Matthew Wise, Chair ALCTS New York University Denise Bennett RUSA Florida Marston Science Library Eric Delozier LITA Penn State Harrisburg, Library Edward Kownslar RUSA Mary and Jeff Bell Library Nathan Robertson LITA University of Maryland, Baltimore Vicki Sipe ALCTS University of Maryland, Baltimore Gary Strawn ALCTS Northwestern University Sheila Yeh, Intern ALCTS University of Colorado, Denver
Corine Deliot British Library Sally H. McCallum Library of Congress Margaret Stewart Library and Archives Canada
Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Bruce Evans MLA Baylor University Libraries Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Rich Greene OCLC OCLC Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Robert Hall, Jr. PLA Concord Free Public Library Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa John Myers CC:DA Union College Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Morgan Library and Museum Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine George Prager AALL New York University, Law School Library Tina Shrader NAL National Agricultural Library
Sheila Yeh ALCTS University of Colorado, Denver
Jean Altschuler Arnold & Porter, LLP Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works John Attig Penn State University Renette Davis Retired/Consultant (prev. University of Chicago) Ann Fath Getty Research Institute Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Harry Gaylord Bound To Stay Bound Books Brian Geiger UC Riverside/ESTC Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Mar Hernández Biblioteca Nacional de España Beth Iseminger Harvard University William W. Jones New York University Branko Kurnjek IZUM, Slovenia Christer Larsson National Library of Sweden Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada John Maier Pratt Institute Joan Mitchell OCLC Adrian Nolte Public Library, Essen, Germany Michael Panzer OCLC Lori Robare University of Oregon Nancy Sack University of Hawaii Adam Schiff University of Washington Theresa Sidwell Perma-Bound Books Melissa Ulbrich Perma-Bound Books Hermine Vermeij UCLA Ken Wade UCLA Jay Weitz OCLC Raegan Weichert Missouri State University David Williamson Library of Congress Elaine Winske Florida International University Kathy Winzer Stanford Law Library Jia Xu University of Iowa Martha Yee UCLA Film and Television Archive Janis Young Library of Congress John Zagas Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) opened the meeting by asking Committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves. A Committee roster was passed around the table; and all were asked to “check in” and to annotate their entries with any corrections.
The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the ALA Midwinter 2011 meeting in San Diego, CA. The committe acknowledged receiving some minor corrections to the minutes submitted by George Prager (AALL) and Sherman Clarke (VRA). Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the minutes; Erik Delozier (LITA) seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
The proposal was presented by Michael Panzer (OCLC). The Dewey Editorial Team proposed defining two geographically related fields in the MARC 21 classification format--fields 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) and 043 (Geographic Area Code)--in exactly the same way as they are defined in the authority format. Panzer briefly described the benefits of establishing these new fields using the examples in the proposal. Both fields would be useful in providing access to classification records, either by searching for a location specified by using the data in 034, or for a location specified by geographic areas using the data in 043. Field 034 would also be beneficial for enabling cartographic representations of classification numbers and could specify a boundary in order to give people an idea of what the geospatial extent of a given class is. The data could be used for visualization and browsing purposes, and, as an alternative, for the display of geospatial relationships.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal; Nathan Robertson (LITA) seconded. But, John Myers (CC:DA) noted the redundancies and increasing ponderousness of having to encode this kind of data in multiple places--first the bibliographic, then the authority, and now the classification formats--as opposed to adopting the solution of recording the data in one place and having it be pointed to/from various indexes. Rebecca Guenther (LC) said the classification format is more of a standalone system--unlike the interaction of data between the holdings and bibliographic or authority and bibliographic formats--but we make the data available in a number of formats and it is up to the implementer which one they want to use. John Attig (Penn State) stated the reason for repeated data reporting is that there are different standards for recording the information; they are structured differently, they serve different purposes, and different communities use them for different reasons.
Michael Panzer (OCLC) stressed the intention is to give this kind of data a place in the classification format, but how these fields are populated is a secondary concern. He was sympathetic to the fact that the data needs to be maintained in multiple places and thought it reasonable to maintain the data on a different level. For example, we could establish the field 75x for the data which can be used automatically to populate 034 and 043 in the classification format. Panzer pointed out that MARC is our base format - if we want to establish links to geoname for RDF representation, we should keep that information in the base format rather than in RDF only.
Sally McCallum (LC) suggested adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to link to the geoname on the one hand and to id.loc.gov on the other. Michael Panzer (OCLC) liked the idea very much.
Nathan Robertson (LITA) made an amended motion to add subfield $0 to fields 034 and 043 in all formats. The motion was unanimously approved.
The proposal was presented by Joan Mitchell (OCLC). It addresses the addition of the first indicator value 7 in DDC number fields in the bibliographic, authority, and community information formats. In the classification format, there are three types of first indicator: 0-full, 1-abridged, and 8-other. Unfortunately, in the DDC number format, there are only two types: 0-full and 2-abridged. This issue was raised by BIBSYS in Norway when they were looking at converting Norwegian data to the MARC 21 format and loading that data into WorldCat. BIBSYS has a classification in Norway with a different nomenclature and basis which does not count as an abridged edition. This paper also proposed to adjust the wording of the first indicator to accommodate the addition.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked whether the indicator 0 for “full edition” should be worded as the indicator for “full American edition.” Joan Mitchell (OCLC) replied: “no” and said that it would be defined in subfield $2 (Edition number) instead.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal; Nathan Robertson (LITA) seconded. The proposal was unanimously approved.
The proposal was presented by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). He described four parts to the proposal: Dewey based classification schema as used in the German National Library and the German Union Catalog Serials, data and databases, rules and instructions, and institutes and cooperative programs. The German Union Catalogue of Serials is a cooperative program done by many libraries in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. They have used the ZDB-System with the code “zdbs” in the field 084, $2. There is also the Dewey Based classification used in the German National Library since 2004. With the merger of the serials database and German Library databases, the records now contain core information and different classification schemes. Since 2010, the approach was to unify the two classification schemes and map them from the ZDB to the Dewey based system by machines. However, because of the different agency rules, there are distinctions in classification numbers assigned from the exact same Dewey based classification scheme. The proposal is therefore to add subfield $q to 084 which could be used to record different agencies from the MARC Code List for Organizations.
Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) asked whether there is a need for a $q in the last 084 field in Example 2 in the proposal. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) indicated that “sswd” is a different classification scheme so the example does not need a $q.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal as is written; Nathan Robertson (LITA) seconded. The proposal was approved unanimously.
The proposal was presented by Rebecca Guenther (LC). The proposal was presented as a discussion paper at the Midwinter meeting this January. The RDA/MARC working group discussed it in great length and proposed two options. Option 1 is to define a new field 264 for all of these functions with the indicator values 0 for production, 1 for publication, 2 for distribution, and 3 for manufacturer. This option could save fields. Option 2 is to define separate fields: 264 for production, 266 for publication, 267 for distribution, and 268 for manufacturer. Both of these options involve leaving field 260 as is. This paper also discusses how these changes might affect field 008. The RDA/MARC working group felt that we needed to simplify field 008 because the coding is for a structured date and a key date. If the granular date is needed, we would be able to tell from all the new fields that are added in. Additionally, manufacturer was added to the table of precedence.
Nathan Robertson (LITA) suggested defining the second indicator (previously undefined) in field 260 to carry the statements for production, publication, distribution and manufacturer. John Attig (Penn State) confirmed that there was an obsolete definition for the second indicator.
Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) wondered about the implication to the systems. She said the imprint field is fairly important to some libraries for indexing and to display in a brief title list, and usually there is a single field to be chosen for display. O’Keefe thought it would be more desirable to use a single new field and indicator so that the display choice could be as either the new way from field 264, or the old way from field 260. Rich Greene (OCLC) agreed that we do have to make choices for indexing, record matching, and displaying, but was not sure if it mattered which option was chosen because you still have to make the choice based on the value of the indicator. Nathan Robertson (LITA) suggested putting all in field 260, and then we would not have to make the choice for display purposes.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) and Vicki Sipe (University of Maryland) reminded the group that a considerable amount of time was spent at the Midwinter meeting discussing the very use of field 260. The consensus was that we needed to move out of the legacy field 260.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) pointed out that we already have this choice dilemma with the multiple field 260s in display and the indicator for publisher, previous publisher, and earliest publisher. Sherman Clarke (VRA) also pointed out that field 260 will be used on a continuing basis for the situations of ambiguity, the “don’t wish to say” cases, and the ‘rare book’ examples the minutes referred to.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) indicated that there is a slight preference in the AV community to use a single option field with an indicator because it might be easier for the catalogers to remember and implement. John Attig (Penn State) said that The Canadian Committee and the British Group favor option 1 while the National Library of Australia favors option 2.
A straw poll was conducted with results of: 27 votes for option 1 and three votes for option 2. Since one of the implications of option 2 is that the copyright information will not fit into the 26x block, it made sense for the group to dicuss the next proposal--Proposal No. 2011-03: Encoding Date of Copyright Notice--before finalizing this proposal, No. 2011-02.
The proposal was presented by Rebecca Guenther (LC). From previous discussion, it was decided to put copyright information on a separate field. This proposal provides three options: Option 1 is to define two subfields for the two different types of copyright dates; option 2 is to define two indicator values for the two different types of copyright dates, and option 3 is to define a single subfield $a for all the copyright information without distinguishing copyright and phonogram dates. The RDA/MARC working group also considered whether to generate the symbols or not, as well as other RDA rules to set these options as the best.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) suggested using $c and avoiding $a.
John Myers (CC:DA) reflected on the discussion in Midwinter about recording the date in the Arabic format versus the format presented on the piece which may not be in the Arabic format. RDA tells us to record the copyright and phonogram aspects; therefore if we explore option 1, it means that the aspect is not recorded but carried by the subfield. Myers wondered whether we could go a step further by saying that RDA gives us the option, but the date needs to be in the Arabic format so that it can be machine processed.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded to Gary Strawn's (ALCTS) suggestion of $c and suggested using $c for copyright and $p for phonogram because the consistency would be easier for catalogers to remember. Schiff specified that from RDA’s perspective, this field is for recording data taken from resources but not for indexing purposes. John Attig (Penn State) indicated that option 1 could be interpreted as a different way of supporting RDA’s instructions. Attig agreed with Schiff that RDA expects this data element be recorded as strings for now, but someday we may want to treat it differently.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) asked how easy it is to supply this data element with either a subfield or an indicator from the systems perspective. Glennan indicated that RDA at least expects a copyright or phonogram symbol be displayed with this date. Corine Deliot (BL) said that their system cannot generate the phonogram symbol from the indicator method and wondered if this would be an issue with other systems.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) emphasized from the cataloger’s point of view that it would be simpler to do what RDA tells us to do rather than code it in other ways. John Myers (CC:DA) offered a suggestion to trend away from using $a for recording the actual date and instead to define $a to hold the copyright and phonogram symbols which at some point can be converted to identity. In the meantime, we could record the date in $c. Corine Deliot (BL) agreed. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested using $i to hold the symbols instead.
Debrorah Fritz (TMQ, Inc.) also agreed to using $i so that it makes the date field cleaner. Fritz supported John Myer’s suggestion of having a clean copyright date that is always there, but not sometimes there in the 008-2 field. She believed that this would be the perfect opportunity to add another subfield for a clean Arabic date for finding purposes. Option 3 was Fritz’s preference.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked about the rationale for RDA and AACR to instruct catalogers to record only one date if both copyright and phonogram dates exist. She also wondered what the circumstances would be if the cataloger wants to record both. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) believed that the rationale is largely for publications with the copyright date standing in for the publication date. Most sound recordings have only the phonogram date; cataloging tradition for these publications has been using the phonogram date and not trying to supply any other publication date. With RDA, we are trying to make a distinction of how to code copyright and phonogram dates. For sound recordings, phonogram date is the most important date; with AACR2, if there is a copyright date for the text later than the recorded sound as an implied publication date, the cataloger puts it in as a bracketed date. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) added that there is another use of copyright date for sound recordings. The date often is the copyright of the music that has been recorded. For example, the music having the copyright of 1953 contains a phonogram date of 2010 (the date of recording).
Sally McCallum (LC) wondered about the convention for choosing only one copyright/phonogram date if multiple dates are provided. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) cited the current RDA instruction included in the proposal: "If the resource has multiple copyright dates that apply to various aspects (e.g., text, sound, graphics), record only the latest copyright date." The convention applies to either of those kinds of dates -- it does not specify to record the latest copyright date and phonogram date. Glennan said that while these are distinctive terms relating to copyright of different kinds of material, she thought that, collectively, phonogram dates are considered to be copyright dates of a particular kind, or are subsets of copyright dates.
John Attig (Penn State) asked whether it is worth considering the Canadian Committee on MARC’s different way of looking at this – they pointed out that the copyright date in RDA is part of the order of precedence for what date to report. If option 1 is chosen, they suggested putting copyright date as a separate subfield, giving it an indicator value, and sequencing the indicator value so it replicates the order of precedence. Attig asked if using the order of precedence would be useful in the system. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that we could consider the Canadians' suggestion within this whole package. John Attig (Penn State) added that this would be difficult to do in option 2 however.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) wondered if it required repeating the 264 field a lot if we had $a, $b, $c, and had the copyright date and the publication date as in the Canadians' suggestion. Guenther asked if we wanted to separate the dates. John Attig (Penn State) did not think that the Canadians' comments addressed this issue. He assumed the suggestion was to keep multiple 260s in the correct order rather than trying to put different things into field 264. The correct order is publication, distribution, copyright and manufacture. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said that he understood why it suggested putting copyright after distribution and before manufacture, but there is nothing in RDA saying that you cannot record manufacture information if you have and want to record it. John Attig (Penn State University) doubted that there are many systems that keep sequence based on indicator value rather than on input order; this suggested that we were not gaining much with the Canadians' option.
John Myers (CC:DA) asked if there was any merit to his proposal of adding $i to specify the type of copyright notice date and $c for the date. Myers also believed that the employment of $i better fostered the use of the identifier. Corine Deliot (BL) proposed utilizing two symbols--for example: a $i and a $c would signify a copyright date; and a $i and a $p would signify phonogram date. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) proposed adding $d and/or $e to hold the copyright date and publication date in 264.
John Attig (Penn State) emphasized that we do not want to rely on the content of $i to determine which type of date we have, but Sally McCallum (LC) thought that Deliot’s suggestion of using $i was because their system does not generate symbols.
Nathan Robertson (LITA) pointed out that, oftentimes, we do not care whether it is a copyright date or a phonogram date; therefore having a single field where we could always find a date in $c is more valuable. If we do care, we could then look at $i to find out whether it is a copyright or a phonogram date.
John Myers (CC:DA) asked John Espley (VTLS) for input from a system’s perspective. John Espley said that it really did not matter. Whatever we decided on, the system would come up with a way to accommodate it. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) commented that maybe the determining factor should be more subjective as to consider how catalogers prefer using these fields.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed option 3 as the simplest because it transcribes information and provides enough granularities. Heuvelmann thought that both options 1 and 2 were too granular.
John Attig (Penn State) asked whether we should distinguish these two types of copyright date based on the coding or the text. But Corine Deliot (BL) said the decision was whether we wanted to have a clean date or not. John Myers (CC:DA) reflected and pointed out that this is just a recording function. Therefore John Attig (Penn State) suggested using option 3 with $c for the date and adding $i to accompany the date with the symbol or word.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) clarified and indicated that part of the problem in discussing this is because in RDA, this is a string but not data. On the other hand, there is an interest in the room to know whether we want this string to be actionable data or not. The question is – beyond what RDA requires, do we need to propose an additional optional subfield for an actionable copyright with an actual date? Adam Schiff (University of Washington) and Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) both agreed with Kathy Glennan and suggested recording the string that RDA requires and creating another subfield for the date that machines can act on.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) proposed another option to define option 3 as a string, and use it in field 008 to record the copyright date as a clean date. The reaction was that it is not always clean and there is the order of preference involved. Guenther indicated that it may not be necessary to record the date in two different forms because there are stylesheets available to take out the structure date or remove a string easily.
Sally McCallum (LC) thought that if we have a new subfield, we could tell the catalogers to convert the date, so that we could have a uniform date formatted according to the ISO-8601 standard.
Several members agreed with the need of an actionable date, but tabled the decision until the next day, Sunday June 27, 2011.
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the report. This brief report summarizes the RDA/MARC working group’s discussion of Identifying Entity Types in MARC Records (points that were addressed in MARBI's discussion of 2011-DP03). The group cannot come to a conclusion and make a proposal. One idea is to have a strict rule that only the elements allowed for that entity type specified in 883 could be in the record and people can use it to validate the item record. However, there is some fuzziness about exactly what elements go into an entity type at this point in time. Also, we could not use this technique for an authority record for work or expression because it is supposed to have the subjects in there. The other idea is to have a loose entity type definition - tag it to the heading of the record. But, we could not do the validation that some want to do and it is not clear what advantage this option offers.
The group proposed more experimentation and discussion. The group also recognized that perhaps we could simply utilize a local solution. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) informed the members that they did not need to take any formal action on this report. Wise thanked the RDA/MARC Working Group for producing this report.
Sally McCallum (LC) said that LC is not going to print as many format documents as formerly, but will use the Web for documentation. A message was sent out to the community in the spring asking for their opinions on the need for print versions; the response was overwhelmingly agreeable on not using ‘print’. But there was a comment asking for being able to print gracefully from the Web. LC has made that accommodation for Web printing. Update 12 is now printable from the Web.
After ALA, LC is going to Web publish update 13 including changes resulting from January and June’s meetings. LC will continue to print the concise version, but include only the Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings formats. The code lists will not be printed since they are available on the Web and through the id.loc.gov service, the latter being a much richer form for accessing the code lists. LC is moving the platform for id.gov.loc this month, but the move will be transparent to outside users. The platform change will enable LC to add names, more interlinkings, and more downloading.
LC has launched the Bibliographic Transition Framework Initiative (www.loc.gov/marc/transition) and encouraged people to join on the listserv firstname.lastname@example.org. This is seen as a long process over several years and LC expected that people can work with both a MARC environment and an alternative one, with both being shifted or introduced gradually.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) provided definitions of both the MARBI and MARC Advisory Committees as well as the responsibilities of the members. The MARC Advisory Committee members have been serving the Library of Congress which has been mainly concerned with the MARC format. As we move forward, the Advisory Committee should continue to be interested primarily in the MARC format and the transition of MARC format to the ‘next thing’ (i.e. the linked data mechanism that will be devoloped in the future that has not been identified yet).
The group of 9 members appointed by ALA is called MARBI. As representatives of ALA, MARBI Committee members are charged with having a broader interest in machine readable information. Therefore, MARBI members are also charged with being conscious about the ‘next thing’. Mathew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) indicated that despite the communities represented on this table, once the ‘next thing’ comes along, we would need to get advice and expertise from people who aren’t around this table. Wise suggested having a focused discussion and finding out what kind of meeting requirements would be needed in Dallas in January, 2012. He asked for the committee members’ input.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said that we have lots of questions but no answers. Plantz encouraged us to position ourselves where we could be useful rather than waiting for the ‘next thing.’ John Myers (CC:DA) suggested that we accommodate agenda items that are outside of strictly MARC format. He viewed things as changing and implied that there is an elephant in the room. He suggested discussing things that are non-MARC.
Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) said that ALCTS had just completed a year of research in cataloging. She suggested using some MARBI time to sponsor and encourage presentations and papers, or look for trainers. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) suggested having the program on Saturday or Sunday and pushing the business to Monday instead because most people leave on Monday.
Tina Shrader (NAL) believed that the elephant in the room is the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative announcement. She thought working closely with the Bibliographic Framework Transition group at LC is what we have to do and where we should start.
John Myers (CC:DA) saw this as an opportunity to solicit white papers on particular ideas, presentations such as the semantic web presentations with respect to the basic knowledge. Myers said he was aware that MARC of Quality had developed a potential mechanism for having a labeled template that is structured according to RDA. The template can translate input data to a MARC schema or the successor of the MARC schema. In that respect, a cataloger would be cataloging according to the content and would refer to things as “title proper” rather than “245 $a”, as an example. Myers said that we have seen over the last half decade the problems that result when people confuse a communication vehicle with a content vehicle.
John Attig (Penn State) reminded the group that some of the building blocks already exist, such as RDF expressions of functional requirements. He suggested looking at these pieces now.
Nathan Robertson (LITA) commented that we, catalogers and system people, are attracted to granular data and envisioned ways this field could be used. But in this case, no one has asked for the granularity; the cataloging rules asked for a single statement to record the copyright date. Robertson suggested choosing option 3, the simplest way to record the data, for now. Option 3 could let us accommodate the future allocation of $i, $c for a standardized date, and other subfields when someone else asks for the granularity. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) agreed with Robertson’s suggestion about using a single subfield for all kinds of copyright date and nothing else at this point. John Attig (Penn State) seconded the plan and said that RDA’s instruction for copyright date recognizes the two types of copyright date, but does not distinguish their differences. Attig stated that RDA is not a justification for making a distinction; therefore, if we do not have any better reason, there is no reason to do it.
John Myers (CC:DA) indicated that he had an option to speak to the Linked Data Interest Group, asking them about the parsing of these particular pieces data into semantic elements. The group thought that the subfield approach would be the best despite the difficulty and possibility of non-normalized data. But Myers agreed with the plan to keep it simple with option 3 using subfield $a, but retain subfields $c and $i for future expansion.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) preferred $c to keep it in parallel with decision to be made in Proposal 2011-02. Strawn suggested that we come up with a generic statement of principal and take it back to Proposal 2011-02 and fit it in.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) made a suggestion: Option1, field 264, first indicator as defined, second indicator also has value 4 with a copyright scope note indicating that this could be either with a ‘c’ symbol or a ‘p’ symbol. And, the addition of $4 for the ISO normalized form of copyright date.
John Attig (Penn State) suggested putting an indicator value in the order of the precedence in the RDA rules if taking this approach: indicator 3 would be for copyright and 4 would be for manufacture. The copyright date would go to each instance of the field.
John Myer (CC:DA) indicated the hazard of inputting the ISO form of the date to make it actionable. He believed that we would lose the ability to specify what the nature of the date was and thought that the ISO Form date does not need to be entered into the discussion. John Attig (Penn State) and Nathan Robertson (LITA) both agreed.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked and received confirmation that, with this suggestion, copyright date would always have its own field and own subfield alone.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) commented that neither AACR2 nor RDA has a place for us to record the place of copyright holder; however, during the RDA test period, people asked for a place to record it. She indicated that when using copyright with an indicator, we need to present a very careful scope note. As to the actionable date, Glennan suggested having a different proposal and also looking at field 046 for specifics.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) made the motion to propose for new field 264, first indicator as defined, second indicator having a value for copyright.
Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The proposal was unanimously approved and the decision tied into the approval of Proposal 2011-03 as well.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) then opened the discussion of 008:
Margaret Stewart (LAC) relayed the comment from the Canadian Committee on MARC that code t should only be used when publication date and copyright date are different. Rebecca Guenther (LC) agreed that that was the major question and stated that the examples in the proposal were written to include the date, whether or not publication date and copyright date are different.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked Sally McCallum (LC) and Rebecca Guenther (LC) to take LAC’s comment into consideration and make editorial changes to the documentation where appropriate.
Debra Fritz (TMQ) was concerned that if the copyright date is the same as the date recorded in 008/07-10, then the copyright date is not recorded in 008/11-14. In this case, the copyright date is not recorded anywhere as an actionable date. John Attig (Penn State) replied that this gets back to the same question which has come up many times: what do we want to do with the date code in field 008? Attig thought that we primarily want to grab a date; if there is a meaningful date, it is in date 1. If there are two dates, we want to know from the code that precedes it how to interpret the second date. Beyond that, the 008 field is not well designed for other things.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) concluded that there was no more action to take at this time for the Committee members.
The proposal was presented by Rebecca Guenther (LC). This has been in the format since one of the earlier RDA proposals where field 377 was defined only for language of the person and corporate body. During discussion of 2011-DP02 in Midwinter, preference was made known for using field 377 rather than 041 in the authority format. Field 377 is also needed in the bibliographic format because some people might use bibliographic records for expressions. This proposal suggested broadening the definition of 377 to include both the language of family as well as the language of expression. Right now, there is only subfield $a for the language code, but there have been requests to add subfield $b for the language term.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said that they wanted both code and term but suggested having persistent subfields if possible, so that it is easier for people to remember. John Myers (CC:DA) agreed but pointed out that we are restrained by the defined field 377 in this case, but believed that we can do better in the future.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) suggested using subfield $l instead of $b, the same way as $l is used in field 240. Sally McCallum (LC) confirmed that if it is a bucket language, we would use the real language in $l.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) asked if it would be a problem in the case where the term we want to use is not a valid term. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that we could use ISO 639-3 for that, theoretically. Steven Hearn (SAC) then asked, if we wanted to validate the term against some other list, how we would do so with $2? Rebecca Guenther (LC) thought that we should make $2 apply to the code as the way it is written because introducing the term is optional. If we want to put in the source and the code, and if the source is different, we have to repeat the field.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) said that in the repeated situation, clearly there will be a $l without $a if we want to give sources for both. He wondered if we could anticipate the use being available if someone only wanted to use terms. Sally McCallum (LC) replied: “yes.”
John Attig (Penn State) commented that because there will be inevitable cases where we have to record multiple languages, it would be best to keep each instance of the field simple so that it canbe repeated to express multiple languages.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) made a motion to take option 2 – Associated Language, but change subfield $b to $l. Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked for more examples for multiple languages so that people can see how it is used.
The proposal was presented by Margaret Stewart (LAC). This proposal is to broaden field 373 which was defined in the authority format in 2009 to accommodate the RDA data element ‘affiliation.’ At the MARBI meeting in January 2011, MARBI agreed that field 373 should be broadened to include the RDA element ‘associated institutions.’ This proposal suggested extending the definition of the field to include both the affiliation and the associated institutions as well as changing the name of the field and subfield $a to associated institution. Comments on the MARC List expressed concerns about the name of the field and subfield $a, because it excludes other corporate bodies and non-corporate body groups. MARBI would want to consider those comments.
John Attig (Penn State) mentioned that CC:DA considered a proposal to revise RDA to break up the affiliation element into three sub-elements: (1) affiliated body, (2) position within the affiliated body (relationship to entity), and (3) date of the affiliation. If CC:DA’s proposal goes forward, affiliation will include information that is not directly about the body, certainly not the name of the corporate body. He did not know what the impact would be. Sally McCallum (LC) thought that if the proposal is approved, we would define subfield $b for the related corporate body. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) reconfirmed that we have used subfields for those types of relationships before.
Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) wondered about the occasion when a corporate body is associated with a work in the heading. For example, an issuing body with the title of a non-distinctive bulletin and the name of the issuing body becomes part of the heading. When using the name of the owning museum or repository to break a conflict with the type of the artwork, O’Keefe wondered if it would be legitimate to use this field for the example case. Sally McCallum (LC) thought that there is already a place to record the owning body. But Sherman Clarke (VRA) indicated that there is not a coded place; it is just part of the heading.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said that during the RDA test, it involved hierarchical body in field 510 and making links between the authorities. Plantz noted that there is a need to consider the institutions that are associated with each other in addition to simply people associated with the institution.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) wondered if it would be redundant to use both 510 and 373. Plantz said that it was not clear during the testing and she was aware of the impact but was not sure whether it is a RDA issue or not. John Attig (Penn State) clarified that it is the issue in the Functional Requirement for Authority Data model where they have chosen to treat certain relationships as an attribute, and the affiliation is one of them. That is why we are using a different field and simply not assuming to use the ‘see also’ technique.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) said that with GND common authority file, they use the field 510 approach for all records and the relationships.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) reminded the group that the task for the proposal is to reword the definition.
John Attig (Penn State) said that the key issue from the MARC List was the concerns for the groups that are not formally corporate. It is important to make sure that those groups are legitimately included. He suggested changing the definition to be “association, institution, etc.” and the language of the description should use the word “group” with an example of a non-corporate group. Sally McCallum (LC) therefore asked for agreement to change the name to “associated group”, then in the definition, to list various kinds of examples given on the listserv. John Attig (Penn State) agreed.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) thus proposed changing the name of field 373 from “Affiliation” to “Associated Group” and let LC complete the rest.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) reminded that “family” would have to be excluded because family has a separate field.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) concluded that the proposed changes be used to update the documentation. Sally McCallum (LC) expressed appreciation for all the useful discussion.
The proposal was presented by John Myers (CC:DA). This proposal is in response to the need from the RDA test to address the fuller form of name. The fuller form of name may be included as part of the access point in subfield $q when it is needed to break a conflict. The RDA/MARC Working Group decided to present a single subfield for the entire name.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) indicated the problem of the proposal - it is only the fuller form of part of the name. In example 1, the fuller form of the name should be “Nancy Elizabeth Smith”, not just “Nancy Elizabeth.” Strawn thought that subfields were needed to indicate which is which.
John Attig (Penn State) stated two issues: (1) whether we need two separate elements, and (2) what to call them? Attig asked Strawn whether the reason suggesting separating these is to know where to pull it from so that we could work with them automatically.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) replied that the name does not describe what we are putting into the subfield and it is a failure to discuss whether we want to do something automatically. It is because, in our current practice, we do not change the 100 field when there is a conflict. We would change 400s in other records and this one will not allow us to do so. John Attig (Penn State) agreed that there is nothing we could do to solve the problem. The information that we need is outside the scope of this record. So it really does come down to whether the name describes what this is.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) thought the issue is: “if this field contains the most complete information available about the name, or if it contains a heading – qualifier in waiting.”
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) expressed her impression about RDA - it indicates simply an element to differentiate the name and we could put anything there. John Attig (Penn State) affirmed that it is just a place where we record additional information for whatever reason that is not included in the preferred name we have chosen for that person.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) asked if the only information that RDA would put in this field would be subfield $q information, but not $b or $c. John Attig (Penn State) believed that is the case. Gerhart then suggested changing $a to $q instead.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that the definition as we have it here does not indicate that it only applies to the 100 field and asked what we want it to be applied to. John Attig (Penn State) replied: “the name of the person.” Strawn asked which name, the Russian name? Therefore, both Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) and Stephen Hearn (SAC) indicated the field should be repeatable. John Attig (Penn State) asked in what circumstances should it be repeated. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) thought that if the cross reference is in another language and if it is a conflict, it should be repeated.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) pointed out that the purpose of the field was to record it and attach it to field 1XX. She asked if we want to limit the field to such a use and not worry about repeating it.
Nathan Robertson (LITA) made the motion to change subfield $a to $q; keep the field as NR; and specify that it applies only to 1XX. Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) seconded. The proposal was unanimously approved.
The proposal was presented by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). This proposal is the fourth and the last one derived from the discussion paper at mid-winter this year - 2011-DP02 - which dealt with only type of jurisdiction according to RDA section 11.7. Discussion during Midwinter was about adding subfield $0. In addition to the type of jurisdiction, the RDA/MARC Working Group discussed two more types of other designations: (1) describing the circumstances during the RDA testing that the name does not convey the idea of the corporate body, and (2) other designation, the second level of otherness in RDA. There are two options proposed for field 368: (1) define three different indicators in the first indicator position, and (2) leave both indicators undefined and use the subfield as a solution.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) opened the discussion and indicated that there seemed to be two sides to the issue based on previous discussions of proposals: simplicity of use and granularity. Wise asked whether anyone would like to speak to the granularity issue. Hearing no one, Wise assumed that either option is just as granular as the other.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) wondered if it really matters to have 1, 2, and 3 categories of attributes because RDA instructs on what kind of attribute to code. John Attig (Penn State) said that it is highly unlikely one would record more than one of these types in a single authority record. These are separate RDA elements; however, if one of the goals is to provide a unique identifier for each sub-element, either technique will work. There was a comment expressing that it is easier to input using subfields, but Attig did not know what the opinion is based on.
John Myers (CC:DA) drew on the comments from the Linked Data group and indicated that the group prefers a subfield over an indicator approach because a subfield makes it easier to parse out elements.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept option 2 as written. Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) seconded. The proposal was unanimously approved.
The proposal was presented by Sally McCallum (LC). It is about the carrier characteristics contained in Chapter 3 of RDA. The layout of the carrier characteristics is in section 2.1 with the section number to be traced through with the fields that are proposed in the rest of the paper. It was suggested that people want to parse the information that is in subfield $b; we could therefore make $b repeatable. Alternatively, we could revise and expand field 340 to have new subfields and add four new fields, 344-347. Or, as an alternative to having four fields, we could have one repeatable field with everything grouped in it. For the note, subfield $i could be added to field 500 for the display text.
John Attig (Penn State) was not sure if we gain anything from repeating subfield $b when we do not know what the pieces are. Sally McCallum (LC) agreed.
John Attig (Penn State University) pointed out that $i for technical specification sounds a lot like 538 and questioned whether we should provide multiple places, on the principle - is it different enough that we would not want to use field 538. Sally McCallum (LC) said that field 538 is for a note you want to include. Rebecca Guenther (LC) pointed out that $i is already defined in field 340.
John Myers (CC:DA) observed that RDA elements seem to function at different levels; they are all articulated as the carrier aspects, but some of them do seem to be more of an expression or even work aspect. With respect to the MARC coding, field 340 $f deals with production rate ratio, but the other proposed subfields for playing speed, projection speed, and resolution are all incorporated under the original definition of production rate ratio. Is it problematic when we already have one existing subfield to deal with all these? Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) confirmed redundancy in this format and indicated that the documentation needs to give catalogers usage guidance. John Attig (Penn State) agreed and said that they will be addressed.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) commented that we keep coming back to the question of whether it is a MARC problem or a RDA problem. The confusion we have is not on the MARC format itself, but is about how we are going to use the format.
John Attig (Penn State) said that RDA provides separate instructions on making notes related to particular data elements. As notes, they have to be self-explanatory. It is never going to be data; notes will always be strings. John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that notes are just strings and they have to stay on their own as what they are.
Four new fields:
John Myers (CC:DA) favored 2.4.2., as the simplest solution. But Rebecca Guenther (LC) commented that there is not much extensibility in this solution.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) indicated that catalogers from OLAC found multiple fields immediately daunting. Often times, AV catalogers will have multiple fields 345s and 346s. She asked how we could get a machine to link them all back together for the display when a subfield $8 does not exist. For 34X, at least we could group everything in one field and repeat, so that a machine would not have to put them back together and it would keep catalogers from getting confused.
Nathan Robertson (LITA) moved to accept option 2 in 2.4.2. Vicki Sipe (University of Maryland) seconded.
Corine Deliot (BL) wondered if it is more difficult to display with multiple characteristics in option 2. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) supported Deliot’s statement. John Attig (Penn State): It seems that if we are going to display this information with captions, we would have to do so in the subfield level. Either way, we would have to take these apart. This is a problem of how to integrate the new fields and present them meaningfully.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked if it is likely that more characteristics are to be added under these various groups by CC:DA. John Attig (Penn State ) commented that what CCDA is trying to do is make the data machine actionable. They are not different data elements, but simply being broken down so that we can act on each one separately.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) noted that people have spoken against the motion.
A straw poll was conducted to find out which option was preferred: 17 votes were for option 1 in 2.4.2, 11 votes for option 2 in 2.4.2, and 6 votes were undecided. The poll indicated that people moderately favored option 1. A vote was conducted on the motion and the motion was unanimously rejected.
Vickie Sipe (University of Maryland) made a motion to approve the addition of subfields to field 340 and adopt new fields 344-347. Nathan Robertson (LITA) seconded.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) asked for the the addition of subfield $8 in the fields. A third motion was moved with additional subfields of $0, $6, and $8. The amended motion was unanimously approved.
The proposal was presented by Bruce Evans (MLA). It proposed the addition of subfields $d (Thematic index ciatation code), $e (Publisher associated with serial or opus number), and $2 (Source of code) in field 383. Since RDA allows for much better granularity of authority data, new fields have been added to accommodate the data, and 383 is one of them. While the field currently allows for coding of all thematic index numbers, it does not allow the coding of the data to either identify the source of the number, or to clarify when different numbers are used for the same work by different publishers and indexers. In proposal 2010-04, subfield $2 was removed because no authoritative citation of thematic index existed at the time. However, MLA has recently created such a list, and is seeking to add subfield $2 back to the field.
Bruce Evans (MLA) said that MLA has reviewed the comments from the Canadian Committee on MARC with regards to subfield $2. The Committee wanted to have the reference to subfield $c taken out. This requires editorial change to the definition proposed in subfield $2. MLA has accepted this suggestion. MLA has also accepted the Canadians' proposed definition change for subfield $e to be as “Publisher to be associated only with opus number.”
Corine Deliot (BL) noted the discrepancies between name and the code in the title and definition of proposed subfield $d. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) clarified and indicated that if subfield $2 says source of code, then what is in subfield $d is a code. Glennan suggested replacing the words “brief name” in the proposed definition of subfield $d with the word “code.”
John Attig (Penn State) also suggested removing the word “citation” in the name of proposed subfield $d.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) motioned to approve. Erice Delozier (LITA) seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.
This discussion paper was presented by Bruce Evans (MLA). The paper focuses on options for more specific encoding for medium of performance, especially in relation to the medium of performance information currently recorded in subject headings. The Music Library Association (MLA) and LC are developing vocabularies of genre/form terms - LCFGT. In current LCSH practice, headings for medium terms are assigned in the same way as genre/form terms in the 650 field. However in the new environment, medium terms will be separated from the genre/form terms and will become out of scope for LCFGT. Genre/form terms will be recorded in the MARC 655 field. The subject coding in the 650 fields will no longer be valid for medium terms; therefore, medium terms will need to be accommodated elsewhere in the MARC record. MLA has identified three possible fields to accomplish this: the existing fields 048 and 382, or a new 6XX field. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of all three options. In addition to establishing which field is most appropriate for the medium of performance, MLA seeks the creation of other subfields to enhance the searchability of the medium of performance.
John Attig (Penn State) asked whether it is correct to assume that the intention of the options is to record, retrieve and browse, combine Boolean searching, hyperlink, and make them available as a subject access. Attig stated that a lot of these are recorded in field 048. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) said that field 048 is not granular enough; it covers these mediums in broad strokes but does not get to the level of detail that MLA is seeking.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) stated the MARC genre/form term list used in field 048 is maintained by the body as an official list, and would require proposals for all sorts of changes to be made to that list. Instead, MLA is coming up with another, separate list. Glennan stressed that MLA would need this field in both the bibliographic and authority formats and that that may or may not have an impact on where we want to define it.
John Attig (Penn State) asked if it would be for recording as would the other 3XX fields in authority - things may or may not be part of the heading but are relevant to define for work and expression. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) said as we move away from the kind of cataloging we do now into a work/expression kind of record, we want to be able to associate the instrumentation at the work or expression level. Therefore, to the extent the authority format might be used for that purpose, we would need this field in the authority format. The preference would be to have the same numeric value field used in both the bibliographic and authority formats for this information.
Rich Greene (OCLC) said OCLC is working with BIBSYS as they try to map from BIBSYS to MARC coding, but there are three elements that cannot be mapped at the same level of granularity: medium of performance, number of performance, and instrumentation. Greene suggested looking at what BIBSYS has done in their system as that would help us with the discussion.
Beth Iseminger (Harvard University), the Chair of the MLA-BCC Genre/Form Task Force indicated that the Task Force decided to separate genre and medium, so that medium will be directly accessible from where we put it.
John Attig (Penn State) emphasized the use of 3XX fields in bibliographic records is very different from how we use them in authority records. Attig wondered how these two ideas reconcile with each other. He stated - we are putting a lot of data in authority records that could be used as access points, but we have not figured out what we want to do with this. We should consider the application and the two formats separately; do not try to think of them as the same thing. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) said that she agreed with the fact we do not have a common practice, but was hopeful for a proposal that is forward-looking enough to allow us to move in a new direction. John Attig (Penn State) stated that as we are looking to better implementing the FRBR model, one of the things to know is the subject relationship to the work, and to the extent that we are going to be using authority records to represent works, this is in our future. Anything we do about it now is going to be useful.
John Attig (Penn State) said if we want the same field in the bibliographic and authority formats, it would lead to unsatisfactory results, because in the authority format this would probably be a 3XX field and that would not be helpful in bibliographic. The question is how important is it for them to be the same field?
Janis Young (LC) expressed an opinion about whether the medium of performance should go to subject headings. To Young, the subject heading is what the term is about - and a piece of music is not about a particular instrument. The medium of performance is more closely related to descriptive aspects, because it is for a particular instrument. The instrumentation defines what that piece is but not what it is about. John Attig (Penn State) commented that Young’s statement was a good observation. Sally McCallum (LC) also agreed and thought that everyone is confused about taking the 6XX path because LCSH had it there for so long. It does say that you could use 3XX or 7XX tags in the bibliographic format if you do not think they are subject access points.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed that if there is no chance to get exactly the same field, it might be appropriate to get an equivalent field, and that would be a 555 relationship from this work/record to some genre record in the authority format. The same would be true for a 550 from a work record to a topical term containing the medium. Janis Young (LC) asked for clarification: for example, she noted, if we have a 555 where we used clarinet music in the authority format, we would need to have an authority field for the medium because they are reciprocal. If the medium of performance is not residing in the genre form thesaurus, then we cannot make the heading. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) described that two records could be interlinked between 550 and could have a closer description of the relationship by using subfield $4, meaning “is of the medium.” John Attig (Penn State University) pointed out that 5XXs are for relationships between two authority records. But what we are trying to do is provide the access point within an authority record for a work, for the various components of the medium of performance, so that you can get to that record for the work through the medium.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) wondered about how we would be able to make the distinction between field 382 defined as the medium of performance and the new field defined as the medium of performance as well. Field 382 was created for RDA purposes but is not restricted to RDA purposes. And we already have 048 for coded information which distinguishes it from field 382 - coded vs. text. She expressed she did not have an objection to creating another field, but we need to convey in the formats when you use which field and what the distinctions really are. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) commented that this is a similar situation where we do have multiple places to put the same information in the format and we have always depended on outside agencies to guide us so that we do not record duplicate information. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) agreed but indicated that field 382 was defined only 18 months ago; it is relatively new. She thought that it would be responsible of us to try to figure out the distinction and have the discussion about that.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said it is slightly incorrect to think that any information at the work level would necessarily be the same at the expression and manifestation level. The information in the authority record at the work level often has little or nothing to do with the information at the bibliographic level. The use of these two pieces of information and how they may be displayed and used are very different. Conceptually, the tags of authority records and the tags in bibliographic records do not have to be the same. Hermine Vermeij (UCLA) indicated that they do envision in the future being able to pull information from an authority record into the bibliographic record on the fly in OPAC – the information is to be automatically populated. That is the idea behind some of these suggestions.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) said she was asked during the draft of RDA whether there is a medium of performance list that RDA could reference. The potential is that if this list is developed, validated, and populated, it could serve as a list that RDA could use. Glennan emphasized that we have to have a place for the medium of performance.
John Attig (Penn State) assessed and indicated two needs: (1) right now we have data that is recorded in a bibliographic record in one place, but it has to be moved to somewhere else, and (2) In the FRBRized context, all of this data is going to be in a work or expression level, and it is unlikely to be in the manifestation records. Attig did not think that we should try to answer what is going to be in the future in the authority format without knowing how we are going to put topical headings in our work records. Therefore, he suggested extending field 382 as the least damaging option. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) also thought, for him, it is not yet decided if work and expression data would be transported in the authority or bibliographic format. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) believed that as long as we can define these fields to function the way we want them to function in terms of indexing and retrieving, it does not matter what tags they are in. She would like to tap into advice from people with systems experience for insights.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) stated that this is a recurring theme in this conference; it seems to be boiling down to what is the simplest option for catalogers to adopt. Wise thought option 1 the easiest solution. John Atting (Penn State) pointed out that it is becoming important how we want to group things and what sort of grouping between fields we need to do for the results to make sense. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) reminded us not to forget the users who come to WorldCat local or the local database and expect everything to be in keywords.
Hermine Vermeij (UCLA) pointed out that the task force on the genre/form is looking at separating out different facets of the form.
Beth Iseminger (Harvard University) asked whether there is a block of fields to be defined for these 15 facets if we are going to go in the facets direction.
Rich Greene (OCLC) indicated that there is a field in the 6XX range defined for faceted information and asked whether the data fits into that type of model. Beth Iseminger (Harvard University) said that field 654 is defined as topical facet and asked if it could be redefined as an option. Sherman Clarke (VRA) said that facets go back to the thesaurus; they have primary and secondary subfields. Field 655 was re-arranged and could be used for faceted forms and genre materials.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked what else MLA would like to know from MARBI. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) indicated that MLA would like to bring this paper back as a proposal and present it as cleanly as possible. MLA seeks guidance from MARBI in narrowing the options for them. MLA would also like to know which option is a better way to record the medium of performance from the systems perspective. John Myers (CCD:DA) encouraged the use of the MARC Listserv to continue the discussion and to seek a report from the Norwegians. Nathan Robertson (LITA) asked MLA for many more complicated examples which will help MARBI members understand better what MLA is trying to deal with.
John Attig (Penn State) was concerned about what the future was going to bring. Attig said that he did not have a clear understanding of the implication of various blocks in the MARC records. He questioned the implications of choosing to encode something in a 3XX field that is treated as if it were encoded in a 6XX field. Attig reiterated the need to understand from the systems perspective as well.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) was also concerned about the unknown, but noted that at the same time MLA has a timetable to meet. This is because without a decision to put the medium of performance in place, MLA cannot move the music genre out of the 650 field. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked if it would be more helpful to MLA's cause if they brought their proposal back as only dealing with the bibliographic format and holding off on the authority format. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) said that we have already documented medium of performance in the bibliographic and authority formats for RDA purposes. We are seeing as the profession moves forward, this piece of information being less and less likely to be tied to a manifestation. To the extent that expression and work records end up in the authority format rather than in the bibliographic format, she is concerned about limiting this to only one format. Vicki Sipe (University of Maryland) clarified that it has been mentioned that they may be different issues. However, Glennan said that she personally has a hard time seeing what those differences are. She thought that we are recording names and numbers against instruments and voices. How we want those indexed in our current environment might differ, but what we are recording should essentially be the same.
John Espley (AVIAC) indicated that the development team would probably tell us about 3XX being not able to be treated like 6XX in the browser display. John Myers (CC:DA) expressed a contrasting note and said that he had experienced other system flexibilities.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) reminded that if we go with the field 382 option, the discussion paper should address the implications of having a descriptive field as an access field. It has not necessarily worked to combine these two with other data that we have tried to use in the past; therefore she would like to see more discussion on what things will work well and what will not. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) indicated that field 382 was intended to record attributes, and medium of performance is an attribute. What field 382 allowed us to do is to record those as an attribute, then in theory the index can be operated on and produce results.
John Attig (Penn State) noted in the discussion paper that MLA addressed RDA’s use of field 382 as not compatible with the purpose to which MLA wanted to put the data. Attig asked if this would be an argument against using 382, or whether MLA felt that this could be reconciled. Hermine Vermeij (UCLA) pointed out that if we use field 382 in two different ways, we would need to have a repeat field: one for the RDA version and the other for another version. Beth Iseminger (Harvard University) suggested making a list in field 382 for RDA use. Hermine Vermeij (UCLA) agreed that it would be helpful if we could use this list to supplement RDA instructions.
John Attig (Penn State) stated that in terms of a proposal, until we have some more information it would not necessarily be wise to specify between 382 and 6XX. Perhaps we can eliminate 048. A Straw poll was conducted to consider whether we should keep 048 as an option for recording medium of performance. The majority voted not to use field 048 as a solution.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) echoed that most people sitting around the table do not consider themselves an expert in this area and would rely on expertise from MLA to come back and tell us what is needed.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) indicated that the MLA Bibliographic Control Committee has a public accessible website; MLA will place information on the site and provide MARBI with the links. Wise thought that was a good idea.
Karen Anderson (Backstage Library Works) commented that from the automation processing stand point, if we do order, the order of the subfield should not be dependent on the subfield before it. John Attig (Penn State) said “but the way it works is that we record in the order it conveys the meaning.” Anderson did not think systems can predict meaning well.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) clarified that it seemed like we had endorsed option 1. The way option 1 reads is that it will be a paired subfield and repeated. There will always be predictability.
John Attig (Penn State) offered a comment on the terminology for further consideration; he thought that the medium of performance is very generic for subfield $a.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) asked Attig (Penn State) whether we should propose a completely new subfield or rename the existing subfield $a if we were to pursue and extend 382. John Attig (Penn State) thought that if we end up with field 382, we may end up with less freedom to deal with some of these issues than starting with a new field.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested the subfield design.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) suggested using subfield $2 and repeating field 382 for RDA use as the best solution.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) will ask for the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday afternoon meeting slots as usual for the Midwinter 2012 meetings in Dallas. Wise also thanked the outgoing committee members: Nathan Robertson, Vicki Sipe, and Sheila Yeh.
MARC 21 HOME >> MARBI
|The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
( 06/12/2012 )
|Legal | External Link Disclaimer