James Crooks RUSA U. of California, Irvine Elaine Henjum LITA Florida Ctr for Lib Automation Diane Hillman LITA Cornell U. Carol Penka RUSA U. of Illinois Jacquie Riley RUSA U. of Cincinnati Frank Sadowski ALCTS U. of Rochester Paul Weiss ALCTS U. of New Mexico Robin Wendler LITA Harvard U. MARBI Interns: Annemarie Erickson RUSA Chicago Library System Anne Gilliland (recorder) ALCTS OhioLINK Chris Mueller LITA U. of New Mexico Representatives and Liaisons: Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group Karen Anspach AVIAC Eos, Intl. John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State U. Sherman Clarke VRA New York U. Betsy Cowart WLN WLN, Inc. Donna Cranmer AVC Siouxland Libraries Bonnie Dede SAC U. of Michigan Catherine Gerhart CC:DA U. of Washington David Goldberg NAL National Agricultural Libr Rich Greene OCLC OCLC, Inc. Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Michael Johnson MicroLIF Follett Co. Maureen Killeen A-G A-G Canada Ltd. Rhonda Lawrence AALL UCLA Law Karen Little MLA University of Louisville Sally McCallum LC Library of Congress Susan Moore MAGERT U. of Northern Iowa Liz O'Keefe ARLIS Pierpont Morgan Library Louise Sevold CIS Cuyahoga County Public Library Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Rutherford Witthus SAA U. of Connecticut Other Attendees: Jim Agenbroad Library of Congress Everett Allgood New York U. Diane Baden NELINET Regina Beach Mississippi State U. Matthew Beacom Yale U. Winnie Chan U. of Illinois Karen Coyle U. of California Ellen Crosby Indiana Historical Society Becky Culbertson U. of California, San Diego Carol Nelson Davis Columbia U. Andrea Demsey National Library of Medicine John Espley VTLS, Inc. William Fietzer U. of Minnesota Dexter Fox Library of Congress Michael Fox Minnesota Historical Society Tamara Fultz American Numismatic Society Edith Gewertz New York Public Library Barbara C. Greever U. of Idaho Kay Guiles Library of Congress Shelby Harken U. of North Dakota Jean Hirons Library of Congress Brian Holt British Library Meredith Horan National Library of Medicine Jean Hudgins Georgia Institute of Technology Bruce Johnson Library of Congress William Jones New York U. Kris Kiesling U. of Texas at Austin Nancy Kreczmer Perma-Bound, Inc. Judy Kuhagen Library of Congress Mary Larsgaard UCSB Deborah Leslie Yale U. Shirley Lincicum U. of Oregon Marilyn McCloskey U. of Minnesota Liz McKeen National Library of Canada Elizabeth Mangan Library of Congress Kelly Meier Louis & Clark Library System Christine Meyer U. of Minnesota Paula Moehle U. of Georgia Nancy R. Olson Mankato State U. David Reser Library of Congress John Riemer U. of Georgia Philip Schreur Stanford U. Jacque-Lynne Schulman National Library of Medicine Jackie Shieh U. of Virginia Steve Silberstein Innovative Interfaces Inc. Judy Silverman Canadian Centre for Architecture Ann Sitkin Harvard Law Library Gary Smith OCLC Daniel Starr MOMA Barbara Story Library of Congress Vitus Tang Stanford U. Dean Wilder Consultant Matthew Wise New York U.
MARBI chairperson Jacquie Riley opened the first MARBI meeting of 1998 MidWinter with introductions. There was movement to change the order of the proposals, and discuss Proposal No. 98-2 and Proposal No. 3 to after the business meeting
Proposal 98-1: Redefinition of Field 210 (Abbreviated Key Title) in the USMARC Bibliographic Format
Sally McCallum introduced this proposal. It stems out of some difficulties that the National Library of Medicine is having as they convert their distribution of bibliographic records to MARC. Marti Scheel of NLM elaborated, explaining that NLM's records have fields that cannot be mapped to the MARC format at present. These are title abbreviations used in Index Medicus and other publications. Sometimes these titles are identical to ones assigned by ISSN as the abbreviated key title, but other times there are punctuation differences or other differences. The proposal suggests that the 210 be made repeatable for this use. The $2 could be used to record that this was NLM's abbreviation. The proposal is generic enough so that other organizations could also add other abbreviations and their subfields if necessary.
John Attig asked what CONSER thinks of this proposal? Jean Hirons answered that it is useful for NLM, and does not jeopardize CONSER's use of the 210 field. Paul Weiss suggested that the definition of $2 be changed to "creating or using" instead of "creating." Some staff at RLG suggested using the 246 field for all alternate titles.
Diane Hillman suggested that clarification be made as to when the use of the 524 or some other field is preferred. More discussion ensued. The 524 is used for a "cited as" title, with the $2 used to record the source of the citation. There was some question and discussion about when to use the 524 and the 210. A citation is used differently in the two fields. The 210 field is used for how a title should be abbreviated, and 524 is used for how a work has been or should be cited in a textual citation.
Paul proposed that the definition on page 4 of the proposal be changed to "for purposes of indexing and brief identification" Paul Weiss moved that the proposal be passed as amended, and Robin Wendler seconded the motion. Proposal 98-1 passed with 7 voting for, none against.
Proposal 98-5: Additional definition of field 080 (UDC)
Sally McCallum introduced this proposal, which had been put forward by a group in Estonia. Subfields had never been added to the 080 field, because there had been no need for them in the past. Groups involved in editing of the Dewey Decimal Classification and the editor of the Universal Decimal Classification have reviewed the proposal.
If it passes, parallel changes in field 080 should be made to the community information format as well. Rebecca Guenther will follow the cross-format adoption procedures, and give interested parties three months to provide input on the impact of these changes.
Paul Weiss moved that the proposal be accepted, and Elaine Henjum seconded the motion. The proposal passed with seven in favor, none against.
Discussion Paper 106: New Tape of Date Code
John Attig and Deborah Leslie introduced the discussion paper. The date type code needs to be expanded to allow for showing both the correct date, but also the date on the piece when it is incorrect. They asked the committee to ignore the 4th example, which is a separate issue, and not properly a part of this discussion. The intention is to consider this change only for dates known to be in error, and not to deal with non-Gregorian dates.
For example, Deborah Leslie said that in cases where dates have been transposed in early printed books, the 008 contains only the corrected date. If both dates were available in the 008, it would facilitate retrieval. There was some discussion about whether the use of an expanded 008 date should be restricted to early printed books. Others gave examples of similar problems with government documents, exhibition catalogs, annuals, and conference proceedings. There was also discussion of other fields available for recording this information, including the 046 field and the 033 field, and of how vendors use or would use this information in the 008. RLG is interested in expanded 046. Susan Moore reported that cartographic catalogers are satisfied with recording corrected dates in 260, $c, and using established procedures for determining the "appropriate" date. Others reinforced the point that the descriptive cataloging rules tell which dates are important. Rich Greene questioned whether users know what the "appropriate" date is and how it is established. He also pointed out that some of the material in the discussion paper showing OCLC displays of multiple dates is in error.
Rebecca Guenther and John Attig will put together a proposal for summer that provides for two new codes in the 008, one for indicating that the date in 008/11-14 is an incorrect date, and another to indicate that there are multiple incorrect dates recorded in field 046.
Business Meeting and Announcements
Sally McCallum reported that the combined CanMARC and USMARC bibliographic and authority format will be available in the third or fourth quarter of 1998. All formats will be reissued as combined CanMARC and USMARC formats over the next two years. A new edition of the code list for GAC is forthcoming, and the new edition of the Relators code list is already out. The complete code lists are being put on the web, with the country list slated to be available next. If people need ASCII lists for validation as well, LC will keep them up, too.
LC will be using the value "2" in the first indicator of personal names until 1999. The only exception is the New York Public Library Dance Heritage Collection records. These records include many Spanish surnames, and do not use 2 in the first indicator position. LC will also use indicator 1 (rather than 2) for British Library records. LC is not using indicator 1 in new records because the Cataloging Directorate has decided it would be too confusing, since a global update cannot be done.
LC's target date for implementing their integrated library system is October 1, 1999.
LC will start using the new guidelines for coding of electronic maps in February. The MARC DTD conversion program will be up soon.
LC would like to stop sending out printed mailings. In the past, there has been concern about losing page number references if proposals and discussion papers are only available electronically. LC may number paragraphs or sections instead.
Brian Holt from the British Library gave an update on USMARC/UKMARC harmonization efforts.
Rebecca Guenther announced that the MARC Formats Interest Group will be sponsoring a discussion on data migration.
There will not be a joint MARBI/CC:DA meeting in New Orleans, but there will be one this summer, probably on Monday. MARBI will form a joint taskforce with CC:DA on metadata. Members will be Diane Hillman, Robin Wendler, Jo Crawford, Cathy Gerhart, Rebecca Guenther, representatives from OCLC and RLG, with Sherman Clarke and John Attig from CC:DA. Bonnie Dede reported on two subcommittees of SAC: Metadata and Classification and Metadata and Subject Analysis.
Dan Kinney has asked MARBI to help sponsor a CCS/CC:DA program entitled: "What in the World: Cataloging on an International Scale." Paul Weiss moved that MARBI agree, and Elaine Henjum seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The Asian and African Catalogers have asked MARBI to cosponsor (name only) a program on the use of vernacular scripts. MARBI approved this, but ALCTS, LITA, and RUSA will need to approve it as well.
Proposal 98-3: Expanding the Use of Field 028 (Publisher Number)
Rebecca Guenther introduced this proposal, which proposes modification of the definition of the 028 to allow for the recording of other music numbers. First indicator value 3 would be used for other music number and value 5 would be used for other publisher number. Music catalogers and OLAC support this proposal.
There was some discussion of when to use the 028 and when to use the different indicator values.
Diane Hillman moved that the committee adopt the proposal with some wording to clarify the definition of 028 and a change in the name of value 3 to "Other music number." Paul Weiss seconded the motion. It passed, with seven in favor, none against.
Proposal 98-2: Definition of Fields 541, 561, and 562 in the USMARC Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced this proposal. There was discussion of the best and most elegant way to communicate holdings that are embedded in the bibliographic record, although vendors noted problems with it. Rebecca emphasized that embedding is intended as an optional technique. John Attig asked if it was becoming impossible to communicate holdings embedded in the bibliographic record. Rebecca answered that no, it is still possible at this time.
There was discussion of the idea of adding a value "h" in $8 to identify holdings note fields that are linked to a particular holding or copy. This is particularly important for RLG.
Paul Weiss suggested making the fields obsolete in the bibliographic format and to consider them embedded holdings if used in the bibliographic record. Jacquie Riley eventually defined the committee's choices as to accept the proposal as written or define these fields in the holdings format only, deferring whether to make them obsolete in the bibliographic format.
There was some discussion about whether these fields should be carried as bibliographic or holdings fields. It was noted that this is an individual system decision.
Paul Weiss moved that the fields be defined in the holdings format and that LC will explore what to do with them in the bibliographic format. Robin Wendler seconded the motion. It passed, seven for, none against.
The second session also started with introductions.
Proposal 98-4: Elimination of Tag Conflicts in the USMARC Bibliographic, Community Information, and Holdings formats
Sally McCallum introduced the proposal. As LC has been creating the MARC DTDs, in which Bibliographic, Holdings and Community Information are merged into one DTD and Authority and Classification into another, they have found some discrepancies among formats, and this proposal is aimed at eliminating those discrepancies. It suggests that the 004 field in the Community Information format be changed to the 046 field. This idea was floated on the Community Information listserv, where reception was moderately good. It also suggests that provisional field 551 be changed to 552 in the bibliographic format. The one known group that is using this field is receptive to the change.
RLG suggests that subfields a-i in field 046 also be defined for both formats (i.e., define $f-$i in Bibliographic and $a-$e in Community Information). John Attig pointed out that the 046 may be used to solve complex data problems in the bibliographic format. The question is whether MARBI should move on this proposal while awaiting a discussion paper on the 046. John Espley pointed out that the longer MARBI waits, the more community information format records will need to be changed when a change is implemented. Louise Sevold reported that PLA had discussed this yesterday. They do not object to the change, but would like to make it sooner rather than later.
More discussion of subfields ensued. Finally, Paul Weiss moved to pass the proposal as written. Jacquie Riley called for discussion of the 551 and 552. After minimal discussion, Diane Hillman seconded Paul's motion. The motion passed, with eight voting for, none against.
Proposal 98-6: Definition of Value s (Electronic) in 008 Character Position
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal. It suggests that a code be added to the 008 to indicate that the carrier of an item is electronic. Rich Greene pointed out that this is an attempt to implement duplicate detecting and matching since it is not possible for a system to force the use of the 007 for electronic material. Using the 006 for these activities is not reliable because it is not possible to tell if the 006 refers to accompanying material or a piece of the item. Karen Coyle spoke for the use of an unambiguous solution that allows for the same sort of merging and de-duplication activities that OCLC wants.
Discussion shifted to the relative desirability of the three options the proposal presented. Option 1 allows for the coding of microform maps, which has not been possible to date. There was an extensive discussion. However, some concern was expressed that if code "s" were added to 008/29 in Maps, there could be computer braille and the codes would not be mutually exclusive (Option 1).
The cartographic community expressed a preference for Option 2, noting that once it's digital the distinction of single map vs. map series isn't useful.
After reviewing the options for the audience, Jacquie Riley called for a straw vote. The straw vote results were overwhelmingly for Option 1. After further discussion, Paul Weiss moved to accept the proposal with Option 1, and Elaine Henjum seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Discussion Paper 105: Reading Program Information
Rebecca Guenther introduced the discussion paper. Although the original discussion came from the MicroLIF committee, LC felt that many elements that this group wanted could be provided in a different way, and so provided the mapping information in the "Alternative Solution" section. Michael Johnson elaborated, describing reading program software that tests a reader's comprehension. Many vendors want to collaborate with the reading program software vendors and the library in providing information on what works are included in what software programs. It is typical that school library systems do not index the 78x fields, and so this is not a viable solution for this audience. These systems do typically index the 5xx block of tags.
John Attig said that OLAC has serious concerns in providing information that is not inherent in the bibliographic item being described. Others countered with examples where this is allowed, including notes about indexing in various abstracting and indexing services. It is usually possible to strip out unwanted fields during loads, speaking for including this information in a specific field not used for anything else. There were questions about the stability of reading program information, and Michael Johnson replied that once a work is included in a program, it tends to remain on that program.
Discussion then centered on the importance of serving user needs in a particular community versus the importance of keeping the use of tags and records consistent and generic. Some argued for the use of the 787 for this information, but the 787 is for non-specific relationships, and this is a specific relationship. Also, there are not enough available subfields in the 7XX block for the additional data elements needed, so this is not a viable solution. Sherman Clarke pointed out that this dilemma is one that comes up when describing slide sets and text, so the solution may need to be generalized to other situations.
After more discussion, Jacquie called for a straw vote. Most voted for using a single field, and for that field being a 5xx field. LC will come back to MARBI with a proposal using a 5xx field, and generalizing its use beyond the reading program information only.
Discussion Paper 107: Defining Field 856 in the USMARC Authorities Format
Sally McCallum introduced the discussion paper. This was suggested as a labor-saving method to provide more information in the establishment of an authority record without having to recreate it in a note. John Riemer went on to suggest that 856 fields in authority records could also be used to provide more information for the user. For example, a user could click on a note "about" and go to a web site that provided more information about an author, place, or corporate body. Some felt that this option would be attractive, while others were concerned about control over and stability of these links. Others pointed out that we have the same problem with links in bibliographic records. Other comments were that it made authority records richer, but changed their scope; that it was too precipitous a change to authority records; that it might significantly increase catalogers' workload; and that more thought should be given to what relationships should and should not be included. Others commented that, given the existence of NACO, MARBI could supply a field, but other groups (e.g. PCC) could specify how to apply it.
Marti Scheel said that NLM is enthusiastic about this, because it might supplant some other databases they maintain. Kay Guiles said that PCC hasn't talked about this, but there is some concern about the overhead and complexity involved in maintaining these links in a national authority file. On the other hand, it may be a valuable tool.
After more discussion, it was decided that LC will bring this back to MARBI as a proposal.
Discussion Paper 104: Defining Field 007 (Physical Description Fixed Field) for Tactile Materials in the USMARC Bibliographic and Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced the discussion paper. It explores the possible definition of an 007 for tactile material. Braille is the most prevalent form, but there are some others, as well as different flavors of Braille. The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped used codes for these in their old system, but they will lose them when they convert to MARC. The SMDs only define whether material is Braille or a combination.
Bruce Johnson commented that in bytes 03-04 "which dots represent which letters" should be changed to "which cells represent which information." It is not sufficient to have a single code (byte 05) for the grade of Braille, because it is possible to have multiple code schemes. There was discussion about whether this would be best handled with multiple 007s. There was also discussion of the best way to code for tactile maps.
Maureen Killeen voiced concern that these code values take other nations' schemes into account. The Canadian Institute for the Blind should be consulted, as well as those involved in a European Union initiative.
LC will take comments under advisement, and come back with a proposal.
Reports from Task Forces
John Espley reported on the East Asia Character Set Subcommittee. Two East Asian character set characters have one meaning in Unicode, so they will need to use private use space to show the differences. Simplified East Asian character set characters will need to be shown in private use space. There may be two East Asian characters missing from Unicode.
Gary Smith reported on the Unicode Encoding and Recognition Task Force. They have set up a listserv, and will have a report this summer. The listserv is closed to keep the conversation manageable, but they will make the archives available.
The CC:DA/LITA Metadata Task Force met Sunday morning to define its charge and have a preliminary discussion.
Elaine Henjum, Robin Wendler, and Diane Hillman discussed the LITA Strategic Plan. MARBI is instrumental in helping LITA fulfill the goals articulated in 1.C.2 and 1.C.3. It also has some responsibility for 1.C.4. Diane will help Jacquie draft a report for LITA.