Martha Yee, Chair ALCTS UCLA Film and Television Archive Helen Gbala LITA Innovative Interfaces Wei Jeng-Chu RUSA Worcester Public Library Bruce Rennie RUSA Kansas City Public Library Jacqueline Samples ALCTS North Carolina State University Adam Schiff ALCTS University of Washington Stephanie Schmitt, Intern LITA Yale Law Library Marc Truitt LITA University of HoustonEx-officio Members:
Corine Deliot BL British Library Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Marg Stewart LAC Library and Archives CanadaMARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Jim Alberts MLA Cornell University Everett Allgood CC:DA New York University John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Bonnie Dede SAC University of Michigan Eugene Dickerson NLM National Library of Medicine John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Rich Greene OCLC OCLC Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Robert Hall PLA Concord Free Public Library Kris Kiesling SAA University of Minnesota Gail Lewis MicroLIF Coughlan Publishing Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Morgan Library and Museum George Prager AALL New York University Law Libraries Tina Shrader NAL National Agricultural LibraryRecorder:
Jacqueline Radebaugh LC Library of CongressOther Attendees:
Lynda Aldana Johns Hopkins University Reinhard Altenhöner Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Paige Andrew Pennsylvania State University Virginia Barton New York Public Library Matthew Beacom Yale University Lisa Bodenheimer Clemson University Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester Tadeja Bresar IZUM, Slovenia Colleen Cahill Library of Congress Hal Cain Joint Theological Library (Melbourne, Australia) Sofia Cerritos El Salvador Library Association Sandy Chen New College of Florida Karen Coyle Independent Consultant Donna Cramer Siouxland University Ana Cristán Library of Congress Carroll Davis Library of Congress Betsy Eggleston Harvard University Lynn El-Hoshy Library of Congress Michael Fox Minnesota Historical Society Ageo Garcia Tulane University Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Reinhold Heuvelmann Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Stephen Hensin University of Minnesota John Hostage Harvard Law School Charles Husbands Harvard University George Johnston University of Cincinnati William Jones New York University Kerre Kammerer OCLC Pat Kuhr H.W. Wilson Company Mary Larsgaard University of California, Santa Barbara Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada Morris Levy Harvard University Elizabeth Lilker New York University Jimmie Lundgren University of Florida John Maier Pratt Institute Libraries Betsy Mangin Library of Congress - Retired Margi Mann OCLC Western Kelley McGrath Ball State University Linda Miller Library of Congress William Moen University of North Texas Frieda Rosenberg University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Beate Rusch KOBV (Library Consortium of Berlin and Brandenburg) Michael Scott Yale University Ann Sitkin Harvard Law University Gary Smith OCLC Lori Smith Bound to Stay Bound Books Laura Snyder University of Houston Barbara Story Library of Congress Gary Strawn Northwestern University Julie Su San Diego State University Hugh Taylor Cambridge University Seanna Tsung Library of Congress Sue Wartzok Florida International University Jay Weitz OCLC Robin Wendler Harvard University Matthew Wise New York University
Martha Yee (ALCTS), 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-06.html) were accepted by a voice vote.
Proposal No. 2006-07: Definition of subfield $u (URI) in field 852 (Location) in the MARC 21 bibliographic and holdings formats
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper. Proposal No. 2006-07 proposes defining subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier) in field 852 (Location) to link to information about the repository identified in subfields $a (Location) and $b (Sublocation or collection). According to Rebecca Guenther (LC), the proposed use of subfield $u in field 852 is similar to the use of subfield $u in field 545 (Biographical or historical data) which links to lengthy biographical or historical data. Subfield $u in field 852 will connect users to information too extensive to fit in a bibliographic record.
Gail Lewis (MicroLIF) suggested that the documentation stress that the URI in field 852 be used to link to information about the repository identified in subfields $a and $b and not to holdings information identified in subfield $p (Piece designation). The group agreed.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) moved to pass the proposal with the following caveat: The documentation will clarify that the URI in subfield $u should link to information about the repository and not to holdings information. Marc Truitt (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote of the committee was 6-0 in favor of the motion.
Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP06: Defining separate subfields for language codes of summaries/abstracts and subtitles/captions in field 041
John Attig (OLAC) introduced the paper. Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP06 discusses the problems associated with how the language codes for summaries, abstracts, subtitles and captions are all contained in subfield $b (Language code for summary, abstract, or subtitles) of field 041 (Language code) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. The paper was motivated by the discussion of Proposal No. 2005-07 in which it was pointed out that coding the language of summaries and abstracts in the same subfield as subtitles and captions provided ambiguous language information. To prevent this ambiguity, the present discussion paper explores two options: 1) coding captions and subtitles in a new subfield; 2) making subfield $b obsolete and defining two new subfields: one for the "Language code of summary or abstract" and one for the "Language code of subtitle or caption."
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that MARBI should first consider the costs associated with the proposed changes before deciding on how to proceed. The group agreed.
Rich Greene (OCLC) reported that all of the subfields in field 041 are stored in the same index in the OCLC system and thus, any change made to subfield $b would not be recognized by the system. John Attig (OLAC) stated that although most systems are probably configured to do the same, future systems may begin to provide separate indexes for each subfield. If this occurs, it would be beneficial to differentiate summaries and abstracts from subtitles and captions in field 041.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) reported that his library's system uses the subfields in field 041 to generate lists. Likewise, many systems use field 041 as part of a special language limiter (not just in keyword or browse indexes).
Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) stated that making the changes discussed in the paper may ultimately be worthwhile and cost-effective for libraries. For example, search engines may need to know whether an item contains subtitles, captions, summaries or abstracts. The suggested changes to subfield $b in field 041 would thus offer search differentiation that could benefit library users. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) also stated that there has been an increase in the use of subtitles and captions in television and videos. Likewise, knowing when subtitles and captions are available has been increasingly demanded by the hearing impaired community.
John Attig (OLAC) motioned for a straw poll to be taken to answer the first question in the discussion paper: Does a change to the definition of field 041 subfield $b need to be made? Adam Schiff (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The group agreed that a change should occur.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that making subfield $b obsolete and defining new subfields would be a cleaner approach than redefining subfield $b. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) also stated that redefining subfield $b may cause problems for information exchange. It could also disrupt catalogers' standard coding practices for field 041.
Rich Greene (OCLC) reported that only 9% of records in the WorldCat database are for visual materials. Therefore, any change made to field 041 would cause only small disruptions. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) agreed. She stated that the amount of records containing Type of record code "a" (Leader/06) in the WorldCat database shows that most records containing subfield $b are for language material. The ambiguity problems described in the paper arises with records coded Leader/06 code "g" (Projected medium).
Martha Yee (ALCTS, Chair) asked the group if it would support redefining field 041 subfield $b as "Language code of summary or abstract" and defining a new subfield for "Language code of subtitle or caption" since only a small number of records would be affected by a change to field 041. The group supported this suggestion.
A proposal will be written for the Midwinter 2007 meeting reflecting the above decisions made by the committee.
Proposal No. 2006-09: Lossless technique for conversion of Unicode to MARC-8
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the paper. Proposal No. 2006-09 proposes a lossless technique utilizing Numeric Character References (NCR) for converting unmappable characters when going from Unicode to MARC-8. This technique is intended to be an alternative to the lossy technique approved by Proposal No. 2006-04 in January, 2006. During the discussion of this earlier paper, the MARC Advisory Committee recommended that both a lossy and a lossless technique be officially adopted by the MARC community.
Gary Smith (OCLC) summarized the discussion held on the Unicode-MARC Forum about Proposal No. 2006-09. The List discussed four issues that should be addressed. These are:
John Attig (OLAC) asked the group whether these issues should be explicitly addressed in the documentation. Gary Smith (OCLC) answered yes, stating that doing so would make it easier to develop software that utilizes Unicode. The group agreed.
Marc Truitt (LITA) moved to accept the proposal with the editorial changes suggested by Gary Smith (OCLC). Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote of the committee was 6-0 in favor of the motion.
Program on MARC usage during the Annual 2007 ALA meeting
Dr. William E. Moen, Associate Professor at the University of North Texas, School of Library and Information Sciences, described the future program, "Informing the Future of MARC: An Empirical Approach." The proposed program will provide a venue for reporting the results of the "MARC Content Designation Project" and also provide an opportunity to discuss future directions for machine-readable catalog records using FRBR, RDA, and XML.
Although ALCTS will be the primary sponsor of the program, LITA and RUSA will also sponsor it. The proposed time for the program is 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM on June 23, 2007 in Washington, DC. Dr. Moen predicted that 100-150 people are likely to attend the program.
Participants of the meeting thought that the expected audience size should be increased because there is a great interest in the library community about how MARC will evolve in the future. One participant suggested that the program be dedicated to Henriette Avram. Ms. Avram worked on the development of the MARC formats in the 1960s and 1970s.
Dr. Moen described the progress of the "MARC Content Designation Project." Currently, the project's research group is doing an analysis of the use of data elements across the MARC formats. The group has also created a database of historical MARC information that should reveal to interested parties how MARC has evolved throughout the last forty years. Dr. Moen urged the participants to view the project website for more information. Please note that the project will end in August, 2006.
Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP08: Techniques for incorporation of former headings into MARC 21 authority records
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the paper. Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP08 discusses the incorporation of former heading information into MARC 21 authority records. This would facilitate the location of instances of the former headings in bibliographic records that may need to be corrected. The discussion paper was motivated by the Final Report of the Task Group on the Function of the Authority File [PDF Document; 323.97 KB] which was presented by the Standing Committee on Standards of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging.
Three possible solutions to incorporate former headings in authority records are discussed in Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP08. These are: (1) Definition of a new authority format note field; (2) Use of already defined authority format 4XX fields; (3) Definition of a new authority format field 885.
John Attig (OLAC) supported the 4XX (See from tracing) solution because it would promote machine processing of former heading data. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) replied, however, that there is currently no way to indicate to a system when "flipping" of the headings should occur when coding the 4XX fields.
Charles Husbands (Harvard University) agreed, stating that the 4XX solution of using a new code in subfield $w/0 is inadequate in cases when libraries do not want to "flip" the headings, but do want to maintain its content designation. George Prager (AALL) suggested that if the group chose to use the 4XX solution, indicators could signal when a heading should be "flipped." John Espley (AVIAC) also indicated that a system could warn users before automatically "flipping" a heading. Sherman Clarke (VRA) likewise suggested that the third position of subfield $w (Control subfield) (i.e., $w/2) in the 4XX fields could be used to provide the necessary information that the heading is a former one and is invalid, thus facilitating "flipping" the headings by machine. The group agreed with this suggestion.
Gene Dickerson (NLM) preferred the field 885 (Invalid heading field) solution because it promotes no ambiguity in the use of dates. Mr. Dickerson (NLM) also suggested that a subfield $y be added to the field for chronological data. John Attig (OLAC) however, stated that there would be major difficulties in trying to process data in subfield $b (Content of invalid field, starting with the indicator values and containing full content designation of the invalid field) of field 885. The group agreed.
Hugh Taylor (Cambridge University) asked about where the date of change would be coded if the group chose the 4XX solution. Sally McCallum (LC) reported that there are no subfields available in the 4XX fields for a date of change subfield. Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) suggested that the date of change be coded in an explanatory text subfield. Thus, Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that subfield $i (Reference instruction phrase) could hold date information. Hugh Taylor (Cambridge University) recommended to the group that structured, coded date information be used.
Sally McCallum (LC) also suggested that controlled text about the nature of the change could be coded in an explanatory text subfield of the 4XX fields. The group agreed with this suggestion.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that position 2 of subfield $w in the 4XX fields should hold the new code for "Invalid heading form." He felt that the coded sequence "nn[new code]" in subfield $w would make it easier for catalogers to view and use. The group agreed.
The Committee decided that a proposal should be written for the Midwinter 2007 meeting that presents the following changes to be made to the 4XX fields to incorporate former headings:
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Martha Yee (ALCTS), MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves.
Update on RDA: Resource Description and Access
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) reported on the progress of RDA (Resource Description and Access). The RDA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document has recently been updated. It is located online at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdafaq.html. New questions will be added to the FAQ in the upcoming months.
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) also reported that the RDA prospectus has been revised. It is located online at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdaprospectus.html. Likewise, a list of decisions made during the April 2006 Joint Advisory Committee (JSC) meeting is available online at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0604out.html.
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) reported that Part A: Chapters 6 and 7 of RDA has been made available for public review. Part A is located online at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-parta-ch6&7.pdf [PDF Document; 625.66 KB] . The deadline for submitting comments on it is September 1, 2006. The remaining draft chapters of RDA will be posted on the public website in the near future.
A mapping between RDA and MARC 21 will be created by the CCM (Canadian Committee on MARC) and the ACOC (Australian Committee on Cataloguing). Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) stated that some aspects of the development of RDA will have specific ramifications for the MARC 21 formats. Thus, the JSC may submit a discussion paper for the Midwinter 2007 MARBI meetings that will outline these issues. The mapping between MARC 21 and RDA will be included as an appendix to this paper.
A joint initiative between RDA and ONIX has been created. Its purpose is to "develop a framework for categorizing resources in all media that will support the needs of both libraries and the publishing industry. It will also facilitate the transfer and use of resource description data across the two communities" (www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdaonixann.html).
Martha Yee (ALCTS, Chair) asked Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) if the RDA/ONIX framework will include moving images. Likewise, Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked whether it will affect unpublished materials. Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) answered that the framework should cover all types of materials - both published and unpublished.
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) reported that the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals have created a prototype of how an online version of RDA may work. It is located online at: www.rdaonline.org. A printed version of RDA will also be developed.
Proposal No. 2006-08: Addition of subfield $r in field 865 to accommodate date of issuance for indexes in the MARC 21 holdings format
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper. Proposal No. 2006-08 proposes the addition of subfield $r in field 865 (Enumeration and chronology--indexes) of the MARC 21 holdings format for date of issuance for indexes.
Defining the date of issuance in field 865 was originally discussed in January 2006 to accommodate specific details of the ONIX for Serials (SRN) standard into the MARC 21 holdings format. During the discussion of Discussion Paper 2006-DP05, it was suggested to define subfield $r for either date of coverage or date of issuance in field 865 since there was a need to record both types of dates for indexes. At the time, only one type of date could be recorded in the field 865 chronology subfields $i-$m, however. The consensus of the discussion was that because most institutions currently record coverage date in the chronology subfields, defining a subfield for issuance date would provide more detail for indexes.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that the definition of the proposed subfield should be revised so that the condition: "when the date of coverage is recorded in subfields $i-$m" is deleted. He stated that the date of issuance belongs in the field regardless whether the index coverage dates are recorded in subfields $i-$m. The group agreed.
Because subfield $r is the last subfield code available in fields 853-855 (Captions and pattern) and 863-865 (Enumeration and chronology), defining subfield $r for issuance date may reduce coding options in the future when there is a need to define a subfield code for the same purpose in all six fields. Because of this, Everett Allgood (CC:DA) suggested that subfields $u or $v should be defined for issuance date. The group agreed.
Marc Truitt (LITA) motioned to approve the proposal by defining subfield $v for issuance date and striking the conditional language "when the date of coverage is recorded in subfields $i-$m" from its definition. Bruce Rennie (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote of the committee was 6-0 in favor of the motion.
Martha Yee (ALCTS, Chair) announced that the following members are stepping down from the committee because their tenure is up:
Martha Yee (ALCTS, Chair) thanked these members for their participation in MARBI.
Patricia French (LITA) and Stephanie Schmitt (LITA), who are currently interns, will become full members of the committee. A LITA member will take over the Chair position. The chosen person will be announced at a later date.
Library of Congress
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that all of the MARC 21 format documentation has been converted into XML. In the future, the Library of Congress hopes to generate all of its MARC 21 documentation utilizing it.
The Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) will not make Update No. 6 (2005) to the MARC 21 formats available in PDF for free download (www.loc.gov/cds/). Currently, this update is available in print form only. Update No. 7 (2006), however, will be made available in PDF by CDS.
The 2006 edition of the MARC Code List for Geographic Areas has been made available in print by CDS. It includes many new codes and updated place names. The 2006 edition is also available online at: www.loc.gov/marc/geoareas/.
MODS version 3.2 was made available in May 2006. It includes changes and revisions requested by the DLF Aquifer project.
A MODS Implementation Registry has been created. To add projects to the MODS registry, submit the requisite information directly to the Network Development and MARC Standards Office. Email address: [email protected].
The Library of Congress has prepared a proposal for the support of holdings information within a MODS record. It is intended to provide some basic holdings elements for interoperability, as well as providing extensibility of holdings information for more detailed information. The basic approach of this proposal is to incorporate holdings information into the MODS <location> element. The proposal is located online at: www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-holdings.html.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) updated the group on the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek and its partners' progress on their MAB to MARC migration efforts.
The group is currently working on how it will deal with multivolume works in the MARC 21 environment. It favors coding the 4XX (Series statement) and 8XX (Series added entry) fields for single volumes with strong titles and field 245 (Title statement) subfields $a (Title), $n (Number of part/section of a work) and $p (Name of part/section of a work) with field 773 (Host item entry) subfield $w (Record control number) for single volumes without strong titles. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek and its partners do not plan to use field 505 (Formatted content notes) for multivolume works.
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek and its partners plan to complete a detailed mapping from MAB to the MARC 21 bibliographic, authority, holdings, classification and community information formats. This mapping should uncover which MAB elements do not currently fit into the MARC 21 structure. Likewise, the group has finished working on mappings of the MARC-8 coded character sets. These mappings of coded character sets to MARC-8 are published online at: Moving to MARC, www.d-nb.de/eng/standardisierung/formate/marc21.htm. The group will also translate the MARC 21 Concise Formats into an official German version of MARC 21 that includes locally defined data elements.
Sally McCallum (LC) will visit the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek in September to provide assistance with its conversion activities. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek and its partners plan to present a discussion paper at the Midwinter 2007 MARBI meetings that will outline the changes to the formats that they feel are needed for their bibliographic efforts.
Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP04: Data elements needed to ascertain copyright facts
Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) introduced the paper. Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP04 analyzes the information that would be needed in a MARC 21 record to help assess the copyright status of a resource. This information would assist users in making reasonable judgments about what uses are allowed of resources. This knowledge is particularly important in the digital world where resources are accessed outside the context of the originating archive.
The California Digital Library developed a framework for recording copyright information for digital resources. It came up with key data elements to support a copyright assessment. These are:
Most of these data elements have some overlap with the descriptive metadata elements contained in the current MARC 21 bibliographic format, although subtle differences exist in how the data elements are used and under what circumstances.
According to Karen Coyle (Independent consultant), there are at least two possible options for incorporating copyright data into the MARC 21 bibliographic record. The first is to use current MARC 21 fields where possible, and to record the remaining data elements in field 540 (Immediate source of acquisition note). The second option is to create a new field (or new subfields in an existing field) that would bring together the copyright-related data elements.
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that a MARC record may not be the correct medium on which to record copyright information. He suggested that recording copyright data in an XML metadata repository may be more appropriate. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) reported that the California Digital Library has developed a XML schema for copyright data. Likewise, information about its CopyrightMD project is also available. These resources are online at: www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/rights/schema/.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked if libraries currently store copyright information in local databases. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) reported that most libraries do not maintain copyright databases. Bonnie Dede (SAC) replied that doing so would result in a duplication of effort between institutions. Thus, there should be a common place, such as the MARC record, to record copyright data so that institutions can share this information. The group agreed.
Corine Deliot (BL) reported that the information in the discussion paper reflects U.S. copyright law. She wondered if a single MARC field would be sufficiently extensible to accommodate the range of different national copyright requirements. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) replied that subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) indicates which organization originated the data in the field. The data in subfield $5 would thus assist users in knowing to what copyright law the information pertains. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) also stated that some of the proposed data elements are not country-specific.
Corine Deliot (BL) wondered how institutions will keep copyright information (for example, contact information, death dates, etc.) reliable and up-to-date in MARC records. The maintenance of this information may be too much for institutions to handle. Kris Kiesling (SAA) agreed, stating that over time, copyright data may become obsolete and thus, no longer useful to users. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) disagreed, replying that out-of-date copyright data may act like "bread crumbs" that will help users find later copyright information. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that because the recorded copyright data would be valid for a particular time, there should be a way to record the date of validity in the MARC record. The group agreed.
The group generally supported adding copyright data in the MARC 21 authority and holdings records. Gene Dickerson (NLM) also suggested that a broader set of examples should be included in future discussion papers on this issue.
Martha Yee (Chair, ALCTS) took a straw poll of the group to ascertain whether a new discussion paper should be written that outlines the following issues:
The group decided that a new discussion paper should include pros and cons about whether the MARC record is appropriate for this information.
Discussion Paper 2006-DP07: Recording set information for multipart cartographic materials
Seanna Tsung (LC) introduced the paper. Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP07 explores multipart cartographic materials. It identifies relevant item specific information to record, and proposes several possible ways of recording multipart cartographic data using MARC 21 bibliographic and/or holdings records.
According to Seanna Tsung (LC), in addition to atlases and single sheet maps, most cartographic collections include a category of multipart items traditionally stored together and controlled by one catalog record. The two main categories are: 1) the multi-sheet single, a map printed on a number of sheets, usually published simultaneously, and intended to be thought of as a single map; 2) the map series or set, also printed on a number of sheets, often issued over time with no predictable seriality, with repeated and connective information on each sheet which enables the sheets to be used singly or in conjunction with all or part of the remaining sheets. Some map sets include thousands of sheets. Each sheet contains unique sheet level data elements.
The paper identifies several alternatives for recording map set data elements using the MARC 21 formats. These are:
The discussion paper also identifies a number of possible sheet level data elements that should be accommodated by or at least considered in the development of any individual sheet map data standard.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that coding field 505 (Formatted contents note), along with field 774 (Constituent unit entry) could be one method of cataloging cartographic sets using bibliographic records. Seanna Tsung (LC) replied that this alternative would be useful when cataloging small collections. Paige Andrew (Pennsylvania State University) suggested that an institution could create 20 to 30 505 fields for smaller sets and digital index maps for larger sets. The biggest problem is the quantity of material.
Betsy Mangin (LC-Retired) stated that multilevel cataloging is needed to describe cartographic sets. Holdings records may thus be more appropriate to use than bibliographic records. Betsy Eggleston (Harvard University) stated that if holdings records are used to describe cartographic sets, the MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data would need to be updated to accommodate such material. For example, holdings records currently describe bibliographic items that grow chronologically, not geographically.
If holdings records are used, Rebecca Guenther (LC) reported that many of the required data elements can be accommodated by using a combination of holdings fields 844 (Name of unit), 853 (Captions and Pattern - Basic bibliographic unit), and 863 (Enumeration and chronology - Basic bibliographic unit). Some of the nonserial data elements in the MARC 21 holdings format may also be appropriate for this data. For example, field 034 (Coded cartographic mathematical data) could be added to the holdings format to facilitate the use of MARC holdings records for cartographic materials since coordinates will be needed at the sheet map level. Ms. Guenther (LC) also stated that according to the MARC 21 holdings format standard, coding field 844 and possibly 034 will require a separate holdings record to be made for each sheet map to link multiple 844 fields to the appropriate 85X/86X pair. Since field 844 subfield $a (Name of Unit) is not repeatable, it would be useful to be able to repeat the subfield in cases where there are parallel or other variant titles.
Seanna Tsung (LC) suggested that because there should not be a duplication of effort in cataloging cartographic sets, a database or other repository could be set up to allow institutions to share set information. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) reminded the group that at the current moment not many institutions share holdings records.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) stated that cataloging cartographic set information is similar to cataloging parts of artists' sketchbooks. Likewise, Everett Allgood (CC:DA) stated that cataloging multipart cartographic materials parallels cataloging monographic series (and serials where the occasional issue bears a distinctive title). Martha Yee (ALCTS, Chair) also replied that individual items in moving image archives could be recorded using holdings records. Likewise, Matthew Wise (New York University) stated that collective musical sets could also be cataloged using holdings records.
Martha Yee (ALCTS, Chair) suggested that a future discussion paper should explore other types of materials (for example, archival moving image materials, graphic and still image materials, etc.) to ascertain whether they, like cartographic materials, require more descriptive detail to be added to the MARC holdings record. The participants also felt that field 034 would need to be added to the holdings format for cartographic sets if following the holdings record approach.
Proposal 2006-06: Definition of field 034 for geographic coordinates in the MARC 21 Authority Format
Jimmie Lundgren (University of Florida) introduced the paper. Proposal No. 2006-06 proposes the addition of field 034 (Coded cartographic mathematical data) to authority records for geographic coordinates associated with places. Field 034 in authority records will eventually form the basis for coordinates-based retrieval of all cataloged records containing those geographic terms.
The proposal stems from Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP01. During the discussion of this earlier paper, participants agreed that field 034 in authority records should contain the following features:
John Attig (OLAC) stated that many of the proposed subfields in field 034 of the authority format may also be applicable to field 034 of the bibliographic format. For example, Mary Larsgaard (University of California, Santa Barbara) declared that date information would be useful to code in bibliographic 034 fields. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that subfield codes $r (Distance from earth), $x (Beginning date), $y (Ending date), $z (Name of extraterrestrial body) and $2 (Source) should be added to field 034 of the bibliographic format. The group agreed.
Corine Deliot (BL) suggested that decimal-based coordinates should be supported in field 034 of authority records. This type of coordinate is already coded in the bibliographic 034 field. For example, the MARC 21 bibliographic format states:
"The coordinates may be recorded in the form hdddmmss (hemisphere-degrees-minutes-seconds), however, other forms are also allowed, such as decimal degrees."
The group agreed that decimal-based coordinates should be supported in field 034 of authority records.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal with the following changes: Subfield codes $r (Distance from earth), $x (Beginning date), $y (Ending date), $z (Name of extraterrestrial body) and $2 (Source) will also be added to field 034 in the bibliographic format. Marc Truitt (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote of the committee was 6-0 in favor of the motion.
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
MARC 21 HOME >> MARBI
|The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
( 06/13/2017 )
|Legal | External Link Disclaimer