a note subfield be added to field 366. Sally McCallum (LC) proposed that the title of field 366 be changed from “Trade information” to “Trade availability information.” Subfield $e could then be defined as “Note” and contain generalized note information relating to trade availability. The group agreed with her suggestions.
Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) motioned to accept the proposal as amended by Sally McCallum (LC). Karen Coyle (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7-1 in favor of the proposal as amended.
Rich Greene (OCLC) reported on the 2004 pre-conference about FRBR that MARBI will cosponsor (in name only) with other ALA bodies. The pre-conference will be held during the Thursday and Friday before the annual 2004 conference. The Thursday meeting will provide an introduction to FRBR and the Friday meeting will provide a more in depth discussion about it.
Thom Saudargas, Chair, reported that MARBI will meet at its usual times during the 2004 midwinter meetings in San Diego, CA. These are:
January 10, 2004: 9:30 - 12:30
January 11, 2004: 2:00 - 5:30
January 12, 2004: 2:00 - 4:00
Library of Congress Report
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that the MARC Code List for Languages was published by CDS in the Spring, 2003. The MARC Code List for Countries will be published later in the Summer, 2003.
The online MARC 21 Concise Formats was updated in November 2002 and the printed edition was published by CDS in the Winter, 2003. Both editions include changes stemming from the MARC 21 Update No. 3 (October 2002). Update No. 4 to all five MARC 21 formats will be made available to the public in the Fall, 2003.
The document, “Guidelines for the Non-Sorting Control Character Technique” (online at: www.loc.gov/marc/nonsorting.html) was made available to the public in May, 2003. Sally McCallum (LC) asked the group about whether anyone was currently using the non-sorting control characters. Joe Altimus (RLG) reported that RLG may use them to convert UNIMARC records to MARC 21.
The online document, “Guidelines for the Use of Field 856" (online at: www.loc.gov/marc/856guide.html) was revised in March 2003. It includes changes made to the field through the midwinter ALA conference held in January 2003. It supersedes the August 1999 version of the guidelines.
The new FRBR Display Tool was released to the public in June 2003. It transforms MARC record files into meaningful displays by grouping the bibliographic data into the "Work," "Expression" and "Manifestation" FRBR concepts. Information about it is located online at: www.loc.gov/marc/frbr/tool.html.
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that LC is continuing its implementation of Unicode. It expects to have its catalog totally implemented by 2004. LC will report more information about this when it is known. Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked whether LC plans to look into how other libraries are currently implementing Unicode. She was specifically interested in how other libraries are handling decomposed and pre-composed characters. Sally McCallum (LC) reported that LC plans to hire a contractor to report on the challenges that libraries are currently experiencing when they have implemented Unicode. The contractor will also make recommendations on what the MARC community should do to make future implementations easier and more successful. Marti Scheel (NLM) reported that NLM would like to participate in this effort.
Proposal 2003-05: Changes to Field 352 (Digital Graphic Representation) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Betsy Mangan, representing the Anglo-American Cataloguing Committee for Cartographic Materials (AACCCM), introduced the paper which proposes adding subfield $q to field 352 (Digital Graphic Representation) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format to record the file format in which a digital image is stored. The paper also proposes making subfield $g obsolete (VPF topology level). Ms. Mangan (AACCCM) suggested that subfield $i (Indirect reference description) in field 352 also be made obsolete since it is not coded using AACR2 rules.
The proposal stems from the revised chapter three (Cartographic materials) of the 2002 edition of the AACR2. Rule 3.3A1 was modified to add prescribed punctuation for digital graphic representation data. Rules 3.3F and 3.3.F1 were added to provide general instructions for recording the digital graphic representation for cartographic electronic resources. AACR2 rule 3.3F1 calls for the inclusion of the file format name used to store the digital image. This is important information for retrieving geospatial data sets.
Betsy Mangan (AACCCM) maintained that file format information is important to record because users must have specific software to run and view GIS data. Although the AACCCM would like to make both subfields $g (VPF topology level) and $i (Indirect reference description) obsolete, it would accept MARBI’s decision to retain them since the MARC 21 formats may be used with other cataloging codes besides the AACR2. Betsy Mangan (AACCCM) also reported that the punctuation in the example found in section 4.1 of the proposal was incorrect. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that NDMSO will look into this and make corrections, if needed.
John Attig (OLAC) felt that the proposal was straightforward and thus, did not require a lot of discussion. Morever, he stated that since the proposed changes were needed by a specific community, MARBI should attempt to grant them. Rebecca Guenther (LC) however, was concerned that since format integration, it has not been the practice of the MARC Advisory Committee to define specific data elements for specific types of materials. Data elements in the MARC 21 formats should be applicable to all types of materials. Betsy Mangan (AACCCM) however, countered that field 352 is not limited to only cartographic materials. All image materials may be recorded in it.
Agreeing with Ms. Guenther (LC), Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that she felt uncomfortable defining data elements in field 352 for only one community. She suggested that MARBI do a study to ascertain whether other communities use the field 352 data elements. Marc Truitt (LITA) agreed with her.
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that the group define subfield $q in field 352 and then do a study about how other communities code file format information. Sally McCallum (LC) reported that Alan Danskin (BL) also recommended that a discussion paper be brought forward before passing the present proposal.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that he did not think that option 3 (Add a note subfield to field 352) was useful if caption information is encoded with the data. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) questioned whether the caption used in option 4 (Add a note subfield to field 352) must contain geospatial data. Betsy Mangan (AACCCM) stated no, however, the AACR2 does not specify that a note subfield be used.
Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) asked whether there is a controlled list used to record file format information. Betsy Mangan (AACCCM) stated that yes, there is a controlled list in the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s (FGDC) Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata. Betsy Mangan (AACCCM) thought that other communities may be able to use the FGDC list for file format type identification information.
Sally McCallum (LC) inquired about where file format information is currently being recorded in the bibliographic format. Betsy Mangan (AACCCM) reported that the Library of Congress codes field 500 with it. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) asked where Mime Types are recorded in the formats. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reported that Mime Types are recorded in field 856 (Electronic Location and Access), subfield $q (Electronic format type). They are, however, applied to remote resources only.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as amended. Subfields $g and $i will not be made obsolete in field 352. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) seconded the motion. NDMSO may consider ways to define a data element for file format information that could be used for all forms of material.
The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress