Marc Truitt, Chair LITA University of Alberta Libraries Renette Davis ALCTS University of Chicago Patricia French LITA Multnomah County Library Wei Jeng-Chu RUSA Worcester Public Library Ellen Siegel Kovacic ALCTS (Intern) Hebrew Union College JIR Nathan D. M. Robertson LITA (Intern) University of Maryland Jacqueline Samples ALCTS North Carolina State University Adam Schiff ALCTS University of Washington Stephanie Schmitt LITA Zayed University Laura Snyder RUSA Rutherford Library
Corine Deliot British Library Sally H. McCallum Library of Congress Marg Stewart Library and Archives Canada
MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Jim Alberts MLA Cornell University Everett Allgood CC:DA New York University John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Sophie Bogdanski STS West Virginia University Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Bonnie Dede SAC University of Michigan John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Rich Greene OCLC OCLC Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Robert Hall PLA Concord Free Public Library Alice Jacobs NLM National Library of Medicine Kris Kiesling SAA University of Minnesota Gail Lewis MicroLIF Coughlan Publishing Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Morgan Library and Museum George Prager AALL New York University Law Libraries Tina Shrader NAL National Agricultural Library
Jacqueline Radebaugh LC Library of Congress
Rich Aldred Haverford College Frances Ott Allen University of Cincinnati Joe Altimus Arizona State University Jean Altschuler Arnold and Porter, LLC Julianne Beall Library of Congress Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester Don Chatham ALA Publishing Department Sarah Cohen Champlain College Karen Coyle Independent Consultant Charles Croissant Saint Louis University Carroll Davis Library of Congress Shi Deng University of California at San Diego Michelle Durocher Harvard University Thomas Duszak State Library of Pennsylvania Felicity Dykas University of Missouri - Columbia Betsy Eggleston Harvard University Lynn El-Hoshy Library of Congress Deborah Fritz The MARC of Quality Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Cathy Gerhart University of Washington Ruth Haas Harvard University Shelby E. Harken University of North Dakota Patricia Hart University of Washington Les Hawkins Library of Congress Stephen Hearn University of Minnesota Christel Hengel German National Library Reinhold Heuvelmann German National Library John Hostage Harvard University Charles Husbands Harvard University Peggy Jenner University of Washington Ed Jones National University (San Diego) William Jones New York University Judy Kuhagen Library of Congress Jennifer Lang Princeton University Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada Elizabeth Lilker New York University Kristin Lindlan University of Washington Amanda Lovie Serials Solutions Marsha Maguire University of Washington Yael Mandelstam Fordham Law Giles Martin OCLC Linda McCormick Duke University Margo Menconi Florida International University Joan Mitchell OCLC William Moen University of North Texas Gordon Neavill Wayne State University Darcy Nebergall King County Library System Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library Linda Pitts University of Washington Susan Pyzynski Harvard University David Saah Library of Congress Philip Schrear Stanford University Gary Strawn Northwestern University Barbara Tillett Library of Congress Carolyn Walden University of Alabama at Birmingham Paul Weiss University of California at San Diego Jay Weitz OCLC Robin Wendler Harvard University Matthew Wise New York University Martha Yee UCLA Film and Television Archive
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Marc Truitt (LITA), 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-06.html) were accepted by a voice vote.
MARC Content Designation Utilization Project Report
Dr. William E. Moen, Associate Professor at the University of North Texas, School of Library and Information Sciences, described the future program, "Informing the Future of MARC: An Empirical Approach." This program will provide a venue for reporting the results of the "MARC Content Designation Project." It will also provide an opportunity to discuss future directions for machine-readable catalog records using FRBR, RDA, and XML. The ALCTS-sponsored program will be held on Saturday, June 23 from 8:00 to 10:00 AM. Speakers include Ms. Sally H. McCallum (Library of Congress), Dr. Shawne D. Miksa (University of North Texas) and Dr. William E. Moen (University of North Texas).
Proposal No. 2007-01: Definition of subfields $b and $j in field 041 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
John Attig (OLAC) introduced the paper (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-01.html) which proposed the definition of subfield $j as "Language code of subtitle or caption." It also proposed redefining subfield $b as "Language code of summary or abstract." Sherman Clarke (VRA) requested that the words “subtitle” and “caption” be presented in the plural in the MARC 21 documentation. The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to approve the paper as amended. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
Proposal No. 2007-02: Incorporating invalid former headings in 4XX fields of the MARC 21 Authority Format
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the paper (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-02.html) which discussed the incorporation of invalid former heading information into MARC 21 authority records when a former heading is not considered a valid or useful reference. Doing this would facilitate locating instances of former headings in bibliographic records that may need to be revised. The paper proposed coding the 4XX fields (See From Tracing fields) with a new code defined in subfield $w/2 (Control subfield/Earlier form of heading) to indicate that the earlier heading recorded in the field is invalid. John Attig (OLAC) delineated the goal of the paper as to provide a”warning flag” for an invalid former heading.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked the group which character position of subfield $w should be used for the new code: $w/1 or $w/2. Character position $w/1 contains restrictions on a reference tracing display and character position $w/2 indicates that a field was formerly an established heading. Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) recommended defining the new code in $w/1 instead of $w/2 because it would then be placed with the other codes that restrict the application of reference tracings.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the paper with the following amendments: the new code value (value ‘h’) for “Do not display” will be defined in subfield $w/1. Subfield $w/2 will be coded using one of the existing values appropriate: value ‘e’ for earlier established form of heading (national authority file) or ‘o’ for earlier established form of heading (other authority file). Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended
Proposal No. 2007-03: Addition of subfield $5 in fields 533 and 538 in the MARC 21 bibliographic format
Renette Davis (ALCTS) introduced the paper (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-03.html) which proposed the addition of subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) in bibliographic fields 533 (Reproduction note) and 538 (Systems details note) for use in the Registry of Digital Masters (www.diglib.org/collections/reg/DigRegGuide200705.htm). The data would indicate to which institution the reproduction note or system details note applies in records. This also serves as a signal when an institution makes a commitment to preserve particular digital masters if the record is coded in field 042 (Authentication code) as “dlr.”
Alice Jacobs (NLM) suggested that subfield $5 in field 533 be made repeatable because more than one agency may digitize the same material. Renette Davis (ALCTS) disagreed, stating that multiple people digitizing the same material would not occur in most scenarios.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) suggested that in adding subfield $5 to the bibliographic 533 and 538 fields, MARBI should simultaneously consider adding subfield $5 to the corresponding holdings fields (Fields 538 and 843). The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to approve the proposal as amended: Subfield $5 will be added to the bibliographic fields 533 and 538 and to the holdings fields 538 and 843. Wei Jeng-Chu (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
Discussion Paper No. 2007-DP02: Use of field 520 for content advice statements
Corine Deliot (BL) introduced the paper (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-dp02.html) which discussed coding field 520 (Summary, etc.) in the bibliographic format to carry advice statements about types of content in items, primarily, but not solely, for visually impaired users.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that OLAC supports adding a provision for content advice information into the bibliographic format. The general consensus of the group agreed with him.
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that content advice statements should be entered in separate fields from other summary information. Alice Jacobs (NLM) suggested coding field 521 (Target Audience) for content advice statements. John Attig (OLAC) agreed, stating that OLAC prefers using field 521. Corine Deliot (BL), however, stated that the target audience is irrelevant in regards to content advice statements. According to Ms. Deliot (BL), content advice statements are simply objective statements of what is in a type of media. John Attig (OLAC) agreed with her, however, he felt that field 521 should be used since the NLS/BPH already codes field 521 for content advice statements. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that field 521 could be repeated for different agencies’ ratings.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that if field 520 is used, OLAC prefers adding a new first indicator value to identify that the data is a content advice statement. The consensus of the group agreed. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) stated that adding value 4 to the first indicator position for a content advice statement may be useful for searching.
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that a subfield be defined for source. Alice Jacobs (NLM) suggested coding subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) for source information. John Attig (OLAC) stated that subfield $5 contains the MARC code of the institution or organization that holds the copy to which the data in the field applies. It is not a source subfield. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested coding subfield $2 for source. Sally McCallum (LC), however, stated that subfield $2 indicates the type of vocabulary used, not the agency that assigned the code. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that subfield $c could be defined to hold source information about the agency that assigned the content advice statement.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) asked if the source would be indicated by a MARC source code or a MARC organization code. The group agreed to use MARC organization codes. Rebecca Guenther (LC), however, suggested that the source information not be limited to code values. One could also use free text to name the agency that assigned the content advice statement. The group agreed with her.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) took a straw poll about in which field the group wants to code for content advice statements. The majority of the group preferred using field 520, with a new first indicator value 4 and subfield $c for source. A proposal will be written for the June 2007 meetings.
Discussion Paper No. 2007-DP04: Definition of Field 004 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Rich Greene (OCLC) introduced the paper (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-dp04.html)which discussed defining field 004 (Control Number for Related Bibliographic Record) in the bibliographic format to link one bibliographic record to another in the same system. This link would be similar to the same field in the holdings format that links a holdings record to a bibliographic record. Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that initially, coding field 004 in bibliographic records would be implemented only by former RLG customers, but eventually OCLC may open this linking mechanism up to its entire membership.
The group felt that other institutions may find the ability to link bibliographic records useful. Alice Jacobs (NLM) expressed a need to create profiles to differentiate institution and master records.
John Espley (AVIAC) stated that VTLS uses field 004 in its FRBR implementation to link work records. It does not distribute these records, however. John Attig (OLAC) stated that the community may want to distribute work records in the future. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) suggested adding field 004 to the authority format to record FRBR relationships.
Marc Truitt (LITA, Chair) suggested using a local field to link two bibliographic records from the same system. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) stated that OCLC codes field to link different languages together. Rich Greene (OCLC) responded that field 936 is a textual field. OCLC wants to implement a more structured field for linking bibliographic records together. Whether this was a local OCLC need or a more general one was discussed.
Marc Truitt (LITA, Chair) then asked whether there will be a need to identify institutional control numbers if field 004 is used in other systems. If so, would it be included as text in the field? John Attig (OLAC) stated that field 003 (Control Number Identifier) applies only to field 001 (Control number). Mr. Attig (OLAC) wondered if source information could be coded in field 035 (System control number). Rich Greene (OCLC) agreed, however, he felt that something must be done to make the field 004 number unambiguous. John Espley (AVIAC) stated that many 00X fields contain prefixes used for identification purposes.
Marc Truitt (LITA, Chair) asked whether a variable field with subfields be preferable over coding field 004. Nathan Robertson (University of Maryland) liked using a variable field with subfields because doing so would disambiguate the record number.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that coding field 004 is a “simple solution” for OCLC, but MARBI may want to find a solution that the entire MARC community can use. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that MARBI needs a better explanation of record linkages and examples of use cases. NDMSO can then present another paper to the group for discussion if it is determined that this mechanism is still needed. The community should send use cases to NDMSO (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Marc Truitt (LITA), MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves.
RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) spoke in depth about the collaboration between the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC) and ONIX (Online Information Exchange). The objective in developing the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization [PDF Document; 519.48K] is to create a model for categorizing resources in all media that will support the needs of both libraries and the publishing industry. It will also facilitate the transfer and use of resource description data across the two communities.
Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) stated that there were no values for objects in the framework. She suggested defining a type “Other” to solve this problem. Ms. Bowen (University of Rochester) made note of this suggestion.
John Attig (OLAC) and Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) both praised the framework because of its use of categories (and not terminologies).
Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the RDA/MARC Report [PDF Document; 2.80MB]. It contains two sections: a mapping between RDA and MARC 21 and a set of questions to be answered in the near future. The purpose of the report is to inform MARBI of the areas where a change or potential change to MARC 21 may be needed if the format is to be able to accommodate descriptions created using RDA. According to Marg Stewart (LAC), a completed mapping between RDA and MARC 21 will be published in the near future.
Tina Shrader (National Agricultural Library) stated that NAL is disappointed that the JSC did not address the weaknesses of MARC in its report. Marg Stewart (LAC) responded that this was not the intent of the report. Karen Coyle (Independent Consultant) stated that MARC 21 is supposed to encode cataloging rules. Cataloging rules should not be developed to fit into a MARC record.
Discussion Paper 2007-DP01: Changes for the German and Austrian conversion to MARC 21
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-dp01.html) paper which described additions to MARC 21 that the German and Austrian library communities would like to propose to support their existing data transfer activities. Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) reported that a MAB to MARC mapping is available online at: http://www.d-nb.de/eng/standardisierung/formate/marc21.htm .
Section 2.1: Add subfield for authority record control number to entry fields
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which discussed adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number) to the bibliographic 1XX, 6XX and 7XX entry fields.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that his institution’s system uses a local field to link bibliographic fields to applicable authority records. Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that VRA supports the use of local fields.
Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that subfield $0 could be distributed if agencies all used the same authority files. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that because subfield $0 is repeatable, one could record several different authority record numbers in individual bibliographic fields.
Section 2.2: Add subfield for bibliographic set record control numbers to series entry fields
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which discussed adding a subfield for record control number to bibliographic set records in the 4XX and 8XX series fields. The group suggested that subfield $w be defined for the record control number as a link between bibliographic records. There is still the question of indicating whose identifier it is.
Section 2.3: Add subfield for authority record control numbers in authority field 260
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which discussed adding subfield $0 for authority record control number in field 260 (Complex See Reference–Subject). The group approved of this approach to come back in a proposal.
Section 2.4: Normalization of numbers and names
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which discussed the three areas where the MAB community would like to define subfields for sorting forms of both numeric (primarily) and name data. According to Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB), sorting algorithms are not standardized in the German and Austrian library communities. The group suggested defining subfield $y for normalized numbers and names in bibliographic fields 245 (Title statement), 250 (Edition statement) and 8XX (Series added entry fields). There was a question about how to identify whose sorting rules these are.
Section 2.5: Codes for record levels of multivolume monographs and series
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which discussed adding a coded position where the following values may be indicated:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that the distinction between weak and strong titles is basic to German catalog rules.
John Attig (OLAC) was concerned that the proposal was coding for two different entities: 1) The nature of title and 2) The hierarchical relationship.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested using Leader/07 code “a” (Monographic component part) to indicate analytics. Another approach is to code Leader/19 (Linked record requirement). The group supported redefining Leader/19 for record levels of multivolume monographs and series.
Rich Greene (OCLC) suggested that more examples of both “strong” and “weak” titles be added to the upcoming proposal.
Section 2.6: Add indication of paper acidity
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section that proposed several ways to indicate paper acidity in bibliographic records. Mr. Heuvelmann preferred adding a code to field 007 to denote acidity. Sally McCallum (LC), however, stated that adding codes to field 007 is a very complex activity to accomplish. Likewise, Bill Jones (NYU) stated that codes could not show the mixed aspect of an item’s acidity. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that in addition, there are problems in using a 007 code in bibliographic records since it needs to be applied at the copy level so that it is clearer in holdings records.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked whether the acidity indication would apply to an entire item or only to part of it. A book may be acidic, however, the slides that came with it may not be acidic.
Section 2.7: Add new codes for nature of contents for books
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed two new codes for Books field 008/24-27: 1(Progress report) and 2 (Offprint). The group was generally confused about what these two terms meant. Corine Deliot (BL) suggested that the German community code field 655 (Index Term - Genre/Form) instead of creating new codes in field 008.
Section 2.8: Add new codes for nature of contents for serials
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed three new codes for Continuing Resources field 008/25-27: 3 (Announcements); 4 (Magazines); 5 (Reports). Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that the German community consider using field 655 (Index Term - Genre/Form).
Section 2.9: Add subfield for canceled or invalid National Bibliography Number in field 015
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed defining subfield $z for Canceled/invalid number in field 015 (National Bibliography Number). The group supported this proposal.
Section 2.10: Add subfield for specification of assigning institution for subject headings
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which defined subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) for the institution who assigned specific subject headings. This would enable catalogers to know when a heading has been created by the DNB.
John Attig (OLAC) stated that subfield $5 is not defined for this type of information. Corine Deliot (BL) agreed. According to Mr. Attig (OLAC), subfield $5 shows who added data to a sequence. Gail Lewis (Microlif) suggested coding subfield $2. However, subfield $2 describes the source of the term (i.e., the thesaurus), not the agency that selected it. John Attig (OLAC) also suggested coding field 040 (Cataloging source) subfield $a (Original cataloging agency ) and $d (Modifying agency) with this information.
Sally McCallum (LC) requested that a more thorough discussion be held about element-level responsibility issues during a future meeting. The group agreed.
Section 2.11: Add indicator for type of uncontrolled keywords in field 653
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which discussed distinguishing uncontrolled subject names and terms by type: topical, geographic, personal name and corporate name.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) wondered whether genre headings should be identified. Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that MAB does not distinguish genre headings. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that chronological headings be identified, as well.
Bill Jones (NYU) reported that subfield $a (Uncontrolled term) is repeatable in field 653 (Index term: Uncontrolled). The second indicator value could be defined to identify the type of heading. Therefore, all of these headings could be coded in field 653, if needed.
Section 2.12: Add field for replacement record information
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a field for replacement record information into the bibliographic format.
Alice Jacobs (NLM) suggested that this information be coded in an established note field or subfield, instead of defining an entire field for it. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that instead of subfield $0, subfield $w should be defined in the bibliographic field to hold the record number of the new record.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that this field should also be defined in the holdings format. However, the group decided to wait on defining the field in the holdings format until there is a specific need for it.
Section 2.13: Record Control Numbers in field 682 Deleted Heading Information
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed recording record control numbers in authority field 682 (Deleted Heading Information).
The majority of the committee decided that subfield $0 should be defined to contain the record control number of the new record from the deleted bibliographic record.
Section 2.14: Add a new field for geographic name added entry
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a new field for a geographic name added entry in the bibliographic format. The German community did not want to use field 752 (Added Entry - Hierarchical Place Name) because its data is not hierarchical. Sally McCallum (LC) reported that one may code field 752 without using hierarchy. Marg Stewart (LAC) informed the group that field 751 (Geographic added entry) was defined in the CAN/MARC format, however, it was never used. She suggested that it could be reinstated.
Section 2.15: Add subfield for former call numbers
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a subfield for former call numbers in the bibliographic and holdings formats. The German community would like to add this subfield to field 852 (Location).
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that former call numbers be recorded in subfield $z (Public note) of field 852. John Espley (AVIAC), however, stated that there are VTLS customers who may want to index former call numbers. Mr. Espley (AVIAC) suggested defining subfield $d for former call numbers. Alice Jacobs (NLM) reported that the National Library of Medicine retains former call numbers using a local indicator value in field 060 (National Library of Medicine Call Number).
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that the German and Austrian archival communities plan to utilize these former call numbers. He supported Mr. Espley’s idea of defining subfield $d in field 852 for this information.
Section 2.16: Add field or subfield for normalized form of dates of publication and/or sequential designation
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a field or subfields for normalized form of dates of publication and/or sequential designation.
Sally McCallum (LC) pointed out that the German community wants to record the exact same type of information as other users record in field 362 (Date of publication and/or sequential designation). Renette Davis (ALCTS) stated that if field 362 is used, the second indicator value (currently undefined) could contain parsing information. This is important so that the German community can record both computer and human-readable data. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that one could simply derive the parsed data from the human readable data supplied by the Germans because it is highly structured.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested using many of the subfields in fields 853 (Captions and Pattern–Basic Bibliographic Unit) and 863 (Enumeration and Chronology–Basic Bibliographic Unit) for normalized form of dates. Corine Deliot (BL) supported this suggestion.
A straw poll was taken about which approach to take:
Although the majority of the group wanted to define a new field for this information, the upcoming proposal should consider coding fields 853/863, as well.
Discussion Paper 2007-DP03: Recording the Linking ISSN (ISSN-L) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats
Les Hawkins (LC) introduced the paper (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-dp03.html) which discussed the need to record the newly defined Linking ISSN (ISSN-L) in MARC 21 records. The Linking ISSN is an identifier intended to provide a mechanism to group the various medium versions of a continuing resource.
Les Hawkins (LC) described the Linking ISSN to the group:
John Espley (AVIAC) stated that the ISSN Centre is a VTLS customer and it prefers Option 1 (Addition of two new MARC 21 subfields to record ISSN-L in field 022 (ISSN)). Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked Mr. Espley if field 022 (ISSN) is repeatable in the VTLS Virtua system. John Espley (AVIAC) stated that repeatability depends on individual implementations of the system.
Tina Shrader (NAL) stated that she preferred Option 1. Alice Jacobs (NLM) stated that NLM also supports Option 1. Rich Greene (OCLC) maintained that Option 1 is the easiest option for systems to implement.
However, Corine Deliot (BL) stated that the British Library supports Option 2 (Defining a second indicator to specify whether the ISSN is a linking one). Unfortunately, the ISSN Centre does not repeat field 022 so it would be difficult for it to implement Option 2.
There was discussion about how a subfield for incorrect or cancelled ISSN-L might be used and in which records it would be recorded.
Marc Truitt (Chair) took a straw vote. The entire group, except two members, preferred Option 1. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that discussion is needed about when and how the subfield for cancelled or incorrect ISSN-L should be used. The group agreed
There was no pending business to discuss.
Library of Congress
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
MARC 21 HOME >> MARBI Minutes
|The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
( 09/08/2011 )
|Legal | External Link Disclaimer