The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
MARC Standards

MARBI Meeting Minutes

ALA Midwinter Meeting
Dallas, TX - January 21-22, 2012

MARBI Members:

Matthew Wise, Chair             ALCTS             New York University
Denise Beaubien Bennett         RUSA              University of Florida 
Eric P. Delozier                LITA              Penn State, Harrisburg
Edward Kownslar                 RUSA              Texas A&M University -
                                                     Corpus Christi  
Gary L. Strawn                  ALCTS             Northwestern University
Sarah Beth Weeks                LITA              St. Olaf College
Linda Wen                       LITA              University of Arkansas at
                                                     Little Rock
Jia Xu                          ALCTS             University of Iowa
Haiyun Cao, Intern              ALCTS             York University

Ex-Officio Members:

Corine Deliot                   BL                British Library
Sally H. McCallum               LC                Library of Congress
Margaret Stewart                LAC               Library and Archives Canada

MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:

Sherman Clarke                  VRA             Freelance art cataloger
John Espley                     AVIAC           VTLS, Inc.
Bruce Evans                     MLA             Baylor University Libraries
Catherine Gerhart               OLAC            University of Washington
Richard O. Greene               OCLC            OCLC

Stephen Hearn                   SAC             University of Minnesota
Reinhold Heuvelmann             DNB             Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

Susan M. Moore                  MAGIRT          University of Northern Iowa
John Myers                      CC:DA           Union College
Elizabeth O'Keefe               ARLIS/NA        Morgan Library and Museum
Elizabeth Plantz                NLM             National Library of Medicine
Patricia Sayre McCoy            AALL            University of Chicago


Haiyun Cao                      ALCTS           York University

Other Attendees:

June Abbas                      University of Oklahoma
Karen Anderson                  Backstage Library Works
John Attig                      Penn State University
Penny Baker                     Clark Art Institute
Matthew Beacom                  Yale University
Julianne Beall                  Library of Congress
Jennifer Bowen                  University of Rochester
Casey Cheney                    Backstage Library Works
Karen Coyle           
Ana Cristan                     Library of Congress
Deborah Fritz                   TMQ Inc.
Harry Gaylord                   Bound To Stay Bound Books
Kathy Glennan                   University of Maryland
Mar Hernández                   Biblioteca Nacional de España
Damian Iseminger                New England Conservatory
Bruce Johnson                   Library of Congress
George Johnston                 University of Cincinnati
William Jones                   New York University
Dan Lipcan                      Metropolitan Museum of Art
Nancy Lorimer                   Stanford University
Carol Love                      MARCIVE
John Maier                      Pratt Institute
Dorothy McGarry                 UCLA
Kelley McGrath                  University of Oregon
Joan Mitchell                   OCLC
Nannette Naught                 IMT, Inc.
Michael Panzer                  OCLC
Lori Robare                     University of Oregon
Jane Rosario                    UC Berkeley
Vicki Sipe                      University of Maryland Baltimore County
Erin Stalberg                   Mount Holyoke College
Rebecca Thompson                Missouri State University
Cecilia Tittemore               Dartmouth College Library
Hermine Vermeij                 UCLA
Ken Wade                        UCLA
Robin Wendler                   Harvard University
Jay Weitz                       OCLC
Raegan Weichert                 Missouri State University
Kathy Winzer                    Stanford Law Library
David Williamson                Library of Congress
Janis L. Young                  Library of Congress

[Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network 
Development and MARC Standards Office.]

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Introduction of members

Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) opened the meeting by asking Committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves.  A Committee roster was passed around the table; and all were asked to “check in” and to annotate their entries with any corrections.

Approval of minutes from MARBI's June 2010 meetings

Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the ALA Annual 2011 meeting in New Orleans. Being none, Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the minutes; Eric Delozier (LITA) seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Proposal No. 2012-01: New Data Elements in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats for Medium of Performance

The proposal was presented by Bruce Evans (MLA). The proposal resulted from Discussion Paper 2011-DP05 that was presented at ALA Annual 2011 by the Music Library Association. Medium of performance is a critical piece of information for music retrieval. Following current LCSH practice, catalogers assign subject headings which often combine genre/form and medium information into a single heading. As work continues on developing Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT), it has become clear that medium of performance vocabulary is out of scope for LCGFT and is a separate facet in its own right. The ability to move forward on implementing music terms in LCGFT is dependent on finding a place in the MARC Formats to accommodate medium of performance data in a separate field.

MARBI’s discussion of 2011-DP05 narrowed down the options to two possible MARC fields that might accommodate medium of performance. One already exists: field 382 (Medium of performance). The other possibility is a new 6XX field defined for medium of performance. Either field would need similar subfields to enhance searchability. The paper discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the two options. Examples and links to more examples are also provided in the proposal.

Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) summarized the comments of Germany and Austria.  They intend to use "medium of performance" in the GND extensively in authority records. A decision was made early this year about this issue, which is different from this proposal. They intend to link from one 382 field to an authority record. For this, they intend to repeat 382 whenever a new subfield $a is used, rather than a long 382 field with many subfields.

John Attig (Penn State) stated any decision, either option 1 or 2, had to be based on the current situation and the possible future. The 382 field was created based on RDA instruction, but the RDA statement seemed useless for this proposal. He objected the option of expanding the 382 field, especially in authority records because it is against the concept of authority control. Using the same data and format in both bibliographic records and authority records is also questionable.

Janis Young (LC) seconded John Attig (Penn State) and said that she supported neither of the options. For option 2, using 6XX, it will be very difficult to explain the difference from form/genre headings. For option 1, she reminded that RDA intended to use all authority elements as controlled vocabularies for access points so expanding field 382 in this way might not be compliant with RDA development.

Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) expressed concern that using the 382 field would require it to be repeatable for two items in one record. She emphasized that whatever decision was made should be easy to implement and workable. She also stated that 382 was created based on RDA principle, so it did provide retrievable information even if not as access points.

Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) followed Janis Young's remark about using a 6XX field. It will not confuse the music community because they have been doing it that way for a long time.

John Myers (CC:DA) thought a 6XX field seemed a more appropriate option though in authority records it is more problematic because 6XX fields do not currently exist in the authority heading format.

Bruce Evans (MLA) agreed with John Myers (CC:DA) that he did see a lot of support for using field 382 field from the music cataloging community.

Kelley McGrath (University of Oregon) preferred two 382 fields because there were options in subfield $2 and indicators. She thought indicators or another subfield was better for retrieving differently than subfield $2 because some indexing systems were based on indicator 2 rather than subfield $2.

John Myers (CC:DA) thought, considering FRBRized data and discovery layers have been applied over library catalogs in many institutions, indexing all the instruments will facilitate the narrowing down of search results by facets.

Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve option 1. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) seconded.  John Attig (Penn State) wanted to make sure this was just a preliminary proposal and that more details needed to be discussed. John Myers (CC:DA) confirmed that. Option one of the proposal passed.

John Attig (Penn State) wondered how much information should be put in one single field and how complicated it would be to create separate fields for each individual instrument. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) said there were situations where alternative instruments do not have one-to-one correspondence. Kelley McGrath (University of Oregon) said they faced the problem that only one subject heading was associated with the individual work while there were several subject headings in the record.

Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested the motion of accepting Reinhold's recommendation about indicators and subfields. That is,

Sally McCallum (LC) suggested changing the wording in 2nd indicator 0 to "No access provided" and 2nd indicator 1 to "Access provided".

Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the redefinition of the indicators. Eric Delozier (LITA) seconded. The recommendation was approved.

Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated another recommendation on the subfields in 382 field. He suggested subfield $n (instead of $p) for "number of performances of the same instrument/voice" in preceding $a, $b, or $d, and subfield $s (instead of $n) for "total number of performers". He also introduced subfield $p for "Alternate performance" which is repeatable and subfield $v for "Note" which is also repeatable.

Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the redefinition of the subfields. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) seconded. The recommendation was approved.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The Future Role of MARBI in the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative: Questions for Discussion:

  1. Sally McCallum (LC) personally hoped MARBI, as a reviewing body, will get involved in the initiative either by listserv or meeting. MARBI members could participate either as a group or individually with their special knowledge, involvement, and perspective. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked whether a MARBI member would behave as a liaison or a representative of MARBI in the initiative. Sally McCallum (LC) replied that had not been decided yet.

  2. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) said he was contacted by two divisions which have representatives in MARBI for reviewing the current charge of the committee.  He assumed that would be a very difficult process. He read the current charge and commented that MARBI had never looked at standards other than MARC. He brought up the question of whether we should start to look at other standards because he has been receiving emails from NISO and ISO about standards and MARBI had never looked at them. John Myers (CC:DA) said that CC:DA received emails from NISO and ISO. They usually reviewed and approved and took actions unless there were any contrary views. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested the MARBI chair could be the liaison and forward all emails to all MARBI members via MARBI email list. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked the relation of MARBI and the MARC Advisory Committee. When MARBI is going away from MARC, what will happen to the MARC Advisory Committee? Sally McCallum (LC) said we could change the name. John Myers (CC:DA) mentioned that on the ALA website MARBI only included the 9 voting members but on the LC website, it included everyone in the MARC Advisory Committee. He suggested including all representatives and liaisons as MARBI voting members.

  3. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) introduced the question of whether we should work between meetings. Since we reinstated a Monday meeting, we will have lots of time available. How much time should we spend on MARC or other standards? Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) suggested keeping minimum time on MARC. MARBI might look at what other groups are doing and combine with them. Stephen Hearn (SAC) stated that there were still reasons to keep MARC even though transition was in the front. Sarah Weeks (LITA) wondered whether people knew our charge and sent proposals to us. Sally McCallum (LC) confirmed that there is a proposal form on the MARC website. John Myers (CC:DA) said that since the LC initiative was based on MARC, as well as RDA tags added to MARC, we had to deal with MARC even though eventually MARC data would be transferred to the new data framework.

  4. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) raised the question of whether MARBI should generate a list of the strengths and shortcomings of MARC. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) agreed this would be helpful in generating a list of high level questions on how the new generation framework would look like. Online communication like RDA was suggested because of easy updating and MARBI has always been behind the times. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) was not sure about whether we needed a motion to create a working group. Further discussion focused on the relation among MARBI, ALA and the LC Initiatives. If any MARBI proposal does not go through ALA, no action will be taken. John Attig (Penn State) thought the process by which MARBI in ALA voted on changes to MARC and then reported to LC, LAC, and BL meant MARBI did not have the authority to finally approve any changes but LC, LAC, and BL did. MARBI should ask ALA for more flexibility in the future. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) concluded that MARBI could not do anything before we went through the procedure, however, individuals could contribute topics, and proposals to the initiative.

  5. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) reported that Karen Coyle reminded us that we need to use a new vocabulary, rather than concepts tied to MARC, when discussing these issues. He suggested that what we should talk about was a new environment, not new things, such as new formats. We should focus on any machine readable codes, not only MARC. Matthew mentioned that the CC:DA model might be a way to go. John Myers (CC:DA) worried that MARBI was lacking procedures to structure and compile working groups, and that it lacked a structure to promote any results.

Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested closing the discussion.

Sally McCallum (LC) reported as following:

  1. Country codes and geographic codes for Sudan and other several countries have been defined.
  2. Several source codes for vocabularies, rules, and schemes have been added for usage in appropriate MARC fields and MODS/MADS elements.

Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP01: Identifying Titles Related to the Entity Represented by the Authority Record in the MARC 21 Authority Format

The discussion paper was introduced by Gary Strawn (ALCTS). A task force of PCC looked at the possibility of using Field 670 in the MARC 21 Authority Format, which contains citations of sources related to the entity represented by the authority record, for mining information in the 670 field for other purposes, such as reassigning headings in bibliographic records. The Task Group rejected the idea of a more elaborate scheme for the subfield coding of the 670 field in favor of a request for a new field, to contain an identification of the titles of items related to the entity represented by the authority record.

Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested that if manifestations and expressions were to be allowed, the nature of relation should be clarified because, for example, you might have a performer for a piece of music who was not the creator. John Myers (CC:DA) suggested not using manifestations and expressions in the new field because the information was derived in the authority research process and we could not know the cataloger’s priority in using which title, works, or others. But in some situations, such as translations and re-translations of works, it might be useful to trace the manifestation titles.

Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) believed the relation did matter because it was needed to specify whether the title was by or about the entity. Jia Xu (ALCTS) expressed her concern on undifferentiated authority records for personal names when more than one name share one record. She also asked that how the situation would be dealt with for materials in non-Roman languages, where parallel titles for both Romanized title and original language script were listed.

Gary Strawn (ALCTS) reminded the group that titles “about” the entity had to be listed in the new field in a subject authority record. Another concern was about movie characters and imagined places which needed to be identified in a way that indicated if it was the same character or imagined place in multiple movies.

Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) gave an example of how databases for bibliographic records were associated with databases for authority records. John Attig (Penn State) reminded the group that the purpose of this proposal was to try not to lose the information we have when creating the authority records. It was nice to have the extra information to help with undifferentiated names. Sally McCallum (LC) added that would be just a short-term project because PCC had been working on the undifferentiated names in RDA.

Stephen Hearn (SAC) stated that we only wanted to maintain the proposed 67X field, not the authority heading and there should be a way of doing the maintenance by machine. There was no further discussion about the maintenance issue. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) stated that this topic would return to the Annual meeting as a proposal.

Business Meeting

Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) informed us that in the preparation for the Annual meeting he will be requesting the usual meeting time but, typically, we will probably not be using the Monday meeting time. He also mentioned the re-appointments of those whose terms would end.

Respectfully submitted,
Haiyun Cao


The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
( 06/01/2012 )
Legal | External Link Disclaimer

Contact Us