The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
MARC Standards
MARC 21 HOME >> MARBI

MARBI Meeting Minutes
ALCTS / LITA /RUSA


ALA Midwinter Meeting

Philadelphia, PA - January 12-13, 2008


MARBI Members:

Stephanie Schmitt, Chair               LITA               Zayed University
Renette Davis                          ALCTS              University of Chicago
Wei Jeng-Chu                           RUSA               Worcester Public Library
Vicki Grahame                          LITA               University of California, Irvine
Ellen Siegel Kovacic                   ALCTS              Hebrew Union College JIR
Alesia McManus                         RUSA               Binghamton University
Nathan D. M. Robertson                 LITA               University of Maryland 
Jacqueline Samples                     ALCTS              North Carolina State University
Vicki Sipe                             ALCTS [Intern]     University of Maryland
Laura Snyder                           RUSA               University of Alberta

Ex-Officio Members:

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
Sherman Clarke                        VRA                New York University
John Espley                           AVIAC              VTLS, Inc.
Catherine Gerhart                     OLAC               University of Washington
Rich Greene                           OCLC               OCLC
Rebecca Guenther                      LC                 Library of Congress
Robert Hall                           PLA                Concord Free Public Library
Stephen Hearn                         SAC                University of Minnesota
Kris Kiesling                         SAA                University of Minnesota
Gail Lewis                            MicroLIF           Capstone Publishers
Susan Moore                           MAGERT             University of Northern Iowa
Elizabeth O'Keefe                     ARLIS/NA           Morgan Library and Museum
Elizabeth Plantz                      NLM                National Library of Medicine
George Prager                         AALL               New York University 
                                                         Law School Library
Tina Shrader                          NAL                National Agricultural Library

Recorder:

Jacqueline Radebaugh                  LC          Library of Congress

Other Attendees:

Joe Altimus                                        Arizona State University
Karen Anspach                                      Karen Anspach Consulting
John Attig                                         Pennsylvania State University
Julianne Beall                                     Library of Congress
Melissa Beck                                       University of California, 
                                                   Los Angeles
Beth Brennan                                       MIT
Chiat Naun Chew                                    University of Minnesota
Karen Coyle                                        Independent Consultant
Ana Cristan                                        Library of Congress
Ryan Finnerly                                      University of California, San Diego
Michael Fox                                        Minnesota Historical Society
Deborah Fritz                                      The MARC of Quality, Inc.
Kathy Glennan                                      University of Maryland
Rebecca Green                                      OCLC
Shelby Harken                                      University of North Dakota
George Harmon                                      Florida State University
Reinhold Heuvelmann                                Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Charles Husbands                                   Harvard University, Retired
William Jones                                      New York University
Judy Kuhagen                                       Library of Congress
Rhonda Lawrence                                    University of California, Las Angeles 
Bill Leonard                                       Library and Archives Canada
Elizabeth Lilker                                   New York University
Kristin Lindlen                                    University of Washington
Wen-Ying Lu                                        Michigan State University
Giles Martin                                       OCLC
Mary Mastraccio                                    MARCIVE, Inc.
Joan Mitchell                                      OCLC
Susan Morris                                       Library of Congress
John Myers                                         Union College
Dianne Narum                                       Bemidji State University
Adrian Nelte                                       Stadtbibliothek Essen
Michael Panzer                                     OCLC
Thomas Pease                                       Library of Congress
Kevin Randall                                      Northwestern University
Regina Reynolds                                    Library of Congress
Mark Scharff                                       Washington University in St. Louis
Adam Schiff                                        University of Washington
Gary Strawn                                        Northwestern University
Hugh Taylor                                        Cambridge University
Barbara Tillett                                    Library of Congress
Marc Truitt                                        University of Alberta
Bruce Trumble                                      Harvard University
Paul Weiss
Robin Wendler                                      Harvard University
Matthew Wise                                       New York University
George Wrenn                                       Humboldt State University
Martha Yee                                         UCLA Film and Television Archive
Janis Young                                        Library of Congress

Notes:

The minutes do not necessarily record the discussion in the order in which it occurred. Material has been rearranged to increase comprehension and to collocate items related to specific topics for clarity. In MARBI minutes, a "vote of the Committee" indicates a poll of those MARBI Committee members appointed by one of the three sponsoring divisions, rather than persons of a particular constituency who are members of the MARC Advisory Committee or other participants. These votes are a formal representation of the MARBI Committee views. The Chair rarely votes unless to break a tie. The term "straw vote" indicates a poll of anyone in attendance. Such votes are advisory and are not binding upon the Committee. Where no vote totals are recorded and a MARBI position is stated, the position has been determined by consensus.

Abbreviations used in these minutes include:


Saturday, January 12, 2008

Stephanie Schmitt, LITA, MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. She reported that the agenda would be modified by moving the business meeting and reports to the Saturday meeting. The modified agenda was adopted by a voice vote. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) reported an error in the minutes of the previous meeting (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/an-07.html). In Proposal 2007-06/4, section 2.0, the reference to field 240 (Uniform title) should be changed to field 250 (Edition statement). Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to accept the minutes as modified and Nathan Robertson (LITA) seconded the motion. The revised minutes were accepted by a voice vote.


Proposal No. 2008-01: Representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System in MARC 21 formats

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper that proposes changes in the provisions for the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) across the MARC 21 formats.

2008-01/1: Identification of internal add table numbers in the Authority and Classification formats

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the proposal that suggests defining subfield $y as "Table number--internal subarrangement or add table." The Dewey editorial team recommends coding subfield $y (Table number--internal subarrangement or add table) with the internal add table number immediately before the subfield containing the add table notation.

George Prager (AALL) requested explanations of the fields and subfields used in the examples. The group agreed that this would be beneficial.

Alesia McManus (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as amended: explanations of the fields and subfields will be provided in the examples. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.

2008-01/2: Revision of field 765 in the Classification format

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper that proposes to redefine subfield $c as Classification number--Ending number of span in field 765 (Synthesized number components) to match the definition of subfield $c in the other fields of the MARC 21 Format for Classification Data.

Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked if OCLC has ever used field 765 (Synthesized number components) in the past. Giles Martin (OCLC) replied that there should be no problems with converting legacy data. Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written Alesia McManus (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion.

2008-01/3: Classification number edition and source information in the Bibliographic and Classification format

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper that proposes to define subfield $q (Assigning agency) to field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) of the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data and field 084 (Classification scheme and edition) of the MARC 21 Format for Classification Data. Mr. Martin (OCLC) explained that there is strong interest from libraries outside the United States in knowing whether DDC numbers have been assigned by their national libraries. Currently, the second indicator (Source of classification number) in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format specifies whether the Library of Congress (value 0) or another agency (value 4) has assigned the classification number. However, there is no mechanism to specify which agency assigned the number when the second indicator (Source of classification number) contains value 4 (Assigned by agency other than LC).

Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested that subfield $q (Assigning agency) be defined in field 050 (Library of Congress call number) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that no one has expressed a need for this. Giles Martin (OCLC) suggested that subfield $q (Assigning agency) may also be useful in field 080 (Universal Decimal Classification Number).

Laura Snyder (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion.

2008-01/4: Designations for optional numbers in the Bibliographic format

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper which proposes the addition of subfield $m (Standard or optional designation) in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format to indicate the nature of the number in subfield $a (Classification number) in relation to the edition cited in subfield $2 (Edition number). Mr. Martin (OCLC) then addressed the question posed on the MARC 21 Listserv by Gary Strawn (Northwestern University). On December 11, 2008, Mr. Strawn (Northwestern University) asked:

"My reading of the text of the proposal is that if $m is used, then $a is not repeatable: if you have $m, then you have multiple 082 fields. I don't see anywhere here a formal change to the repeatability of $a. With the introduction of $m, under what circumstances would $a still need to be repeated in new fields?"

Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that subfield $a (Classification number) should continue to be defined as repeatable for there is legacy data containing multiple occurrences of subfield $a (Classification number). However, Mr. Martin (OCLC) explained that if subfield $m (Standard or optional designation) is present in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification Number), only one occurrence of subfield $a (Classification number) is possible.

Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that the documentation for subfield $m (Standard or optional designation) should state that if subfield $m (Standard or optional designation) is present in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number), it applies to all of the numbers recorded in the field. Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) agreed and also suggested that the documentation state explicitly that only one subfield $a (Classification number) should be recorded in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) if there is a subfield $m (Standard or optional designation). Sally McCallum (LC) suggested putting the repeatability and usage of subfield $a (Classification number) in the Input Conventions for field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification Number).

Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that if subfield $m (Standard or optional designation) is not coded in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number), there is no indication what kind of number is recorded. Giles Martin (OCLC) answered that this is correct.

Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written. Alesia McManus (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.

2008-01/5: Additional Dewey numbers for access in the Bibliographic format

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper which proposes that a new field 083 (Dewey Decimal access number) be defined in the MARC 21 bibliographic format for Dewey numbers, including internal and external table numbers, used for subject access. Field 083 (Dewey Decimal access number) will have the same indicators and subfields as used and proposed for field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number), with the addition of subfields $c (Classification number --Ending number of span), $y (Table number--internal subarrangement or add table) and $z (Table identification).

John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) suggested revising the proposed name of field 083 (Dewey Decimal access number) because it specifies that the field should be used for subject access. The MARC 21 standard cannot control how its users implement it. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that field 083 be named "Additional/Related numbers." The documentation will then specify that the field should be used for access purposes. Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) suggested that "Related Dewey numbers" be used. Renette Davis (ALCTS) suggested the name "Additional Dewey number." However, Sally McCallum (LC) replied that this name may be misleading for some Dewey numbers are partial numbers. Stephen Hearn (SAC) suggested "Dewey Decimal Classification number -- Additional classification data."

Joan Mitchell (OCLC) suggested removing the phrase "For access" from the name of the proposed field. According to Ms. Mitchell (OCLC), "Additional Dewey number" denotes the meaning of the data contained in the field. Agreeing with the suggestion posed by Rebecca Guenther (LC), Ms. Mitchell stated that the access element can be explained in the proposed field's definition.

Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as amended. Field 083 should be named "Additional Dewey Decimal Classification number." Alesia McManus (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 to pass the proposal as amended.

2008-01/06: Synthesized classification number components in the Bibliographic format

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper that proposes the definition of field 085 (Synthesized classification number component) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format. This field may be defined like field 765 (Synthesized number components) in the MARC 21 Classification format to analyze the components of synthesized classification numbers in other fields. Either the DDC number in field 082 (Classification number) or the number contained in the proposed field 083 (now called "Additional Dewey Decimal classification number") may be analyzed. Subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) will provide a link between the related fields.

Giles Martin (OCLC) then explained the examples to the group. The second example shows that the numbers contained in fields 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) and 083 (now called "Additional Dewey Decimal classification number") are analyzed in the proposed field 085 (Synthesized classification number component). Subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) is coded for the link between the fields. Field 085 (Synthesized classification number component) may be used for subject access and thus, it may index the part of the notation. It may also assist people by showing how the numbers are built.

Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that the indicator values in the proposed field 085 (Synthesized classification number component) are undefined. However, the first indicator is coded value 0 in the examples. Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that the examples are incorrect. They will be corrected in the format documentation.

Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) asked Giles Martin (OCLC) why it may be necessary to repeat the numbers in the proposed fields 083 (now called "Additional Dewey Decimal classification number") and 085 (Synthesized classification number component). Giles Martin (OCLC) replied that institutions may decide to code only field 083 (now called "Additional Dewey Decimal classification number"), or only field 085 (Synthesized classification number component) or use both fields in a record.

Sally McCallum (LC) then asked Giles Martin (OCLC) why the proposed field 083 (now called "Additional Dewey Decimal classification number") is used since field 085 (Synthesized classification number component) is coded for synthesized numbers.

Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as written.

2008-01/7: Segmentation information in the Classification format

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper which proposes defining fields 673 (Segmented classification number) and 674 (Segmentation instruction) in the MARC 21 Classification format for segmentation information. Segmentation information is already shared data with segmentation marks in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) in MARC 21 Bibliographic records.

Alesia McManus (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as written.

2008-01/8: Encoding topic information in some Classification format fields

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper that proposes to define subfield $t (Topic used as example) in fields 680 (Scope note), 683 (Application instruction note) and 761 (Add or divide like instructions) in the MARC 21 classification format. Subfield $t (Topic used as example) will distinguish topical information from "canned text" (canned text being text that remains the same for particular kinds of fields, regardless of topic), and to enable automated identification of the meaning of DDC numbers given in examples. The topical information in subfield $t (Topic used as example) could be made searchable in an index along with other terms.

Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as written.

2008-01/9: Classification number hierarchy

Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper which proposes defining subfield $e (Classification number hierarchy--single number or beginning of a span) in field 153 (Classification number) in the MARC 21 Classification format to link to the next number or number span upwards in the classification number hierarchy. Subfield $e (Classification number hierarchy--single number or beginning of a span) will provide the link to the appropriate headings and the appropriate notes with hierarchical force. It will also indirectly provide for links to the downward hierarchy.

Rebecca Guenther (LC) reminded the committee of Geoff Mottram's (Minaret Corporation) message to the MARC 21 Listserv about proposing to code field 153 (Classification number) subfield $c (Classification number--ending number of span) for two totally different reasons. Mr. Mottram (Minaret Corporation) maintained that implementing the proposed changes will only lead to communication problems and unnecessary design complexity. Mr. Mottram (Minaret Corporation) first suggested a different subfield for the end of span instead of reusing subfield $c (Classification number--ending number of span) for a different reason. He also suggested defining a field that mirrors field 773 (Host item entry) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

Giles Martin (OCLC) suggested defining subfield $f (Classification number hierarchy/ending number of span) in field 153 (Classification number), instead of using subfield $c (Classification number--ending number of span) for two different purposes.

The group agreed that this is a better approach than reusing subfield $c (Classification number--ending number of span). Subfields $e (Classification number hierarchy--single number or beginning of a span), $f (Classification number hierarchy/ending number of span) and $z (Table identification) need to be repeatable in this field.

Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as amended: Subfield $f (Classification number hierarchy/ending number of span) in field 153 (Classification number) will be defined. Wei Jeng Chu (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 to pass the proposal as amended.


Proposal 2008-02: Definition of field 542 for information related to copyright status in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) introduced the paper that proposes the addition of field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) to carry information relating to copyright status determination. The data elements included are the primary ones used by Berne Convention signatories when making copyright assessments of works. The purpose of coding these data elements is to save the time of users when pertinent facts are known to the cataloging agency, and to avoid duplication of effort in the gathering of information on the part of the library or archive.

Nathan Robertson LITA) stated that subfield $r (Copyright jurisdiction) may be paired with subfield $l (Copyright status). This relationship should be emphasized in the MARC 21 documentation.

Rich Greene (OCLC) asked Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) to explain what is coded in subfield $f (Copyright statement). Ms. Coyle (Independent consultant) explained that a transcription of the copyright statement from the piece is coded in subfield $f (Copyright statement).

George Prager (AALL) reported that many of the examples in the paper do not contain subfield $q (Assigning agency). Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) stated that the documentation should encourage users to always code subfield $q (Assigning agency) in field 542 (Information relating to copyright status).

Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) asked Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) if the date coded in subfield $o (Research date) applies to all of the subfields defined in field 542 (Information relating to copyright status). Ms. Coyle (Independent consultant) replied yes. Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked if a new field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) would be coded when new copyright information is found about an item. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) stated that there is currently no guidance for when to repeat the field. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) suggested that institutions only keep the most current field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) in their databases. Ms. Coyle (Independent consultant) also suggested repeating field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) when there is conflicting copyright information to report.

Marg Stewart (LAC) reported that the CCM had some questions and comments about the proposed field 542 (Information relating to copyright status). Subfield $r (Copyright jurisdiction) may be erroneously defined. A resource does not exist within a jurisdiction. The user of a resource is subject to the laws of a jurisdiction. The copyright law of the country in which a resource is used determines which copyright law applies. The definition of "usage of data" on the Web is controversial for data travels through servers in many countries and can be used in countries other than that in which the data was created, digitized, or stored. If the scope of proposed field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) is to record the "known information" about a resource, subfield $r (Copyright jurisdiction) may need to be redefined. The CCM suggests changing the name and wording of the definition of subfield $r (Copyright jurisdiction) to reflect the country in which the known information was recorded. Marg Stewart (LAC) also reported that the CCM suggests that subfields $p (Country of publication or creation) and $r (Copyright jurisdiction) contain country codes from the ISO 3166 standard.

The CCM also suggests defining the first indicator as "Privacy" to prevent personal information from displaying. The privacy indicator is also defined in fields 541 (Immediate source of acquisition note), 561 (Ownership and custodial history) and 583 (Action note). Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that the representatives from the California Digital Library discussed indicating that data is private, however, the representatives felt that no systems could provide accurate security. Likewise, the data coded in field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) will primarily be used for display.

Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked about how the proposed field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) relates to field 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note). Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that more study of both fields is required to truly make an accurate assessment. However, when to code fields 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) and 542 (Information relating to copyright status) should be based on institutional procedures.

Joe Altimus (Arizona State University) stated that there are no examples of subfields $b (Personal creator death date), $g (Copyright date) and $h (Copyright renewal date) in the paper. Mr. Altimus (Arizona State University) also requested an example of subfield $m (Publication status) with something other than "undetermined" be added to the documentation.

Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) summarized the changes to be made to the proposal. These are:

The format will indicate that you will record subfield $r (Jurisdiction of copyright assessment) only if you have made a copyright assessment and recorded it in subfield $l (Copyright status). If you add information about copyright, you should change the date in subfield $o (Research date) and/or add another field 542 (Information relating to copyright status).

Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal as amended. Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 for the proposal as amended.


Proposal 2008-03: Definition of first indicator value in field 041 (Language code) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Corine Deliot (BL) introduced the paper that proposes defining a new first indicator value for "Unspecified/unknown" in field 041 (Language code) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic format. This indicator value would be coded when there is no indication of whether a resource is a translation or includes a translation. Ms. Deliot (BL) explained to the committee that the British Library participates in a variety of retroconversion and digitization projects. In such initiatives, workflows mostly involve batch processing with little access to individual resources. Although there may be some indication of which languages are present in items (either in the existing card records or from the OCR'd texts), there is, however, very often no way of knowing with certainty whether a resource is or includes a translation. Likewise, there is currently no way to encode this uncertainty in field 041 (Language code) of the MARC 21 bibliographic record.

Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) reported that OLAC requests another value other than blank to indicate "No attempt to code" to prevent coding errors when catalogers simply "forget" to add an indicator value. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that "No information provided" is usually coded as a blank. Rich Greene (OCLC) also reported that indicator value "8" has sometimes been defined in fields when value blank is already defined. However, Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that indicator value "8" usually means "Other."

Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) suggested that value blank be defined as "Unevaluated," instead of "No information provided."; Everett Allgood (CC:DA) also suggested "No attempt to code."; Corine Deliot (BL) agreed that both "No attempt to code" and "Unevaluated" would be acceptable.

Corine Deliot (BL) requested that the MARC 21 documentation makes it clear that "No information provided" means that there was not enough information to make an intellectual decision about whether something is a translation.

Alesia McManus (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as amended: first indicator value blank is named "No information provided." Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.


Library of Congress Report

Sally McCallum (LC) presented the Library of Congress Report. The Library of Congress is working with OCLC, the British Library and the Library and Archives Canada to add vernacular scripts into authority records using Model B (Simple multiscript records). Vernacular scripts will be pulled out of field 880 (Alternate graphic representation) and added into the 4XX (See from tracing) and 5XX (See also from tracing) authority fields. Vernacular scripts may also be added into the 1XX (Heading) fields in the future.

Update No. 8 (October 2007) to all five MARC 21 formats is being distributed by the Cataloging Distribution Service. It is also available online at: www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/marc/index.html.

The MARC 21 "full" documentation is also available online at www.loc.gov/marc/. The "full" format documentation contains detailed descriptions of every data element, along with examples, input conventions, and history sections. The MARC 21 Concise Formats continue to be available online.

The MARC Code List for Countries, MARC Code List for Geographic Areas and the MARC Code List for Languages are now available online in XML, PDF and HTML formats. The MARC code lists for sources, description conventions and relators will be made available in XML shortly.

The revised Character sets section of the MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure, Character Sets and Exchange Media is available online at: www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/speccharintro.html. The Library of Congress would like to thank Jack Cain, Charles Husbands and the Unicode MARC discussion list for their valuable contributions.

Business meeting

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) explained that one of the concerns expressed to her by MARC users is MARBI's unimplemented work. For example, the nonfiling control characters passed in Proposal 98-16R (Nonfiling characters in all MARC formats) (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1998/98-16r.html). Ms. Schmitt (LITA, Chair) requested that committee members ask their constituencies about what needs to be implemented so that MARBI may respond accordingly.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) also asked committee members to encourage their associations to make MARBI assignments in a timely manner to prevent vacant committee seats.


Discussion Paper 2008-DP01: Identifying headings that are appropriate as added entries, but are not used as bibliographic main entries

Sherman Clarke (VRA) introduced the paper that explores three solutions to identify headings that are appropriate as added entries, but are not used as bibliographic main entries. These are: defining a code in authority field 008/14; coding authority field 667 with instructions about subject or name usage in certain situations; and defining a new 7XX bibliographic added entry field, similar to field 751 (Added entry -- Geographic name).

To begin the discussion, Sherman Clarke (VRA) posed the following questions:

Question 1: Is there a need to identify headings for non-topical venues that are appropriate as added entries, but are not used as bibliographic main entries?

Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) reported that the U.S. National Library of Medicine does not believe that there is a need to identify headings for non-topical venues. It is concerned that this would cause a movement away from main and added entry cataloging. Sherman Clarke (VRA) essentially agreed, but felt that in the current cataloging environment, identification of non-topical venues that are appropriate as added entries, but are not used as bibliographic entries, is essential.

Adam Schiff (University of Washington) stated that Option 2 (Use of authority field 667) is problematic. For example, in systems that validate against authority records, field 667 (Nonpublic general note) does not allow evaluation of a name as a subject heading. Field 667 (Nonpublic general note) is also not machine processable and as a note subfield, it is used for many different purposes.

Rich Greene (OCLC) reported that OCLC prefers Option 1 (Definition of code "c" in authority field 008/14) since it already processes field 008/14 (Heading use--main or added entry). George Prager (AALL) stated that Option 1 (Definition of code "c" in authority field 008/14) supports machine-validation.

Question 2: What alternative outlined in this paper would best identify such added entries?

Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that Option 1 (Definition of code "c" in authority field 008/14) would be the cleanest option for it is machine-processable. However, because value "c" was once defined as "Heading is appropriate for use as a main or added entry," and is now obsolete, a new value should be chosen.

Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that OCLC prefers Option 1 (Definition of code "c" in authority field 008/14).

Question 3: Would the cost of implementing either option 1 (Definition of code "c" in authority field 008/14) or 3 (Define new 7XX field) be greater than the need since only a small population of institutions would ever implement these options?

Nathan Robertson (LITA) answered that implementing one of the solutions would benefit many different communities. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested that if one of the three options is implemented, it needs to take in account all types of headings in both the Name Authority File and the Subject Authority File, such as "tale" headings like Cinderella. Sherman Clarke (VRA) agreed.

Joe Altimus (Arizona State University) stated that for display, Option 3 (Define new 7XX field) would be the best approach. Sherman Clarke (VRA), however, suggested that relator codes or terms may be used to enhance display with the 7XX fields (Added entry fields).

Question 4: Are there any other alternatives to explore that would allow institutions to identify added entries that are not used as bibliographic main entries?

Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that tale headings, such as Cinderella, need to be further explored.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) called for a straw vote on whether to go forward with a proposal for Option 1 (Definition of code "c" in authority field 008/14). The vote indicated that the committee would like to discuss a proposal for the annual 2008 meeting.


Discussion Paper 2008-DP02: Making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry--Title) obsolete in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Renette Davis (ALCTS) introduced the paper that discusses making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) obsolete in favor of using field 490 (Series Statement) and the 8XX (Series added entry) fields. This would simplify practice and the need for systems to look multiple places in records for the authorized series heading.

Ms. Davis (ALCTS) began the discussion by posing the first question: Will there be a major impact in making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) obsolete?

Everett Allgood (CC:DA) asked Renette Davis (ALCTS) about how legacy data will be handled. Renette Davis (ALCTS) responded that in the OCLC systems, records will be converted. However in the systems that cannot convert their records, the old records will remain unchanged. Everett Allgood (CCDA) stated that this would not be a problem, unless the legacy records are uploaded and exchanged into systems that cannot process field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title). Sally McCallum (LC), however, reminded the group that the MARC Principles state that obsolete data elements may occur in records.

Gail Lewis (Microlif) stated that her constituencies are not opposed to making field 440 (Series statement/Added entry -Title) obsolete, but there should be a solid plan for dealing with the legacy data. Rhonda Lawrence (University of California, Las Angeles) stated that all vendors should be able to convert legacy data.

Marg Stewart (LAC) reported that the Canadian Committee on MARC (CCM) suggested that making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) obsolete should be a PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) policy, not a change to the MARC 21 bibliographic format.

John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) suggested that the MARC Advisory Committee consider why the proposal to make field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) obsolete has never been approved in the past. For example, in Proposal 89-7 (Make field 440 in the Bibliographic format obsolete), MARBI decided:

The feeling was that the proposal would cause redundant keying and storage that some institutions stated that they could not support...

Mr. Attig (Pennsylvania State University) suggested that future implementation of the OCLC control headings feature is influencing this proposal. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) agreed with John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) by stating that she thought that it would be a grave mistake to change the format based on the capabilities of OCLC's database.

Sally McCallum (LC) explained that field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) has not been made obsolete in the past because of storage space concerns when the same data is present in fields 490 (Series statement) and 8XX (Series added entry). The storage space concern is no longer legitimate.

Renette Davis (ALCTS) stated that training catalogers may be easier if field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) is made obsolete for there would no longer be a need to explain when to use field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) over field 490 (Series statement). Regina Reynolds (LC) agreed.

Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) unnecessarily makes cataloging series confusing because although transcribed data does not change, controlled headings may change. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) agreed with Mr. Greene (OCLC), however, he maintained that making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) obsolete is a policy decision only.

Alesia McManus (RUSA) asked if there would be any impact on display or searching if field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) were made obsolete. Renette Davis (ALCTS) replied that if making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) obsolete becomes a policy decision, the MARC Advisory Committee may need to redefine the first indicator position (Series tracing policy) in field 490 (Series statement). The indicator position may need to be changed to something like "Series traced in 8XX fields."

Mark Scharff (Washington University in St. Louis) supported defining subfield $x (ISSN) in the 8XX (Series added entry) fields. Renette Davis (ALCTS) agreed stating that when a user searches for series in some systems, it is easier to retrieve a larger result set when searching on ISSN numbers.

Renette Davis (ALCTS) asked if the ISBN should be added in records for multivolume monographs. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) stated yes, however, he added that there are other standard numbers that could be added to the record, as well.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) suggested that the ensuing paper be split into two proposals: one proposal for making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry - Title) obsolete and another paper for defining subfield $x (ISSN) in fields 8XX (Series added entry). The group agreed. Ms. Schmitt (LITA, Chair) then took a straw vote to bring both issues back as two proposals. The majority of the attending audience agreed.


Discussion Paper 2008-DP03: Definition of subfield $3 for recording information associated with series added entry fields (800-830) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Renette Davis (ALCTS) introduced the paper that discusses the need for indicating the part of a serial, via date or volume information, to which a particular series title was applicable to the resource. It suggests defining subfield $3 (Materials specified) to designate the part of the resource to which the information applies in the 8XX fields.

Renette Davis (ALCTS) began the discussion by posing the first question from the discussion paper.

Question 1: Are there other uses for subfield $3 in 8XX outside of textual material?

Sherman Clarke (VRA) answered the first question by stating that recording sets with series would be another use for subfield $3 (Materials specified) in the 8XX (Series added entry) fields.

Renette Davis (ALCTS) explained that the proposed subfield $3 (Materials specified) would be used to indicate which part of a serial was part of a particular series. It could also be used in records for multipart monographs.

Renette Davis (ALCTS) stated that subfield $3 (Materials specified) has already been defined for fields 700, 710, 711, and 730. It may also be useful for field 740 (Added Entry - Uncontrolled Related/Analytical Title) and field 752 (Added Entry - Hierarchical Place Name). The group agreed.

Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) reminded the committee that the Linking Entry fields (76X-78X) could be coded instead of defining subfield $3 (Materials specified) in the 8XX (Series added entry) fields.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) called a straw vote to ascertain whether a proposal should be written for the 2008 annual meetings. Committee members generally felt that defining subfield $3 in the 8XX (Series added entry) fields would be useful in describing multipart monographs, map sets and other items.


Sunday, January 13, 2008

Discussion Paper 2008-DP04: Encoding RDA, Resource Description and Access data in MARC 21

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the paper that discusses the issues related to encoding the Resource Description and Access data (RDA) using MARC 21. Ms. Stewart (LAC) explained that the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA (JSC) is presenting these issues for consideration and direction regarding what changes may be required to MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats to encode RDA data. A Scenario 2 implementation, which includes linked bibliographic and authority records is assumed for the initial release of RDA in 2009. Marg Stewart (LAC) suggested that the MARC Advisory Committee should work with the JSC about what changes to the format are needed.

Section 3.1: RDA Media type, Carrier type, Content type

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced section 3.1 that describes the three new elements that are defined in RDA to replace AACR2's general material designation. These RDA elements (media type, carrier type, and content type) categorize resources differently than current MARC 21 content designators. John Espley (AVIAC) asked if these three RDA data elements will replace the data currently coded in field 245 (Title statement) subfield $h (Medium). Marg Stewart (LAC) replied yes. She suggested that the MARC Advisory Committee review the Leader and control fields to ascertain if the new data elements could be coded in them. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) however, suggested that variable fields should be used.

Sally McCallum (LC) asked whether natural language or codes would be used to denote media, carrier and content types. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) explained that RDA will include a discussion about using terms or coded values. For initial implementation, he suggested using textual data. Marg Stewart (LAC) agreed stating that textual data would be easier to implement, however, the usage of codes is good for machine-processing.

John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) asked the group whether it preferred coding media, carrier and content types in a single field or in separate fields. John Espley (AVIAC) suggested that separate fields would be easier to implement.

Section 3.2: RDA elements

Section 3.2.1: RDA 2.12 Mode of issuance

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that describes the Mode of issuance element in RDA. Mode of issuance contains the following terms: Single unit; Multipart monograph; Serial; Integrating resource. MARC 21 Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) contains values for Serial (code s) and Integrating resource (code i). The value for Monograph (code m) in Leader/07 (Bibliographic level), covers both single units and multipart monographs. There is currently not a specific value defined in Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) for multipart monograph. The following options were suggested:

Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that implementing changes to the Leader is very difficult. However, record matching using a combination of codes in Leader/7 and Leader/19 may also be difficult.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) asked if adopting Option 1 (Define a new value in Bibliographic Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) for Multipart monograph.) would conflict with the German and Austrian libraries use of Leader/19 (Multipart resource record level). Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that it did not affect their use of Leader/19, which codes for multipart.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) called for a straw vote on which option to consider. Some participants favored Option 1 (Define a new value in Bibliographic Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) for Multipart monograph).

Section 3.2.2: RDA 4.11 Script

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section by explaining that an element in RDA has been defined to indicate the script used to express the language content of the resource. Although field 008/33 (Original alphabet or script of title) is used to indicate the script of the title for continuing resources and fields 008/35-37 (Language) and 041 (Language code) identify the language of the resource, MARC 21 does not provide a place for coded data for scripts. The two options to consider are:

Sally McCallum (LC) suggested defining a new subfield for script in field 041 (Language code). ISO 15924: Codes for the representation of names of scripts could be used to represent the scripts. Charles Husbands (Harvard University) agreed that this could be a feasible solution because information about the language must be present for script information to make sense.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) took a straw vote. Many of the group members recommended defining a subfield for script in field 041 (Language code). There was a question whether separate script codes were needed for parallel, summary, etc.

Section 3.3: RDA 2.7 Production, 2.8 Publication, 2.9 Distribution

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section by explaining that RDA has defined separate elements for production, publication and distribution. Each element has separate sub-elements for "place of publication," "publisher's name," and "date of publication." MARC 21 field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)) currently uses the same subfields for publication and distribution data (260 $a, $b and $c). Subfield $b (Name of publisher, distributor, etc.) may be qualified to provide an indication of function (i.e., [distributor]). MARBI may wish to consider if there is a need to distinguish between publication and distribution data through MARC 21 content designation. The three options considered in the paper are:

Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) asked whether the production area includes creation of unpublished items, such as art works. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) explained that the JSC considered a fourth area for creation events, however, this has not been added to the RDA rules.

Jim Alberts (MLA) asked about what production means for different types of media, such as for sound recordings. He wondered whether this information would be coded in field 518 (Date/Time and place of an event note). John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) suggested that Mr. Alberts (MLA) consult the draft of the RDA guidelines for details. This information is equivalent to manufacture data coded in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). There is a problem of granularity. MARC contains data elements for this information, but not at the level of granularity that RDA has. Should MARC 21 provide the same granularity as RDA?

Sally McCallum (LC) answered that granularity of data can be input into MARC several ways. However, the committee must take the MARC Principles into consideration when creating new content designation for RDA elements.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) called for a straw vote about what option should be considered for adding production, publication and distribution elements in MARC 21. The committee favored Option 1 (Define new content designation in field 260 for distribution information by defining new subfields in field 260) with use of an indicator or additional subfields for distributor (producer/manufacturer already has subfields in field 260).

[Note that RDA rules were subsequently changed, resulting in a better mapping to existing field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)) subfields.]

Section 3.4: RDA 2.10 Copyright date (August 2007 Editor's draft)

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that describes how RDA contains a separate element for copyright date.

Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) suggested coding the newly defined field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) for copyright date. Jim Alberts (MLA), however, suggested that MARBI discuss another alternative when field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) is not present in a bibliographic record.

Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) wondered about how to code for copyright date when no publication date is present. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that if the copyright date is the only date recorded (i.e., there is no publication date), field 260 subfield $c (Date of publication, distribution, etc.) would be coded. However, if there is a publication date present, field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) could be coded. However, Ms. Guenther (LC) also pointed out that field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) may not be implemented by all institutions.

Section 3.5: RDA 2.6. Numbering of serials (August 2007 Editor's draft)

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that describes the RDA element for numbering of serials. There are separate element sub-types for items, such as numeric and/or alphabetic designation of first issue or part and chronological designation of first issue or part. The two options for coding these sub-types into MARC 21 are:

Renette Davis (ALCTS) suggested coding field 363 (Normalized date and sequential designation). Marg Stewart (LAC) stated that the JSC considered field 363 (Normalized date and sequential designation), however, it does not include subfields for captions. Rebecca Guenther (LC) however, replied that the field could be adapted to include captions. It was suggested that this be explored.

Section 3.6: Different levels of granularity in RDA and MARC 21

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that describes how the mapping from RDA to MARC 21 has highlighted a number of elements for which a clean mapping is not possible due to the different levels of granularity in RDA and MARC 21. Appendix 2 of the paper identifies a significant number of instances in RDA where an element can be recorded using unstructured data. Marg Stewart (LAC) asked the group about how critical does it consider the implications of ambiguous mapping resulting from different levels of granularity in RDA and MARC 21?

Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked the group if such level of granularity prescribed by RDA would require catalogers to code more data elements than they have time for? She reminded the group that currently MARC 21 contains several data elements that are not prevalently used in the community.

Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) stated that there seems to be a lot of RDA elements that are mapped to field 007 (Physical description fixed field). She asked about the relationship between RDA elements and field 007 (Physical description fixed field). Marg Stewart (LAC) stated that field 007 (Physical description fixed field) currently contains many codes that align to RDA elements.

Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) asked the group if they generally supported alignment of RDA elements and MARC elements. The committee agreed.

Jim Alberts (MLA) asked the group if it should support the level of granularity that is inherent in RDA. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) replied that catalogers support granularity when it is needed. She suggested that adding data elements be considered only when they cannot be coded in another way in MARC 21. The group agreed.

Section 3.7: RDA element labels encoded in MARC 21

Marg Stewart introduced the section that explains how a label can be generated from the RDA name and definition of the element and, therefore, the explicit label does not have to be carried as part of the data. When such data is encoded in MARC 21, the formats provide for display constants using a range of techniques to generate the appropriate label.

Section 3.7.1: RDA 4.8 Dissertation or thesis information (September 2007 Editor's draft)

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that describes how RDA includes the following dissertation information: academic degree, granting institution or faculty and year degree granted. Because the RDA element name carries the label (i.e., the word "Thesis" is not included in the data to be recorded), a display constant indicator may need to be defined in field 502 (Dissertation note) to ensure that RDA data is meaningful when encoded in MARC 21. Although the MARC 21 field name could generate the appropriate label, field 502 (Dissertation note) carries a range of information related to theses and consequently, there may be a need to generate the display constant. The paper suggests two options. They are:

Robert Hall (PLA) stated that he supports Option 1 (Define an indicator in field 502 to generate a display constant, or define a new subfield $z (Display Note) in field 502). Mr. Hall (PLA) also requested that the RDA elements are separately coded into subfields, instead of being coded together in subfield $a (Dissertation note).

Stephen Hearn (SAC) stated that he would prefer a flexible coding solution for field 502 (Dissertation note). Mr. Hearn (SAC) asked the JSC representatives if a free text element would be defined in field 502 (Dissertation note) after the subfields are defined for the RDA elements. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied no, there will be no free text option available. Stephen Hearn (SAC) then asked how one would code other information related to dissertations that is not a RDA element. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) replied that the committee is discussing how to use MARC as an encoding standard for RDA. Based on RDA rules, there is no free text element for dissertation notes.

Adam Schiff (University of Washington) stated that some libraries use MARC with other cataloging rules, besides AACR2 and RDA. These cataloging standards may not need separate data elements for dissertations. A free text note may be sufficient.

Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested that field 502 (Dissertation note) could contain a basic and enhanced level of content designation. Subfield $a (Dissertation note) could be coded for a "basic" level of content designation and the new subfields defined for the RDA elements could be coded for "enhanced" content designation. John Myers (Union College) stated that this solution would solve the granularity issues in defining content designation for the RDA elements. This would also allow non-RDA users to utilize field 502 (Dissertation note) fully and also allow catalogers to record dissertation information that is not included in the RDA specifications.

Marg Stewart (LAC) asked if subfield $i (Display text) should be defined in field 502 (Dissertation note) for label information. Sally McCallum (LC) asked if coding subfield $i (Display text) would be too language-specific.

Adam Schiff (University of Washington) stated that in MARC, there is a default display. If subfield $i is defined as Display text, does an indicator need to be defined to indicate when the default is not being used? Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that this is usually the format that display constants are encoded in MARC. There is an indicator defined as display constant controller with subfield $i defined for the display text when the default display constant is not used.

Section 3.7.2: RDA 4.16 Performers of music and 4.17 Featured players, performers, narrators and/or presenters (September 2007 Editor's draft)

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section which describes how the RDA element names carry labels (i.e., the words, "Performers", "Narrators", and "Presenters") that are not included in the data to be recorded. Therefore, the paper suggests display constant indicators may need to be defined in field 511 (Participant or performer note) to ensure that RDA data is meaningful when encoded in MARC 21.

Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested that both a display constant indicator and subfield $i (Display text) may be defined in field 511 (Participant or performer note). The group agreed.

Section 3.7.3: RDA 4.19 Scale (September 2007 Editor's draft)

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section which describes how a display constant indicator may need to be defined in field 255 (Cartographic mathematical data) and field 507 (Scale note for graphic material) to ensure that RDA data is meaningful when encoded in MARC 21.

Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that field 034 (Coded cartographic mathematical data) could generate the requested labels. Susan Moore (MAGERT), however, replied that field 034 (Coded cartographic mathematical data) does not include a subfield for the free text form of scale. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) agreed, stating that there are also situations when information such as, "Scale not given" and "Scale unknown" needs to be recorded. The issue may need to be further considered.

Section 3.7.4: RDA 3.20 Digital file characteristics and 3.22 Notes on equipment and systems requirements

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section which describes how a display constant indicator may need to be defined in field 538 (Systems details note) to ensure that RDA data is meaningful when encoded in MARC 21. The group agreed that a display constant indicator and subfield $i (Display text) may be defined if there is a need to distinguish between the types of notes recorded here.

Section 3.8: MARC 21 Leader/18 (Descriptive cataloging form); MARC 21 (authority) 008/10 (Descriptive cataloging rules; Description conventions code list)

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that suggests that the following codes be defined in Leader/18 (Descriptive cataloging form), 008/10 (Descriptive cataloging rules) and the MARC Code List for Description Conventions: RDA and RDA/ISBD. The value for RDA would identify records described using RDA and the value for RDA/ISBD would identify records that satisfy the ISBD punctuation guidelines (as provided in an RDA appendix).

Sally McCallum (LC) stated that many MARC users do not use AACR2 or in the future, RDA. She suggested coding these values in field 040 (Cataloging source) subfield $e (Description conventions). The group agreed.

Section 3.9: FRBR Group 1 entities

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that describes three scenarios for RDA implementation. Most institutions planning for the transition from AACR2 to RDA will have a database structure that conforms to scenario 2 or 3, or a combination thereof. Scenario 2 describes a linked bibliographic and authority record database structure. Access points in the bibliographic record are linked to controlled headings in the authority file. Copy specific information is held in linked holdings and/or item records. Scenario 3 describes a flat structure. Access points stored in the bibliographic record are not linked to the authority file. Copy specific data are held in the bibliographic record. Scenario 1 describes a relational/object-oriented database structure that is consistent with the FRBR model. In scenario 1, data elements reflect FRBR primary entities: works, expressions, manifestations, and items. Data elements used for access point control are stored in authority records. Relationships between the primary FRBR entities are reflected through links. The paper states that MARC 21 cannot support scenario 1 as currently defined. John Espley (VTLS) disagreed with this statement.

John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that Scenario 1 is supported in MARC 21 through mappings. For example, in the MARC 21 authority format, one can make a judgment of what subfields are present for work and expression records. John Espley (AVIAC) stated that a work record includes both bibliographic and authority data. For example, subject headings are currently recorded in the bibliographic format. However, if the authority record is used for a work record, the subject heading fields must be defined in the authority format. Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA:) stated that if precise judgments are made about what is included in work records, important data may be excluded. In the art and museum community, a work, expression and manifestation can be the same thing.

John Espley (AVIAC) stated that a data element that identifies if something is a work or expression would be helpful for the VTLS implementation of the FRBR model. The group agreed.

Section 3.10.1: Type of relationship/Designation of role

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that explains that the JSC is developing a separate relationship/roles list to be included in an RDA appendix. When this list is available, MARBI will be asked to consider what changes may be required to the MARC Code List for Relators.

The MARC Advisory Committee agreed that the list of roles being developed for RDA will be of interest to the committee.

Section 3.10.2: Identification

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that describes how RDA chapter 7 specifies a number of techniques for recording relationships. One of these techniques is using identifiers to record relationships. MARBI Proposal 2007-6/1, approved by MARBI at the June 2007 meeting, specifies the option to use subfield $0 to record the authority record control number in access points in the bibliographic record. MARC 21 already supports the use of subfield $w in linking fields to identify a related bibliographic record.

Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that if subfield $0 (Authority record control number) is used to record relationships, MARBI should encourage users to implement it in the future. The group agreed.

Section 3.11: Treatment of controlled lists of values

Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the section that explores how important it is to align MARC coded values with the RDA coded forms.

Sally McCallum (LC) stated that the lists should be aligned if they are to have the same level of detail. The group agreed.

Section 3.12: Other Issues

Section 3.12.1

Marg Stewart (LAC) explained that the JSC has agreed that an appendix for "data about data" would be developed for the first release of RDA. As expressed by the Editor at the April 2007 JSC meeting, "...these would be "free-floaters" and could be added to any element, in a similar way to DC refinements" (April 2007 JSC meeting minutes, 156.4.2). The appendix for "data about data" has yet to be developed as the JSC has not identified all instances of "data about data". Because "data about data" pertains to the element, accommodation in MARC 21 may be needed in association with a particular field.

Several participants were concerned that the RDA appendix for "data about data" would not be developed in time for a proposal presented at the 2008 annual ALA meetings. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University), however, stated that the appendix will be made available before the annual 2008 meetings.

Section 3.12.2

Marg Stewart (LAC) explained that RDA guideline 1.6 provides instructions to transcribe an element as it appears following guidelines for capitalization, numerals, etc. Alternatives have been included to provide some flexibility by allowing elements to be transcribed according to in-house manuals/published style manuals or by accepting the element as derived from a digital source using an automated scanning, downloading or copying process. MARBI may wish to consider whether there is a need to distinguish different approaches to recording data.

Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked if this data would be cataloger supplied or from harvested data. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that it could be both. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) then asked how these different approaches would be identified. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that externally published profiles could be relied upon to distinguish between different approaches to recording data (i.e., through transcription or data harvesting)].

Section 3.12.3

Marg Stewart (LAC) explained that RDA has elements that are recorded using terms for an English language context, e.g., Publisher not identified. It may be useful to identify such elements through MARC 21 coding. This could facilitate the reuse of records internationally by enabling terms recorded for one language context to be replaced by terms for a different language context.

John Myers (Union College) asked how users would be able to "mix and match" coded data with free text? Mr. Myers (Union College) suggested coding field 040 (Cataloging source) subfield $b (Language of cataloging) to identify the language used. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that coding field 040 (Cataloging source) subfield $b (Language of cataloging) would make RDA more internationally accessible.

Adam Schiff (University of Washington) asked how language would be indicated in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint) ). Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) stated that the code in field 040 (Cataloging source) subfield $b (Language of cataloging) would be sufficient enough to identify the language of the entire record. The group agreed.

Section 3.13: Identification of supplied data

Marg Stewart (LAC) explained that it has been widely acknowledged that users do not understand the convention of using square brackets to identify supplied data or corrected data. The JSC requests that MARBI consider defining coding (e.g., control characters) to identify when an entire element or sub-element has been supplied. Such coding would eliminate the need to use square brackets to identify supplied entire elements or sub-elements.

John Espley (AVIAC) stated that even if a code or Unicode control character is used, something would need to be displayed, such as square brackets, to indicate supplied data. Sally McCallum (LC) agreed. RDA will need to consider what should be displayed to users.

Section 3.14: Punctuation

Marg Stewart (LAC) explained that RDA has been designed to establish a clear separation between the presentation and recording of data. Guidelines for presenting RDA content in MARC 21 and ISBD displays (including punctuation) will be given in an appendix.

It is assumed that MARC 21 documentation will continue to provide guidance on punctuation and that MARC 21 input conventions would be considered as an "add on" to the instructions in RDA for recording the data for the element.

The committee agreed that an appendix about ISBD punctuation would be very useful in the RDA documentation.

Section 3.15: RDA elements and MARC authority data

Marg Stewart (LAC) explained that in the RDA chapters that cover identifying attributes for person, family, corporate body, work, and expression, certain elements can be recorded either as part of the access point representing the entity or as separate identifying elements. In RDA, the preferred access point is constructed using the name and/or title plus additional identifying attributes, as appropriate. These additions correspond to FRAD attributes of a person, corporate body, etc. For personal names, elements considered as additions are: Title or other designation associated with the person, Date associated with the name, Fuller form of name. The question arises as to whether these RDA elements need to be separately designated from their use as part of an access point.

Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) supported adding data elements to the MARC 21 format for granularity because different agencies and types of institutions would need different types of information.

The committee agreed that defining content designation for the new RDA authority elements could provide granularity of RDA. Users could choose more or less granularity since different communities have different needs.

3.15.4: Technique

Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) pointed out that content and technique is often at the work level for some formats of material. Ms. Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) pointed out the issues with clearly defining the applicable FRBR level.

Respectfully submitted,

Jacqueline Radebaugh

Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress


MARC 21 HOME >> MARBI

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
( 07/01/2008 )
Contact Us