William W. Jones, Chair LITA New York University Karen Coyle RUSA California Digital Library Ellen Crosby RUSA Indiana Historical Society Library Michael Fox ALCTS Minnesota Historical Society Bruce Chr. Johnson ALCTS Library of Congress Byron C. Mayes LITA Temple University Christina P. Meyer LITA University of Minnesota Thomas A. Saudargas RUSA College Center for Library Automation Mitch L. Turitz ALCTS San Francisco State University
Bruce Rennie RUSA Kansas City Public Library Marc Truitt LITA University of Notre Dame
MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Sally McCallum Library of Congress Margaret Stewart National Library of Canada
Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group Karen Anspach AVIAC EOS, International, Inc. John C. Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Donna Cranmer MRC Siouxland Libraries Wei Jeng-Chu PLA/CIS Indian Trails Public Library District Bonnie A. Dede SAC University of Michigan John Espley AVIAC VTLS Michael Fox SAA Minnesota Historical Society Kathy Glennan MLA University of Southern California David Goldberg NAL National Agricultural Library Susan Goldner AALL University of Arkansas at Little Rock/Pulaski County Law Library Rich Greene OCLC OCLC, Inc. Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Gail Mazure MicroLIF Sagebrush Corporation Sally McCallum LC Library of Congress Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Margaret Stewart NLC National Library of Canada Mark Watson CC:DA University of Oregon
Jim Agenbroad Library of Congress Joan Aliprand Research Libraries Group Everett Allgood New York University Donna Alsbury Florida Center for Library Automation Jean Altschuler Arnold & Porter Linda Ballinger State University of New York at Binghamton Sophie Bogdanski West Virginia University Jane Bryan Princeton University Jack Cain Trylus Computing Lois Chan University of Kentucky Eric Childress OCLC Rebecca Culbertson University of California, San Diego Alan Danskin British Library Rebecca Dean OCLC Betsy Eggleston Harvard University Lynn El-Hoshy Library of Congress David Freeman NIMA Helen Gbala ExLibris, Inc. Ruth Haas Harvard University Mary Haessig OCLC Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Diane Hillmann Cornell University Jean Hirons Library of Congress Charles Husbands Harvard University Jane Johnson UCLA Film & Television Archive Kris Kiesling University of Texas in Austin Mary Larsgaard University of California, Santa Barbara Rhonda Lawrence UCLA Law Library Andrea Leigh UCLA Film and Television Archive Nancy Lorimer Stanford University Wen-ying Lu Michigan State University John Maier New York University Elizabeth Mangan Retired (Library of Congress) Margi Mann OCLC Western Giles Martin OCLC Forest Press Gary McCone National Agriculture Library Linda Miller Library of Congress Mark Needleman Sirsi Corporation Mary Ann O'Daniel Florida Center for Library Automation Ed O'Neill OCLC Carol B. Penka University of Illinois, Urbana Cecilia Preston Preston & Lynch Jackie Radebaugh Library of Congress Barbara Rapoport California Institute of Technology Ellen Rappaport Albany Law School John Riemer UCLA David Reynolds Johns Hopkins University Steven Riel Harvard University Pat Riva McGill University Frank Sadowski University of Rochester Tsering Wangyal Shawa Princeton University Beth Siers Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ann Sitkin Harvard University Sandra Smalley Harvard University Gary Smith OCLC Elisabeth Spanhoff State Library of Louisiana Daniel Starr Metropolitan Museum of Art Barbara Story Library of Congress Martha Brantigan-Stowell Harvard University Gary Strawn Northwestern University Julie Su San Diego State University Mollie Della Terza Harvard University Bob Thomas OCLC David Van Hoy Massachusetts Institute of Technology Paul J. Weiss University of California, San Diego Matthew Wise New York University David Wiseman VTLSNotes:
AALL - American Association of Law Libraries
ALCTS - Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
ARLIS/NA - Art Libraries Society of North America
ARSC - Association for Recorded Sound Collections
BL - British Library
CC:DA - Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (of ALCTS CCS)
CCM - Canadian Committee on MARC
CDS - Cataloging Distribution Service (of LC)
CIS - Community Information Section (of PLA)
CCS - Cataloging and Classification Section (of ALCTS)
FCLA - Florida Center for Library Automation
JSC - Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
LC - Library of Congress
LITA - Library and Information Technology Association
MAGERT - Map & Geography Roundtable
MLA - Music Library Association
NAL - National Agricultural Library
NDMSO - Network Development and MARC Standards Office (of LC)
NIMA - National Imagery and Mapping Agency
NLC - National Library of Canada
NLM - National Library of Medicine
OLAC - Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.
PLA - Public Libraries Association
RUSA - Reference and User Services Association
SAA - Society of American Archivists
SAC - Subject Analysis Committee (of ALCTS CCS)
VRA - Visual Resources Association
Bill Jones, 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/an-01.html) were accepted by a voice vote.
Proposal 2002-04: Definition of Subfield $p (Number of pieces per issuance) in Fields 853-855 of the MARC 21 Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress) introduced the paper which proposes a new subfield $p in fields 853-855 to cover cases where multi-part titles are issued in a specified frequency. Subfield $p will provide coding for when to expect an issue (its issuing frequency in subfield $w) and for how many pieces per issue are expected. It originated from Discussion Paper 2001-DP09 (Repeatability of Subfield $w (Frequency) in Fields 853-855 of the MARC 21 Holdings Format).
Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) declared that the first example under Section 2.1 (Defining a new subfield $p) is missing 863 fields. Linda Miller (Library of Congress) stated that several 863 fields for this example will be added to the documentation. Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress) also told the group that the documentation will provide additional guidance on how subfield $p relates to both subfield $w (Frequency) and to publication patterns. The proposed definition may also be clarified to ensure that codable information is placed in subfield $w.
Tom Saudargas (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8 - 0 in favor of the proposal.
Proposal 2002-05 (Expansion of Regularity Pattern Coding in Fields 853-855 Subfield $y in the MARC 21 Holdings Format)
Linda Miller (Library of Congress) introduced the paper which proposes changes to subfield $y in fields 853-855 of the holdings format to accommodate regularity of a publication pattern when it is expressed for enumeration. The changes may also allow for the designation of combinations or ranges of enumeration and/or chronology to improve the expression of regularity for high frequency titles.
Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) declared that the second line of the prediction pattern for example 9 should read: v. 12, no 3648/3649, July 4/July 5, 2001. He also requested that the vendor community express its thoughts about the proposal. John Espley (AVIAC) reported that VTLS is excited about the possibility of expanding the regularity pattern coding in fields 853-855.
Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of it.
Discussion Paper 2002-DP03 (Changes for FAST Subject Headings)
Ed O'Neal (OCLC) introduced the paper which presents changes to the MARC 21 formats needed to accommodate OCLC's FAST subject headings scheme. The project is targeting OCLC CORC users and other metadata projects. Becky Dean (OCLC) predicted that FAST would be used by bibliographers, graduate assistants and other subject specialists who may not have the expertise needed to assign LCSH headings. During Mr. O'Neal's presentation, he distributed a paper that summarized the proposed changes needed for the FAST subject headings project.
Marti Scheel (NLM) pointed out that most library systems cannot load records containing code d (Delete) in the Leader/05 (Record status) position. Sally McCallum (LC) however, stated that the FAST system would have this capability. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) asked if the Library of Congress uses Leader/05 codes s or x. Lynn El-Hoshy (LC) stated the Library of Congress does not currently use them. Sally McCallum explained that the Leader/05 codes s (Deleted; heading split into two or more headings) and x (Deleted; heading replaced by another heading) express a relationship between records in the same thesaurus while subfield $w expresses relationships in the authority 7XX field.
Marti Scheel (NLM) expressed concern about whether the FAST records will be distributed to other libraries. Accordingly, Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked about the scope and future plans of the FAST project, especially in relation to bibliographic records. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) reported that FAST headings could be added to bibliographic records using subfield $2 (Source). OCLC will produce test records (due out in the Summer) to examine how the FAST headings could be used in bibliographic and authority records. Current tests on the files prove that OCLC can convert from LCSH to FAST headings, but not the other way around.
Tom Saudargas (RUSA) asked Mr. O'Neal why FAST decided to redesign LCSH instead of creating a new thesaurus. According to Lois Chan (University of Kentucky), the FAST subcommittee recommended different syntaxes of LCSH to keep the scheme compatible with it. Commenting that precoordinated headings are difficult for non-librarians to handle, Sally McCallum (LC) also wondered if the subcommittee ever felt a need to build a new thesaurus for FAST. Lois Chan (University of Kentucky) stated yes, however LCSH is so developed that the group felt it advantageous to simply adapt it. Moreover, other foreign thesaurus projects have also redesigned LCSH.
Michael Fox (SAA/ALCTS) expressed concern about using uncontrolled chronology terms to represent dates. Precoordinated dates in LCSH are always used in context and are usually accurate. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) reported that the number of chronological headings created in FAST would be small. Rich Green (OCLC) also stated that people are currently creating uncontrolled chronology headings. He suggested that FAST may actually provide the means to control these uncontrolled chronology headings.
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that the group explore the application of the $w/1 (Replacement complexity) subfield to other projects. Sherman Clarke suggested that the Library of Congress study whether the proposed format changes will affect other thesauri usages, especially the AAT.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) reiterated that there is a need to show how FAST headings would be implemented into bibliographic records. It was pointed out that there could be confusion if both FAST and LCSH headings were used in bibliographic records in the same environment, both for indexing and display. Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked whether one or two proposals would be presented during the annual meeting. Bill Jones (LITA) answered that because the changes affect only the authority format, one paper may be sufficient.
Discussion Paper 2002-DP02 (Renaming the 008 Positions to Reflect their Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format)
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper which discusses the need to rename specific 008 fields because of new terminology or changes in the scope of the fields. The changes include renaming field 008 for Books, Serials, Maps, and Computer Files. Ms. Guenther expressed concern that the impact of the change on documentation may be large.
According to Kathy Glennan (MLA), the music community is concerned about the changes' impact on documentation. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) mentioned that vendor help files may also be affected by them. Gail Mazure (MicroLIF) however, commented that labeling and documentation are small issues and should not hinder any name changes to field 008. John Espley (AVIAC) stated that VTLS allows users to name their own labels, however, this change would require VTLS to change its documentation. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) stated that the change would actually make training easier for the 008 names would be more descriptive of the information that they contain. Rich Greene (OCLC) wondered if the name changes could be implemented at the local level using system displays.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) expressed concern that the proposed name changes would eliminate reference to books from field 008. For example, there would no longer be a way to code for a book, i.e., something that is on paper and bound. Consideration needs to be given to adding coding in 008/23 or 007/01 (text). Other members of the group agreed with her.
Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) pointed out that some of the proposed short names are nouns, while others are adjectives. He suggested making the MARC terminology more in synch with that used in the AACR2. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) reminded the group that the AACR2 changes very slowly and thus, the group may not want to consider following it. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) also reminded the group that MARC supports many other cataloging codes besides the AACR2.
Ellen Rappaport (Albany Law School) suggested that because the 008 names are expressed verbally by catalogers, they should be short and succinct. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) also preferred the brief terms, however, he liked "Textual, continuing" and "Textual, finite." Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked if all continuing resources were textual in nature. Rich Greene (OCLC), moreover, wondered if users would understand what a "Textual continuing resource" actually was. Jean Hirons (LC), however, stated that work forms could clarify meaning. Although there was not a strong consensus about whether the short or longer form of the names should be approved, the group decided that "continuing resource" and "electronic resource" should be adopted because they are so prevalently used.
Michael Fox (SAA/ALCTS) asked if the name changes would cause any Leader/06 problems. John Attig (OLAC) agreed and wondered if the name of code m (Computer file) in Leader/06 would be changed if MARBI renamed the Computer Files 008 field. There was also some concern that changing the name of the 008 fields may be problematic for the 006 types.
Proposal 2002-06: Changes in Field 008 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
Tom Saudargas (RUSA) introduced the paper which proposes adding codes to holdings field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) to identify additional methods of acquisition. It also suggests adding codes to holdings field 008/20 (Lending policy) to identify other lending policies and proposes renaming field 008/08 from "Intent to cancel" to "Subscription end date." Because this information is currently being tracked in separate databases, Tom Saudargas (RUSA) stated that coding it in a MARC record would be useful for reporting activities.
Marti Scheel (NLM) suggested broadening the definition of field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) code s (Governmental cooperative) so that it could be used by libraries that acquire items from sources other than government agencies. Karen Coyle (RUSA) suggested that perhaps two values should be defined: one for "Governmental cooperative" and one for "Non-governmental cooperative." Karen Coyle (RUSA) also asked if a code to indicate the origin of funds would be needed. Michael Fox (SAA/ALCTS) however, stated that one could code field 541 (Immediate source of acquisition note) for fund information.
Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) stated that he did not like renaming field 008/08 from "Intent to cancel" to "Subscription end date" for he felt that it would make the 008/08 field no longer applicable to multipart monographs.
Chris Meyer (LITA) expressed concerned that the proposed codes were acquisition and circulation information and thus, not appropriate for the holdings format. Rebecca Guenther (LC) however, stated that historically this type of information was placed in the holdings format for communication purposes. Chris Meyer (LITA) countered that the proposed codes would be used for reporting and would not need to be communicated between libraries. She suggested that the codes be synchronized with NCIP (NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol). Mark Needleman (Sirsi) agreed.
Ms. Meyer motioned to reject the proposal because of the need to investigate consistency with the NCIP standard. She also suggested that the proposed name for field 008/08 (Intent to Cancel) be revised. Michael Fox (SAA/ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of rejecting the proposal. A revised paper may be presented during the annual 2002 MARBI meetings.
Discussion Paper 2002-DP04 (Addition of Imprint and Physical Description fields to the MARC 21 Holdings Format)
Jane Johnson (UCLA Film & Television Archive) introduced the paper, which discusses the problems inherent in splitting copy-specific information between the bibliographic and holdings records. She reviewed two existing mechanisms for handling copy-specific data and summarized the benefits of expressing all copy-specific information using the holdings format, a practice that some in the archival and moving image community are already using.
Marti Scheel (NLM) asked whether the bibliographic field 533 (Reproduction note) was considered as an alternative. Jane Johnson (UCLA Film & Television Archive) stated that multiple manifestations recorded in one record are usually not coded for reproductions. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) agreed with Ms. Johnson.
Rich Greene (OCLC) wondered how the Library of Congress would distribute the record in example 2. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that the distribution of changed records must be determined at a later date. Ellen Rappaport (Albany Law School) suggested that if there were a universal holdings record standard, the record in example 2 could be distributed and shared.
Pat Riva (McGill University) feared that decisions stemming from Discussion Paper 2002-DP04 may be incompatible with the future JSC Format Variation Work Group's report. Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) furthered that there are many other bibliographic fields that could be added to the holdings format besides fields 260 and 300. She felt that there is a need to look into some of the philosophical questions relating to the use of holdings versus bibliographic records, how they overlap, and which record types deal with which FRBR level.
Sally McCallum (LC) mentioned that the Library of Congress commissioned Tom
Delsey to write the "Functional Analysis of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and
Holdings Formats." The report and appendices are in PDF at:
www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/home.html. Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) offered to report on the Variations Task Force Final Report during the annual meeting in Atlanta. Jean Hirons (LC) stated that the Publication Pattern Task Force may also look into the multiple versions problem in terms of a universal holdings record.
Sunday, January 20, 2002
Proposal 2002-01: Definition of Subfield $u (URI) in Field 670 (Source Data Found) in the MARC 21 Authority Format
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper which proposes the definition of subfield $u in authority field 670 to provide a link from an electronically accessed reference source to an authority record.
There was some discussion regarding the need to define subfield $u in field 670 (as requested by LC for use by NACO participants). John Riemer (UCLA) listed the following problems with the proposal: (1)Uneven quality of web resources may not be as durable as paper-based authority sources; (2)Subfield $u in field 670 may not be able to represent the relationship between the heading and the resource as well as using field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) with subfield $3 (Materials specified); (3) It is inefficient to summarize the information found in subfield $b (Information found) and also provide subfield $u in field 670; (4) Field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) was defined to record information such as what is being proposed in the paper and it should be used to do so. John Riemer (UCLA) also wondered why a discussion paper was not presented to MARBI before this proposal. He suggested that MARBI table the proposal until a discussion paper is written about adding subfield $u in field 670. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reminded the group, however, that MARBI agreed to use subfield $u in other fields in the format besides field 856.
Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) wondered if subfield $u would be associated with subfield $a (Source citation) or subfield $b (Information found). He also wondered if subfield $u should be added to field 675 (Source data not found). Rebecca Guenther stated that the use of subfield $u is dependent on a cataloging agency's policy, however, she thought that it would usually correspond with subfield $a (Source citation).
Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) wondered if the subfield $u in field 670 could provide a display. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that subfield $u in field 670 is a cataloger's note and would probably not be displayed. Separate occurrences of subfield $u in fields 670 and 856 could contain different URLs, with field 856 providing a publically-displayed URL.
Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) reminded the group of the following precedent: field 856 is used for information about the resource as a whole and subfield $u in other fields is used for information that relates to the specific field. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) also reminded the group that field 856 is a holdings field and thus, field 670 subfield $u would be a better location in which to place this type of URI.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked if another proposal would be needed to add a URI in field 675 (Source Data Not Found). The group, however, decided that until there is a specific need for it, adding subfield $u in field 675 should not be pursued.
Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to pass the proposal as written. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) seconded it. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Proposal 2002-03: Expanding Field 046 for Other Dates in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper which proposes defining new date subfields in field 046 to provide a place for dates that do not fit into other data elements currently defined in the MARC 21 bibliographic and community information formats.
Susan Goldner (AALL) asked whether date modified applies to changes made to bibliographic information. She also wondered whether date modified could be used for loose-leaf publications. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reported that it would be inappropriate to code date modified for loose-leafs because many libraries currently use either check-in systems or holdings fields to keep track of the latest date of updates. John Attig (OLAC) also stated that the definition of date modified is agency-specific. Eric Childress (OCLC) reported that date modified was adopted as a Dublin Core element and has been used there as the date of last modification. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that "Date resource modified" may be a better name for subfield $j.
Joe Altimus (RLG) asked if field 046 subfield $a (Type of date code) would be used only with subfields $b - $d. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered yes. He also asked if subfield $2 (Source of date) would ever be used with subfields $b - $d. After Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied no, Joe Altimus (RLG) suggested that the relationship between the subfields be made more explicit in the documentation. He also suggested that subfield $3 (Material specified) be defined in field 046 if the dates apply to only parts.
Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) suggested defining beginning and ending date created subfields if subfield $k (Date created) could be used with spanned dates. He also suggested that the last sentence of the description of subfield $k be clarified from "Dates contained in subfield $k may not be coded elsewhere in the formats, " to "Dates contained in subfield $k cannot be coded elsewhere in the formats." Rebecca Guenther (LC) elucidated that when there is only one date created, the first subfield would be used.
Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to table the proposal until more details about date created could be worked out, however, the group indicated that it was ready to vote on the proposal.
Tom Saudargas (RUSA) motioned to adopt the proposal with the following amendments: Convert date created to a range of date subfields: $k is Beginning or single date created and $l is Ending date created; and rename subfield $j Date resource modified. Byron Mayes (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 6-2 in favor of the proposal.
Proposal 2002-07: Definition of Additional Second Indicator Values for Specific Subject Systems in Field 655 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Margaret Stewart (NLC) introduced the paper which proposes adding second indicator values 0 through 6 to field 655 (Index/Term --Genre/Form) as defined in the 600-651 Subject Added Entry fields of the bibliographic format. John Attig (OLAC) reported that the second indicator values were not initially defined in field 655 because genre headings usually originate from sources other than those listed. He also stated that using subfield $2 is more efficient for it allows for broader thesauri use.
Pat Riva (McGill University) agreed with John Attig in part, however, stated that because NLM now uses field 655, catalogers may find the second indicator values useful. Lynn El-Hoshy (LC) also reported that LC plans to create field 155 (Heading/Genre/Form) authority headings and thus, make greater use of field 655. Accordingly, Marg Stewart (NLC) predicted that if LCSH began to use the 155/655 fields, the Canadian Subject Headings and the Répertoire de vedettes-matière would probably do the same.
Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) rhetorically asked if MARBI should reinstate an old coding convention for field consistency instead of encouraging systems to use the subfield $2 approach. Bruce Johnson (LC) stated that the second indicator in other 6XX fields could be made obsolete to match field 655. John Espley (AVIAC) reminded the group that subfield $2 and the indicator values are used in the other 6XX fields, and thus, defining the indicator values for field 655 should not be difficult.
Michael Fox (SAA/ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Proposal 2002-09: Encoding Variable Length Coordinate Formats in Field 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper which proposes removing the fixed length nature of subfields $d, $e, $f, and $g in field 034 (Coded cartographic mathematical data) to record coordinates from different formats. David Freeman (NIMA) expressed support for the proposal because using coordinates in GIS systems calls for flexibility in coding.
David Goldberg (NAL) suggested that subfields could be added to indicate the coordinate system, however, Betsy Mangin (LC Retired) stated that there are few remaining subfields in field 034. To document the proposed changes, Betsy Mangin (LC Retired) suggested that MARBI include application directions for each coordinate system instead of removing the present language from the documentation. For example, the documentation could provide application directions for the three characters before the decimal point. Ellen Crosby (RUSA) told the group that because she does not catalog maps often, she would prefer that ample application guidelines be added into the documentation.
Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to adopt the proposal as written and request that Mary Larsgaard (University of California, Santa Barbara) and David Freeman (NIMA) help draft the application instructions for the documentation. Ellen Crosby (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Proposal 2002-08: Making the First Indicator Value 0 (U. S. Dept. of Defense Classification) Obsolete in Field 052 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
David Freeman (NIMA) introduced the paper which proposes making the first indicator value 0 (U. S. Dept. of Defense Classification) obsolete and defining value 1 as "U. S. Dept. of Defense Classification" in field 052 to correct a coding mistake made by the U. S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). Joe Altimus (RLG) stated that while it is unsatisfactory in principle to change the format to correct misapplication of it, making the change seems practical based on the circumstances presented by David Freeman (NIMA).
Tom Saudargas (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Michael Fox (SAA/ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Proposal 2002-02: Definition of Subfields $u, $y and $3 in Fields 508 and 511 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper which proposes defining subfields $u, $y and $3 in fields 508 and 511 to provide remote access to complete lists of credit notes and to allow the grouping of credit notes to be specific to a particular part of a multipart item.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that there was no strong OLAC opposition to the paper. Kathy Glennan (MLA), however, expressed discomfort with substituting the URI for information written in a record. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) also expressed concern about the possibility of "promiscuous" URIs. David Goldberg (NAL) suggested that unsubstantiated added entries may also be a problem if subfield $u were added to fields 508 and 511.
Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) stated that MARBI should not pass papers based on conceived future use. Michael Fox (SAA/ALCTS) motioned to reject the proposal. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 to reject the proposal as written.
Library of Congress Report
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that the Library of Congress commissioned Tom
Delsey to write the "Functional Analysis of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and
Holdings Formats" that is available online in PDF at:
Update No. 2 to all five MARC 21 formats is available from the Cataloging Distribution Service (www.loc.gov/cds/). Interested parties may view the changes made to this update at: www.loc.gov/marc/status.html.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) reported that the following language codes have been added to the ISO 639-2 code list and will likewise be added to the MARC list:
Tupi languages: tup
Rebecca Guenther (LC) also reported that the Library of Congress is planning to upgrade its Integrated Library System (ILS) starting February 15, 2002. During the ILS upgrade process, creating, updating, and importing bibliographic and authority cataloging records into the LC production database will cease. Very few or no cataloging records will be distributed via the daily and weekly CDS MARC Distribution Services (other than MDS-Serials) during the upgrade time, which is expected to take approximately two weeks. MDS subscribers should note that the daily and weekly distribution files will continue to be created, but will most likely be null files. MDS subscribers should expect to receive an increased number of records immediately following completion of the ILS upgrade as the backlog of daily imports are processed.
Bill Jones (LITA) introduced Karen Coyle as a new RUSA representative, Marc Truitt as the new LITA intern and Bruce Rennie as the new RUSA intern. MARBI must still fill the ALCTS intern position.
New members to the MARC Advisory Committee included Susan Goldner (AALL), John Espley (AVIAC), Gail Mazure (MicroLIF) and Wei Jeng-Chu, (ALA/PLA/CIS).
MARBI will meet at its usual times in Atlanta:
June 15, 2002: 9:30 - 12:30
June 16, 2002: 2:00 - 5:30
June 17, 2002: 2:00 - 4:00
Bill Jones (LITA) also asked if the group was interested in meeting with CC:DA during the annual meeting. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that the meeting could discuss the work of the JSC Format Variation Working Group. He also suggested that it could discuss implementation of the nonfiling control character into MARC 21 records.
Task Force Reports
There were no task force reports, however, the Multilingual Records Task Force may consider discussing a paper at the 2002 annual meeting in Atlanta.
Monday, January 21, 2002
Discussion Paper 2002-DP05: Guidelines for the Nonfiling Control Character Technique in the MARC 21 Formats
Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper which presents application guidelines for the control characters previously approved for dealing with nonfiling, non-sorting and non-indexing characters in MARC 21 records.
David Goldberg (NAL) asked about which nonfiling indicator value would be used with the control character technique. He preferred using blank (#), however Gary Smith (OCLC) preferred using 0 (zero) for the OCLC system currently looks in records for "something else" when there are blanks in the nonfiling indicator position. Gary Smith (OCLC) also stated that with the control character technique, systems would probably continue to look inside of the field regardless of the indicator value. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that using 0 (zero) with the control character technique would add a double meaning to the value.
Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) felt that using the nonfiling control character technique would be useful for serial cataloging, especially when it is used in fields 700 (Added entrypersonal name) and 780 (Preceding entry), subfield $t (Title). John Attig (OLAC) also stated that there may be some beneficial use of the control character technique with corrections and interpolations. Karen Coyle (RUSA), however, suggested that the nonfiling control character technique should not be used for indexing purposes. Kathy Glennan (MLA) agreed and wondered how the nonfiling control character technique would impact browsing indexes.
Both Gary Smith (OCLC) and Kathy Glennan (MLA) expressed concern about the liberalness of some of the examples in section 2.2.5 (Examples of Various Uses). For example, Kathy Glennan expressed concern about excluding "(Opera)" in the 4th example of this section. She also felt that MARBI should consider the implications of excluding "b." or "d." from dates in name headings, as presented in the section.
Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that the group become more prescriptive in its approach to the nonfiling control character technique. Mark Watson (CC:DA) stated that although MARBI is reluctant to prescribe usage guidelines, the MARC documentation should provide some guidance for the technique. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that guidelines be written that present using the control character technique to indicate nonfiling characters, particularly initial articles in a limited number of fields (e.g., 246, 7XX, subfield $t). It should also exclude indexing practices.
Matthew Wise (New York University) suggested that MARBI initially allow the control character technique to replace the nonfiling indicator value in the fields where it is currently unavailable and then discuss new uses during future meetings.
Discussion Paper 2002-DP01: Coding Electronic Formats for Different Media in Field 007 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper which discusses coding electronic formats in field 007 of the MARC 21 bibliographic and holdings formats.
Gary Smith (OCLC) stated that field 007 is too complex to code accurately and that it may have outlived its usefulness. Catalogers may not remember the codes and thus, have difficulty applying them. He recommended using note fields to record 007 data, perhaps with controlled vocabulary, instead of relying on the coded data in the 007 fields. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) also stated that it is very difficult to make the codes useful for all cataloging agencies.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that the first position is used heavily by libraries as search limits. David Goldberg (NAL) also commented that coding field 007 is important for sound recordings to record qualifying data. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) stated that coded data controls space and uses a consistent, controlled vocabulary. Because of the rapid changes in technology and vocabularies, however, it may be more practical to use words rather than codes for this type of information. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) stated that his agency uses the 007 field in the holdings format to create labels. He also felt that coded values lacked the ambiguity inherent in using words in note fields.
Gary Smith (OCLC) supported broadening code s (Electronic) in 008/23 (Form of item) for Books, Music, Serials, and Mixed Materials and position 008/29 for Maps and Visual Materials.
Discussion Paper 2002-DP06: Repertoire Expansion in the Universal Character Set for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics
Jack Cain (Trylus Computing) introduced the paper which proposes that the repertoire permitted in MARC 21 be expanded to include all characters from the Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics (CAS) set. This expansion would be applicable to records in UCS/Unicode only. Joan Aliprand (RLG) asked Jack Cain (Trylus Computing) if he would use model A or model B with the CAS records. Jack Cain (Trylus Computing) stated that model B would be used to preserve the language.
Gary Smith (OCLC) agreed that the current character set repertoire of MARC 21 records in Unicode should be expanded for CAS, however, he did not think that there was a need to create a mechanism to flag the presence of the expansion. John Espley (AVIAC) thought that it was possible to use the entire Unicode standard in MARC records with mapping only from MARC-8 to Unicode, but not vice versa. He also stated that VTLS users in the Canadian northern territories are currently using Unicode. Gary Smith (OCLC) explained that MARBI had initially decided to review any additions to the MARC-8 subset, however, it did not want to extend the Latin repertoire.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) did not believe that the CAS repertoire was a good test case for most libraries would not want to share the records. Jim Agenbroad (LC) preferred expanding the MARC 21 character repertoire and define escape sequences so MARC-8 could include character sets for other scripts. These sets could be based on characters in their Unicode encoding. John Attig (OLAC), however, stated that the larger issues of expanding the MARC 21 character repertoire should be explored in new discussion papers.
The paper will come back as a proposal for the annual MARBI meeting.
Discussion Paper 2002-DP07: Changes for UKMARC Format Alignment
Sally McCallum (LC) and Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the paper which presents changes suggested by UKMARC users to facilitate the alignment of the UKMARC and MARC 21 formats.
008 - Books, Computer files, Music, Visual Materials / 22 - Target audience
006 - Books, Computer files, Music, Visual Materials / 05 - Target audience
Participants felt that the definitions should be modified to reflect different educational practices. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) also suggested that MARBI look at the relationships between the target audience codes before adding any new codes to fields 008/22 and 006/05 (Target audience).
008 - Serials / 20 - ISSN Center
006 - Serials / 03 - ISSN Center
There were no specific comments about this proposal.
008 - Music / 21 - Music parts
006 - Music / 04 - Music parts
Kathy Glennan (MLA) expressed concern about adding fields 008/21 and 006/04 (Music parts) into the bibliographic format for the information may be more appropriately placed in holdings fields. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) stated that reviving the music parts byte would contradict the MARC principle of not redefining obsolete data elements. Alan Danskin (BL) agreed to look into another way to code for music parts in the bibliographic format.
008 - Music / 33 - Transposition and arrangement
006 - Music / 16 - Transposition and arrangement
Kathy Glennan (MLA) reported to the group that the first sentence of the note under fields 008/33 and 006/16 (Transposition and arrangement) should be struck from the paper for it is incorrect. The sentence is: "The information on transposition and arrangement is also in the uniform title." Participants expressed some interest in accommodating these additions into the format.
008 - Books / 24-27 - Nature of contents
006 - Books / 07-10 - Nature of contents
008 - Serials / 24 - Nature of entire work
006 - Serials / 07 - Nature of entire work
008 - Serials / 25-27 - Nature of contents
006 - Serials / 08-10 - Nature of contents
Karen Coyle (RUSA) requested that Mr. Danskin clarify the meaning of "Specifications" in fields 008/24-27, 006/07-10, 008/24, 006/07 and 006/08-10. Alan Danskin (BL) agreed to provide a definition of it in the proposal.
040 - Cataloging Source
Participants expressed concern about defining subfield $z into field 040 since the concept of ownership of records goes against the U.S. philosophy of record sharing. A request was made that field 040 not be used to carry this information. Consideration should be given to including the information elsewhere in the format. There is an issue of hybrid records with multiple origins.
756 - Fingerprint Note
Joe Altimus (RLG) stated that he would like to resolve the discrepancies between field 756 (Fingerprint note) and UNIMARC field 012 (Fingerprint identifier) before the proposal goes forward. Consideration should also be given to using the 0XX block since the fingerprint note resembles a standard number.
563 - Binding Information
John Attig (OLAC) stated that the information placed in field 563 (Binding information) has been traditionally coded in field 590 in the U.S.. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) stated that this information should be placed in holdings records. John Attig (OLAC) maintained, however, that until libraries began to share holdings records, it must remain in the bibliographic record. Alan Danskin clarified that the URI in field 563 (Binding information) would link to an image of an original binding.
Book trade fields
John Attig (OLAC) stated that the book trade information is acquisition data. Alan Danskin (BL), however, clarified that it is prevalently used in the British library community. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) asked if field 358 (Trade information) would be restricted to only ONIX codes. Alan Danskin replied that the British Library uses BIC codes now, but would like to use ONIX codes in the future. Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) suggested adding a subfield $2 to field 358 to indicate different coding schemes. Participants felt that the relationships between the book trade fields and fields 037, 050, and 350 should be further explored.
Joe Altimus (RLG) stated that RLG plans to translate the Eszett as "ss" until RLG is ready for repertoire expansion in a Unicode environment. He opposed MARC 21 character repertoire expansion for the euro sign, however, others acknowledged the need for the addition. Joe Altimus (RLG) noted that the European Union has defined an official abbreviation for the euro, EUR, which is registered with ISO and is used for business, financial, and commercial purposes. This abbreviation could be used to indicate the euro in field 020 subfield $c (Terms of availability) and elsewhere. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that abbreviations (official) be used in bibliographic data rather than signs, where feasible.
Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress