MARBI Meeting Minutes

ALA Midwinter Meeting
San Diego, CA -- January 10-11, 2004

MARBI members:

Thomas Saudargas, Chair   RUSA       Miami-Dade College 
Karen Coyle RUSA Independent Consultant
Karen Davis LITA Georgia State University
Helen Gbala LITA Ex Libris (USA) Inc.
Bruce Rennie RUSA Kansas City Public Library
Adam Schiff ALCTS University of Washington
Marc Truitt LITA University of Houston
Mitch L. Turitz ALCTS San Francisco State University
Martha Yee ALCTS UCLA Film and Television Archive

MARBI Interns:

Donna Cranmer             LITA        Siouxland Libraries
Wei Jeng-Chu RUSA Worcester Public Library

Ex-Officio Members:

Alan Danskin                          British Library
Sally McCallum                        Library of Congress
Margaret Stewart                      National Library of Canada

MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:

Joe Altimus               RLG         Research Libraries Group
John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University
Sherman Clarke VRA New York University
John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc.
Michael Fox SAA Minnesota Historical Society
Paul Cauthen MLA University of Cincinnati
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
Robert Hall PLA Concord Free Public Library
Maureen Killeen AG AG-Canada
Gail Lewis MicroLIF Sagebrush Corporation
Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa
Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library
Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine


Jacqueline Radebaugh      LC         Library of Congress

Other Attendees:

Jim Agenbroad                        Retired, Library of Congress
Joan Aliprand RLG
Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester
Colleen Cahill Library of Congress
Ann Case H. W. Wilson
Carroll Davis Library of Congress
Betsy Eggleston Harvard University
Cathy Gerhart University of Washington
Joanne Gilmore Columbus Metro Library
Stephen Hearn University of Minnesota
Diane Hillmann Cornell University
Charles Husbands Harvard University
Bruce Johnson Library of Congress
William Jones New York University
Nancy Kandoian New York Public Library
Sara Shatfor Layne University of California, Los Angeles
Yue Li University of Florida
Elizabeth Lilker New York University
Kristin Lindlan University of Washington
John Maier New York University
Margi Mann OCLC
Giles Martin OCLC
Dorothy McGarry University of California, Los Angeles
Christine Meyer University of Minnesota
Darcy Nebergall University of Washington
David Nelson University of Pennsylvania
Suzanne Picken Washington Research Library Consortium
Ann Della Porta Library of Congress
Barbara Rapopart California Institute of Technology
Frank Sadowski University of Rochester
Jackie Shieh University of Michigan
Gary Smith OCLC
James L. SoeNyun University of California, San Diego
Gary Strawn Northwestern University
Mollie Della Terza Harvard University
David Van Hoy Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Paul Weiss University of California, San Diego
Jay Weitz OCLC
Robin Wendler Harvard University
Amy Wood Center for Research Libraries
Lisa Zhao University of Illinois at Chicago


Saturday, January 10, 2004

Thom Saudargas, MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. The proposed agenda was adopted and the minutes of the previous meeting ( were accepted by a voice vote.

Proposal 2004-01: Making Subfields $e, $f, and $g Repeatable in Field 260 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

John Attig (OLAC) introduced the paper which proposes repeating subfields $e (Place of manufacture), $f (Manufacturer) and $g (Date of manufacture) in field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)) for multiple places, names, and dates of manufacture. This is sometimes needed in rare book cataloging. Since subfields $e, $f and $g are currently non-repeatable in field 260, rare book catalogers now must either decide to record only one set of manufacture information or give the information in a note.

Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked whether subfield $g (Date of manufacture) in field 260 is currently repeatable. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) answered that it is non-repeatable. He also stated that subfields $a (Place of publication, distribution, etc.), $b (Name of publisher, distributor, etc.) and $c (Date of publication, distribution, etc.) were made repeatable primarily for continuing resources.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) moved to accept the proposal as written. Marc Truitt (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor of the proposal as written.

Proposal 2004-02: Defining New Field Link Type Codes for Subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

Joe Altimus (RLG) introduced the paper which proposes defining new link type codes "a" (action) and "x" (general sequencing) in subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number). This will facilitate linking between fields 583 (Action note), 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note) and 561 (Ownership and Custodial History). It also proposes defining a general subfield $8 link code to sequence relationships between fields.

Marc Truitt (LITA) asked about how the proposed link type codes relate to the currently defined ones. Joe Altimus (RLG) answered that the defined codes are for distinct types and do not relate to the proposed codes. John Attig (OLAC) felt that limiting the use of the code to just acquisition information is short-sighted for fields 541 and 561.

John Attig (OLAC) wondered if anyone would implement the proposed codes. Joe Altimus (RLG) stated that RLG plans to implement them. No one else commented.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) was more comfortable with using the codes for linking rather than for sequencing because of how systems sequence fields differently. She felt that the proposal was trying to solve system-specific sequencing problems. Ms. Coyle (RUSA) also commented that the MARC Principles ( state that fields may not be in the order that they are recorded in the directory. Sally McCallum (LC) agreed stating that there is no intelligence in the directory. Joe Altimus (RLG) maintained that the new link codes are the dominant characteristic of the proposal. Defining a general subfield $8 link for sequencing relationships between fields is of secondary importance.

John Espley (AVIAC) stated that the “Display form” in the VTLS system orders fields based on the specifications given by individual institutions. The “MARC view” of the system orders the fields as they are input.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) motioned to pass the proposal as written. Mitch Turitz seconded the motion.

John Attig (OLAC) stated that MARBI should remove explicit reference to fields in the proposal so that the phrase changes from “to link one or more 583 fields with the 541 or 561 field” to “link fields 541 or 561 to one or more fields.”

The vote was 6-1 in favor of the proposal as written.

Proposal 2004-03: Designating the Privacy of Fields 541, 561 and 583 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

Joe Altimus (RLG) introduced the paper which proposes defining indicator values for privacy and possibly note control in fields 583 (Action note), 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note) and 561 (Ownership and Custodial History). Michael Fox (SAA) reported that there is need for these proposed changes in the archival community.

Rich Greene (OCLC) felt that combining two definitions in indicator blank (#) may be problematic. He suggested that the definitions be broken out into two indicator values. Rich Greene (OCLC) explained that blank (#) now basically means that no information has been provided. OCLC assumes that all 541 and 561 fields are for private, non-public use. All records would then be coded with a blank (#) indicator value. However, with new records, OCLC would not know whether value blank means “no information provided” or “not private.” It could be able to process the indicators if “not private” would be marked with indicator value 1.

Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) wondered if vendors would implement the proposed solution. John Espley (AVIAC) answered that the VTLS label display could use the proposed solution, however, additional development would have to occur to implement the solution in the MARC view of the system.

Adam Schiff (ALCTS) asked about what the proposal meant by “private.” Michael Fox (SAA) stated that it has to do with display of information. Bruce Rennie (RUSA) stated that there is no guarantee that other libraries will honor the indicator values. Joe Altimus (RLG) explained that there must be agreements between institutions that share MARC records to use the convention effectively. Thom Saudargas (Chair, ALCTS) questioned whether the words “display” and “export” should be used in the definition of the indicator values.

John Espley (AVIAC) wondered if there are any other fields that should be controlled in the proposed manner. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that the indicator value could be useful in field 355 (Security classification control). Joe Altimus (RLG) stated that field 355 is very different from fields 541, 561 and 583, which are archival fields. John Attig (AVIAC) however, suggested that MARBI pass the proposed fields now and wait until specific proposals are presented that expand the use in the formats.

Marc Truitt (LITA) motioned to adopt the proposal with one amendment: indicator value blank (#) is defined as no information provided, indicator value 0 means that the information is private and indicator 1 is defined as not private. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) stated that blank (#) (no information provided) is necessary for it is what the existing data has in it. Plus, institutions that do not care whether users view the information would code the indicator position blank (#). Adam Schiff (ALCTS) also recommended that new examples using the indicator values be added into the documentation. Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested that there should also be a clear definition about what “private” means in the field definition. Karen Coyle (RUSA) seconded the motion.

The vote was 7-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.

Discussion Paper 2003-DP03: Changing the Mapping for the Double-Wide Diacritics from MARC8 to Unicode/UCS from the Unicode/UCS Half Diacritic Characters to the Unicode/UCS Double-Wide Diacritic Characters

Joan Aliprand (RLG) introduced the paper which presents a number of reasons why the use of the single double-wide diacritics may be preferable to using the two half diacritic characters. The paper suggests that the MARC 21 community change its official mapping to Unicode/UCS to the double-wide diacritics.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) explained that the double-wide tilde in Tagalog and the ligature used in Cyrillic romanization are encoded as half diacritic characters in ANSEL and are mapped to equivalent half diacritic characters in Unicode/UCS. Another way to represent the double-width tilde and the ligature in Unicode is to use single diacritic characters that span two alphabetic characters: the combining double tilde and combining double inverted breve. The Unicode Consortia and implementors prefer the double-width characters to the halves.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) noted that the Unicode Consortium is not against separate diacritics, but just finds these pairs difficult. She stated that the consortium favors separate diacritics and will only rarely define additional pre-combined forms in the future.

According to Joan Aliprand, the half diacritics used by MARC are difficult to display using proportional fonts so the ligatures usually show up as spacing characters in browsers. Use of the single double-wide diacritic may thus be preferable. Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that the double ligature is not the only character that does not display well. Sherman Clarke (VRA) reminded the group that the MARC community cannot control fonts in bibliographic databases.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) felt like the committee should look at the larger issues of implementing and mapping to Unicode. Gary Smith (OCLC) was concerned about the MARC-8 to Unicode conversion and that this change would add further complexity. The diacritic halves have also not been input consistently in MARC records. This may hinder conversion. Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) stated that he looked at Northwestern’s bibliographic database and found 999 records that contained mismatched ligatures. He also found three records with double tildes over “m” and “g”. Joan Aliprand (RLG) countered that RLG has created an algorithm to make the inputted characters more consistent. Charles Husbands (Harvard University) reported that RLG’s algorithm is very useful, however, it could be made even simpler.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) asked the group if RLG could write up a proposal and work with Charles Husbands (Harvard University) to improve its algorithm. A straw vote was taken. 18 people were in favor of a proposal.

Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned that a formal proposal be written for this change. Karen Coyle (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor of a future proposal.

Report: Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC 21 -- Part 1: New Scripts

Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the report by stating that it is the first part of a two part paper on Unicode. The other part to come will treat full Unicode character encodings and normalization issues.

According to Ms. McCallum (LC), although the paper presents a basic plan for handling Unicode, it does not look at characters in the EACC repertoire. She highlighted some of the sections of part 1. These are: encodings and repertoire differences; current issues facing libraries converting to Unicode (or planning to); differentiation between the MARC communication and record formats; alternatives of moving from a MARC-8 environment to a Unicode one; fonts; and useful references to other resources.

Jim Agenbroad (LC, retired) stated that the report has little that the MARC Advisory Committee can decide upon at the present time. It also does not follow the findings of the MARC Unicode Task Force. MARC-8 is a valuable and useful encoding, however, it needs to be flexible. He suggested that MARBI decide to adopt the full Unicode 4.0 specification and augment the MARC-8 character set as needed.

John Attig (OLAC) asked Jack Cain why in writing the report, he recommended Option 4 (Replace the character with “[U+nnnn]” in ASCII) as a solution to implementing Unicode in the MARC 21 formats. Jack Cain stated that recommending Option 4 in the paper may have been a rash decision. He suggested that the committee look at all of the options and discuss each of them.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) requested clarification on the recommendation to display, import and store Unicode-based MARC 21 records. Jack Cain agreed that this may not be clear in the report. Karen Coyle (RUSA) then asked if the assumption in implementing Unicode is to use field 880 (Alternate graphic representation). John Attig (OLAC) maintained that the MARC community should not abandon romanization.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) reminded the group that if one coded multi script records using Option 2 (Substitute another character), field 066 (Character sets present) is required. In field 066, the default romanization is input into subfield $a (Primary G0 character set) and the alternative romanization schemes are recorded in subfields $b (Primary G1 character set) and $c (Alternate G0 or G1 character set). According to Ms. Aliprand (RLG), translations from MARC-8 to Unicode are relatively easy to create, however, the other issues around implementing Unicode are more complex.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) stated that when using Internet Explorer with the Microsoft Arial font, an empty box signifies that some MARC-8 characters are not supported by the font. A box with a question mark signifies that the browser does not know what to do with a character. Jack Cain predicted that the boxes will eventually disappear as more fonts are developed and improved upon.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) reminded the group that there is a Unicode conference in Washington, DC on March 31 - April 2, 2004. She also stated that the current Unicode 4.0 specification is located on the web at: The annual ALA meeting will be an advantageous time to revisit the use of Unicode in MARC 21 records for there will be a Unicode program in Orlando.

Proposal 2004-04: Definition of Field 258 (Philatelic Issue Data) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Marg Stewart (NLC) introduced the paper which proposes defining field 258 (Philatelic Issue Data) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format to record data relating to issuing jurisdiction and denomination for philatelic material.

Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) questioned whether limiting field 258 to philatelic data was too narrow of scope for the field. He suggested opening it up to all collectors’ items. Marg Stewart (NLC) suggested that the field could be widened to include numismatic collections.

John Attig (OLAC) asked what the relation of the field was to Area 3 of the ISBD. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) reported that philatelic materials are not covered in either the ISBD or AACR2. They are considered archival materials. Sally McCallum (LC) also reported that catalogers of philatelic material uses the ISAD.

Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that the 25X block is not appropriate for philatelic material. He suggested defining the field in the 02X or 03X blocks. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reported that there are almost no fields available in the 02X and 03X blocks.

Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) asked how the National Archives of Canada (NAC) needs access to the material. Marg Stewart (NLC) answered that the National Archives of Canada would like to index the information by providing access through an added entry. Transcription of the materials is provided in a note field. Joe Altimus (RLG) asked how the Leader, 006 and 008 fields would be coded for philatelic material. Marg Stewart (NLC) stated that the National Archives of Canada would like to code a 2XX field, however, she is unsure how the other fields would be coded.

Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked about what field the National Archives of Canada are currently coding for philatelic material. Marg Stewart (NLC) stated that the description rules for philatelic material were approved in July and since then the National Archives of Canada has been using a local convention.

Adam Schiff (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written. Marc Truitt (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 1-4 against passing the proposal as written. It was recommended that the field scope be expanded to include numismatic material.

Michael Fox (SAA) stated that it may be difficult to find a user community who catalogs numismatic materials. Marg Stewart (NLC) asked whether there are description rules for numismatic materials. No one answered this question.

Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that the National Archives of Canada create a non-specific 2XX field for collectibles. Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that this may be difficult because the other 25X fields are specifically defined. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) also suggested that an indicator value be used to identify the philatelic material in the broadened field. John Attig (OLAC) did not recommend this approach and asked if the information could fit into another defined field. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested field 752 (Added entry–Hierarchical place name). Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that the philatelic material was more like an uncontrolled corporate body. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that the information be put in field 245 (Title). Sherman Clarke (VRA) reminded the group that problems result when description and access data are mixed into the field, however. David Goldberg (NAL) suggested coding field 257 (Country of producing entity for archival films). Adam Schiff (ALCTS) commented that one country can produce stamps for another country and thus field 257 (Country of producing entity for archival films) may not be appropriate.

John Attig (OLAC) suggested that a recommendation be sent back to the National Archives of Canada that clearer examples are needed, along with a broader definition of field 258. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) rhetorically asked the group how it could ask the National Archives of Canada to find people who want to use a broadened field 258 when it had a specific purpose.

Marc Truitt (LITA) motioned to pass the proposal as written since it was not clear that anyone would use a broadened field. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The second vote was 7-0 in favor of the proposal as written.

Sunday, January 11, 2004

Discussion Paper 2004-DP02: Applying Field 752 (Added Entry – Hierarchical Place Name) for Different Purposes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Susan Moore (MAGERT) introduced the paper which explores the variety of current uses of MARC 21 field 752 (Added entry – hierarchical place name) and the ways that some online systems index it. The paper suggests the need of some institutions to index the uses of field 752 differently, and presents a possible way to facilitate such capability by adding either an indicator to show whether the place name designates place of publication or subject or defining a new field in the subject range for subject use.

Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked if a thesaurus would be used for controlling the terms used in field 752. Colleen Cahill (LC) stated that name authority records are used at LC. Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested that subfield $2 (Source) be added to field 752 for thesauri used. John Attig (OLAC) agreed and asked if there are currently defined adequate subfields in field 752 (Added entry – hierarchical place name). Alan Danskin (BL) stated that the British Library needs a subfield below the city level for cataloging newspapers.

Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that an indicator value be added for place of publication/subject coverage in field 752. Thom Saudargas (ALCTS, Chair) stated that an indicator could also provide for display. Michael Fox (SAA) maintained that this would make the field’s scope ambiguous for one record could serve both functions at the same time.

Marti Scheel (NLM) stated that the National Library of Medicine prefers Option 2 (Define a new 6XX field) of the paper. Alan Danskin (BL) however, countered that defining a new 6XX field would require the British Library to change its data. Rich Greene (OCLC) reported that OCLC does not like to mix subject data in the 7XX added entry fields. Joe Altimus (RLG) stated that RLG agrees with OCLC’s position on this issue. Karen Coyle (RUSA) countered that a hierarchical subject field is needed along with the 752 field. Sherman Clarke (VRA) agreed that field 752 describes a place and field 652 could be about that place.

Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/Na) asked whether the historical or recent name of a place would be used. The group suggested that the authorized heading be used in field 652. Colleen Cahill (LC) stated that LC always uses the current form of the name. The field would be used for access, not for description.

John Attig (OLAC) asked if there should be a comparable field to field 652 defined in the authority format. He also asked if an authority source subfield is needed in the field. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that if field 752 is used, the new use of the field needs to be stated in the field scope.

It was reported that there are no longer any 652 fields in the LC or OCLC database (since it was previously defined and made obsolete), however, it was also suggested that larger library databases (such as Harvard University’s database) be searched to ascertain if field 652 has been used in the past.

There was a straw poll taken to ascertain which option was preferable to the group. 12 people were in favor of defining an indicator value in field 752 and 16 were in favor of defining a new 6XX field.

The participants decided that a proposal should be presented at the annual meeting that includes the two options and further delineates how the authority record would be impacted.

Discussion Paper 2004-DP01: Changes Needed to Accommodate RISM Data--Music Incipits

Paul Cauthen (MLA) introduced the paper which proposes defining field 031 in the authority and bibliographic formats to contain information needed for encoding RISM (Répertoire International des Sources Musicales) incipits. An incipit identifies the work and manifestation entities.

Rich Greene (OCLC) approved of the proposal, however, he was concerned about having to validate the data in field 031. John Attig (OLAC) replied that it is presently unclear what stakeholders would use the field. Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that institutions working on specific projects with incipits should register the project with the RISM Central Office.

Alan Danskin (BL) stated that the UK RISM Office was not consulted in writing the paper. As a result, it uses another field besides field 031 for incipit data. Alan Danskin (BL) maintained that the data elements in the proposed field 031 conflicted with the UK RISM’s field data elements. Paul Cauthen (MLA) replied that no one in the UK RISM Office replied to any of MLA’s e-mail messages. Karen Coyle (RUSA) suggested that a mapping could be used to exchange data between the different RISM offices. Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that the Central RISM Office would like all of the smaller units to use the same field.

Sally McCallum (LC) asked if the RISM Central Office has a preference for using either the DARMS or Plaine & Easie Code. Paul Cauthen (MLA) answered that it uses the Plaine & Easie Code. The Germans, however, use the DARMS code.

Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego) was concerned that certain subfields each had dependent instructions. For example, subfield $r (Coded validity note) requires application instructions to interpret it. Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that the application of subfield $r was complex so to allow coding for non-Western languages. Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that if the RISM Office is already using the subfield $r (Coded validity note) convention, it is not up to MARBI to change its practice. Paul Cauthen (MLA) suggested that the coded validity note information could be put into an indicator value instead of the complex subfield $r. Karen Coyle (RUSA) wondered how one would link to the data if it were expressed in an indicator value. Paul Cauthen (MLA) doubted that the information in subfield $r (Coded validity note) would ever need to be linked to something else.

Robin Wendler (Harvard University) asked whether different movements with different incipits need to be linked in some fashion. Paul Cauthen (MLA) replied that he would investigate in this.

Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that as currently defined, subfield $z (Language of text) relates to the text in subfield $t (Text incipit) and is coded only if the language is not already represented in field 008/35-37. Subfield $z is also repeatable. There are two larger issues about this that have not been addressed adequately in the paper. These are: 1. Coding for language in the authority format is now obsolete. 2. There may be duplicate information in field 031 subfield $z that is already present in bibliographic format field 041 (Language code). Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that he thought that rather than reintroducing language coding in the authority format, MLA would be inclined to define field 031 subfield $z in the bibliographic format only. Paul Cauthen (MLA) also stated that many of the proposed subfields in field 031 are item-specific and may not be appropriate for the authority format. He plans to investigate in this.

A proposal will be presented at the annual MARBI meeting in Orlando.

Business Meeting

LC Report

Sally McCallum (LC) reported that Update No. 4 (October 2003) to all five MARC 21 formats has been published and will be distributed in a few weeks. Likewise, all of the MARC 21 formats, (besides the bibliographic format) will be cumulated in 2004. Ms. McCallum (LC) also reported that the MARC Code List for Countries and the MARC Code List for Languages were published in late 2003.

A new edition of Understanding MARC Authority Records will be published in the Spring of 2004. It will be ready for distribution by the annual ALA conference in June. It includes changes suggested by the MARC 21 user community.

MODS 3.0 was released in early 2004. Likewise, the new FRBR Display Tool was released in late 2003. A revised version of the tool is being prepared and will be made available in the Spring of 2004.

Rich Greene (OCLC) reported on the FRBR Preconference that MARBI is supporting. It is called, “Back to the Future” and will include ten experts speaking about FRBR.

Thom Saudargas (ALCTS, Chair) reported that Z39.71 is up for review. People should send their comments by January 23, 2004. Martha Yee (ALCTS) suggested that more development of the standard is needed so that it can support audio/visual archives.

Marti Scheel (NLM) reported that she is stepping down as the NLM liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee. Gene Dickerson (NLM) will take her place.

MARBI will meet at its usual times in Orlando:

June 26, 2004: 9:30 - 12:30
June 27, 2004: 2:00 - 5:30
June 28, 2004: 2:00 - 4:00

Respectfully submitted,

Jackie Radebaugh

Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress

Go to:

Library of
Congress Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk ( 06/29/2004 )