Bruce Chr. Johnson ALCTS Library of Congress Josephine Crawford ALCTS University of Minnesota Ellen Crosby RUSA Indiana Historical Society Annemarie Erickson RUSA Ameritech Library Systems Elaine Henjum LITA Florida Cntr. for Library Automation Diane Hillman LITA Cornell University Carol Penka RUSA University of Illinois Paul Weiss ALCTS University of New Mexico Robin Wendler LITA Harvard UniversityMARBI Interns:
Michael Fox ALCTS Minnesota Historical Society Byron C. Mayes LITA Hunter College, CUNYRepresentatives and Liaisons:
Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group Karen Anspach AVIAC Eos, Intl. John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Betsy Cowart WLN WLN, Inc. Donna Cranmer ALCTS Media Resources Cmte. Siouxland Libraries Bonnie Dede ALCTS CCS SAC University of Michigan Kathy Glennan MLA University of Southern California David Goldberg NAL National Agricultural Library 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 Sally McCallum LC Library of Congress Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library Louise Sevold CIS Cuyahoga County Public Library Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Margaret Stewart NLC National Library of Canada Mark Watson ALCTS CCS CC:DA University of OregonOther Attendees:
Rich Aldred Haverford College Robert Axtill Library of Congress, NLS/BPH Jack Cain A-G Canada Charlene Chou Columbia University Betsy Cowart OCLC/WLN PNW Service Center Karen Coyle California Digital Library Becky Culbertson University of California-San Diego Thomas Dakgas College Center for Library Automation Stuart Ede The British Library John Espley VTLS, Inc. William Fietzer University of Minnesota Ana Maria Grandfield Lake County Public Library Jane Grawemeyer SIRSI Inna Gudanets Stanford University Shelby E. Harken University of North Dakota Barbara Holton IMLS Charles Husbands Harvard University Library Alice Jacobs National Library of Medicine George Johnston University of Cincinnati William Jones New York University Sherry Kelley Smithsonian Institution Libraries Shirley Kieran Best Seller Kris Kiesling HRHRC-University of Texas, Austin Jason Kowalski The Library Corporation Lynda Kresge Harvard College Library Susan Leister GWU Medical Center Library Gail Mazure Nichols Advanced Technologies Christina Meyer University of Minnesota Chris Mueller University of New Mexico Catherine Nelson University of California Judy Ordoyne St. Mary Parish Library System Mia Rode Stanford University Libraries Donnell Ruthenberg Data Research Associates Frank Sadowski University of Rochester PHilip Schreur Stanford University Ray Schwartz New Jersey Institute of Technology Jacque-Lynne Schulman National Library of Medicine Vianne Sha University of Missouri-Columbia Michel Simard Best Seller Randy Sine The Library Corporation Gary Smith OCLC Karen Smith-Yoshimura RLG Daniel Starr The Museum of Modern Art Gary Strawn Northwestern University Ed Summers Old Dominion University Harve Tannenbaum Nichols Advanced Technologies Christina Tarr University of California, Berkeley Law Library Mitch Turitz San Francisco State University Bob Warwick Rutgers University Amy Wood Ball State University
AALL - American Association of Law Libraries
ALCTS - Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
ARLIS/NA - Art Libraries Society of North America
BL - British Library
CC:DA - Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (of ALCTS CCS)
CIS - Community Information Section (of PLA)
CCS - Cataloging and Classification Section (of ALCTS)
LC - Library of Congress
LITA - Library and Information Technology Association
MAGERT - Map & Geography Roundtable
MLA - Music Library Association
NAL - National Agricultural Library
ND/MSO - Network Development and MARC Standards Office (of LC)
NLC - National Library of Canada
NLM - National Library of Medicine
OLAC - Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.
PLA - Public Libraries Association
RUSA - Reference and User Services Association
SAA - Society of American Archivists
SAC - Subject Analysis Committee (of ALCTS CCS)
VRA - Visual Resources Association
Saturday, January 30, 1999
Chair Bruce Johnson opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. The proposed agenda was adopted and the minutes of the previous meeting (with correction to the spelling of Diane Hillmann's name) were accepted by voice vote.
The chair noted the development of a MARBI section on the ALCTS Web site and asked for volunteers to work on it. A hyperlink exists from the LITA site and the chair will request a similar connection from RUSA's site.
The chair reported that the committee had discussed Z39.47-1993, Extended Latin Alphabet Coded Character Sets for Bibliographic Use, by email in response to NISO's request for comments and had voted to reaffirm the its support for the standard.
Proposal 99-04: Definition of Field 007 for Tactile Materials in the MARC Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal, noting the principal changes made since Discussion Paper 104 on which it was based, namely further internationalization of the field and the removal of values for production characteristics.
Bob Axtell from LC's National Library Service for the Blind and Physically explained the need to provide additional code values that capture various aspects of textile materials across media types to enhance searching. Paul Weiss noted that positions 03 and 04 are now more general and asked about the meaning of value "c." Axtell responded that they were kept general as a practical matter, given the difficulty of updating if specific schemes were coded. The value "c" in these position denotes a form of Braille that specifies how multiple elements such as text and charts are integrated. Paul Weiss proposed that the value "n" in position 03-04 be changed to "blank" when multiple character positions are defined and not all filled in. John Attig suggested the addition of value "u" for unknown to position 01.
Paul Weiss moved and Robin Wendler seconded that the proposal be adopted with these two changes. The vote was 8 for and 0 against.
Proposal No: 98-15R: Make Certain Fields Obsolete in the MARC Bibliographic Format
Sally McCallum introduced the revised proposal, noting that the fields (261, 262, 400, 410, and 411) and subfields (X11 subfield $q and field 260 subfield $d) are no longer needed for current records and that they present problems for harmonization with CAN/MARC where Field 262 was never valid and the others have been obsolete since 1988.
Marti Scheel began the discussion by asking for a clarification of the term "make obsolete." Sally McCallum responded that it meant no use of the data in new records but that records with these fields could be distributed. A description of "obsolete" is found in the introduction to the bibliographic format. Discussion focused on the impact of the proposal on retrospective conversion projects. Paul Weiss observed that these fields still may be needed for pre-AACR cataloging data. John Attig and Kathy Glennan emphasized the continued need for these fields, given the difficulty having recon personnel migrate data to new fields. Margaret Stewart indicated that Canadians could not accept a proposed compromise wherein obsolete would be interpreted to mean valid for recon but not for new entries. She reiterated the difficulty that the Canadian cataloging community would have if harmonization required the revalidation and reintroduction into documentation of fields that they previously had made obsolete.
When asked what impact the proposal might have on the utilities, Rich Greene explained that a variety of actions might occur including documentation changes, alterations to validation tables, and database scans and conversion. Joe Altimus said that the fields would remain in records in RLIN but input of new instances would no longer be possible. Jack Cain asked if this discussion meant that nothing could ever be made obsolete in the future. Several members suggested that changes to existing documentation that would clarify current use of these fields would be an adequate alternative to the proposal. It was suggested that these fields could be made local US fields, as was done with the Canadian 9XX fields (made local Canadian).
Diane Hillmann moved and Paul Weiss seconded that the proposed be accepted. The vote was 1 for, 6 against, and 1 abstention. The motion failed. A straw vote was then taken of all present in the room. The results were 16 for the proposal and 16 against, with 10 abstentions.
Proposal 98-16R: Non-filing characters in all MARC formats
Sally McCallum introduced the proposal which would replace the current method of specifying non-filing characters through indicator values with the creation of "non-filing zones." She noted that changes made since the previous version focused on the rule itself and on the techniques employed. She added that particular concerns of RLG needed to be considered. In response, Joe Altimus indicated his organization's support for the proposal. Marti Scheel expressed support but questioned the need to specify the fields in which the technique could be employed. Karen Coyle concurred, observing that different vendors index differently. Karen Auspach stated that European customers wanted this feature in every field and everywhere within fields. Diane Hillmann suggested a need to coordinate this issue with UNIMARC which allows internal non-filing zones. Joe Altimus stated that RLG cannot effect a "round trip," into and out of RLIN, for the data in non-filing zones in UNIMARC records that occur in places other than at the beginning of subfields. Gary Smith reported that OCLC discards such strings.
The committee then discussed each of the four sections of the proposal. There was no disagreement with the use of certain hex code values to delimit the non-filing zone. On the matter of making existing non-filing characters obsolete, several speakers concurred with David Goldberg's observation that a long lead time would be required. Rich Green stated that, since non-filing character indicators would remain in current records, this proposal was best viewed as an alternate technique. Paul Weiss and Robin Wendler agreed that an impact study needs to be done on the definition of a non-filing zone. On the matter of a closed list of applicable fields, John Attig stated that was not necessary. Sally McCallum suggested that an impact study address this issue. Several members agree to pursue further comments from other groups: Bonnie Dede would raise the issue at Sunday's SAC meeting; John Attig will approach RBMS; and Mark Watson will present the matter to CC:DA on Monday. Sally McCallum requested a vote on the first item so that work on the introduction of the hex code values might proceed.
Paul Weiss moved acceptance of this portion of the proposal; Robin Wendler second it. The vote was 8 for and 0 against.
Proposal 99-07: To Make Field 263 year 2000 compatible in the MARC Bibliographic Format
Sally McCallum introduced the proposal. Field 263, which contains a projected date of publication, has only two digits for the year which will create an obvious problem for works produced after the year 2000. It is used principally by NLM and LC CIP with LC and some booksellers processing off of it.
Marty Scheel and Margaret Stewart indicated that their organizations could conform to this change. The committee approved the proposal with a vote of 8 for and 0 against.
Sally McCallum reported on activities at the Library of Congress with several publications and revised code lists available online. The Bibliographic Format update will be published by the time of the ALA Annual Meeting, the Authority Format in the fall, with others next year. The MARC Standards home page has been redesigned and all text taken off the Gopher server. The publication, "Understanding MARC Bibliographic," is available there through the efforts of John Attig and the original publisher, Follett. Regarding technical matters, she noted the completion of indicator values for Field 526 and coming changes to the MARC language codes because of the approval of the ISO three-character language code standard. The Library's ILS has implemented Bibliographic Format updates 2 and 3 and Authority Format update 1. Marti Scheel asked about the timeline for multiple surname implementation. Rich Greene replied that their discussions had not begun.
Rebecca Guenther reported that a new mailing list is being set up for USMARC Advisory Committee members and that she will subscribe all involved.
Sunday, January 31, 1999
Proposal No. 99-01: Enhancement of Computer File 007 for Digital Preservation/Reformatting
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal. Robin Dale of the Research Libraries Group offered additional insights. The Research Libraries Group, Inc. (RLG) proposes the enhancement and expansion of the Computer File 007 values to accommodate better retrieval and management of digitally reformatted and preserved materials. The proposal suggests several changes to the existing six bytes to make them more inclusive, and the addition of eight new optional bytes which specifically address the needs of digitally reformatted materials.
Paul Weiss moved that Proposal 99-01 be approved with the following amendments:
Elaine Henjun seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 8 in favor, none against.
Proposal 99-02: Making Field 004 (Control Number for Related Bibliographic Record) Repeatable in the MARC Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal. It proposes making field 004 repeatable in the MARC Holdings Format so that a holdings record can link to multiple bibliographic records for the description of the item for which a holdings record is created. This is specifically about "bound-with" items: several bibliographic items, represented by separate bibliographic records, but bound together. Many institutions are dealing with these in non-standard ways.
Diane Hillman suggested that other options be explored because of the possibility of confusion, especially when parts of serials are bound with other items. She volunteered to prepare an alternative proposal.
Bruce Johnson called for a straw vote of those in attendance with a result of 18 in favor, 16 against, and 22 not voting.
Paul Weiss moved that Proposal 99-02 be rejected. Bruce Johnson made a point of order that it would be more appropriate to move for approval and vote the proposal down if that is what is desired. Paul Weiss moved that the proposal be approved. Robin Wendler seconded the motion. The proposal was rejected by the committee by a vote of 2 in favor, 2 against, with 4 abstentions.
Discussion Paper No. 113: Appropriate Use for subfields in Field 852 in the MARC Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced the discussion paper. The paper considers the definitions and use of field 852 (Location) subfields $b (Sublocation or collection), $c (Shelving location), $h (Classification part), $k (Call number prefix), and $m (Call number suffix), specifically, what is the difference between sublocation and shelving location when the prefix and suffix are also indications of location. It also raises the question of making subfield $m (and perhaps $k) repeatable.
Discussion focused on the numbered questions in section three of the discussion paper.
How are systems using subfields $b, $c, $h, $k, and $m for various functions?
Marti Scheel (NLM) replied that NLM doesn't use them all because the vendor doesn't use them all; there is not enough experience in their use. More tracking is necessary, but they are basically at the mercy of the vendors in this respect. Diane Hillmann relayed that the MARC Format Interest Group has no objections to making more fields repeatable, though in some respects users are limited by their vendor. Also, some issues of "Location" are more of local interest than global. Karen Anspach (AVIAC) expressed concern over the ambiguity caused by the 3-level structure here.
Can both permanent and temporary locations be recorded in subfield $c? Is there a need to distinguish at the holdings level (rather than item level, as in field 876-878 subfield $l) between permanent and temporary location?
Robin Wendler: Yes, both both permanent and temporary locations can be recorded in subfield $c. There is no need to distinguish at the holdings level between permanent and temporary location.
How should call numbers be coded when the institution shelves the item by a classified designation, such as the example in section 2.3, which could use the hierarchical approach of $h and $i or the shelving control number subfield $j?
Paul Weiss suggested that some "wiggle room" is desirable as these are local fields. Rebecca Guenther gave an example in which a library that uses the call number scheme
Ficfor its fiction collection might use $h for "Fic" and $i for the author's last name. Marti Scheel (NLM) suggested that users call their vendors, as some vendors do not recognize all fields as valid. Rhonda Lawrence (AALL) suggested the need for more instructions and examples She further advocates against the use of floors [in a building] as a sublocation.
[Author's Last Name]
How does one distinguish whether an element should be recorded as a call number prefix or suffix, or as a sublocation or shelving location? Is the decision made based on functionality of the system, for instance when the system uses the data in $h, $i, $k, and $m to print a label? Shall institutions make their decisions individually on what best fits their needs, or should the format be more specific about how to distinguish between these different data elements?
John Espley (VTLS) suggested from the floor that this should be based upon the capabilities of a given system. John Attig (OLAC) concurred adding that existing data should also be a factor and that it would be better to use these with a level of location when possible. He further recommended that guidelines for practice be written out if possible. Diane Hillmann recommended making this information available to others but not a mandate for usage. Flexibility is desirable as there is no benefit from proscription in this issue. Annamarie Erickson indicated that based upon having recently moved a library, she wouldn't want to see shelving information in any record.
Would there be any problems making subfield $m repeatable? If so, should subfield $k also become repeatable?
Paul Weiss asked what the benefit of this action would be. Rebecca Guenther suggested that it could allow searching. An attendee suggested that repeatable subfields would be difficult to implement. Robin Wendler noted that the repeating of subfields which need to be retained in a certain order might be problematic as well.
Proposal 99-03: Definition of Unspecified Values in Leader in the MARC Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal which proposes that a value be defined in Leader/06 (Type of record) for "unspecified holdings" and in Leader/17 (Encoding level) for "unknown". Joe Altimus indicated that this is needed so that a default value can be system generated in these positions when necessary. There was no further Discussion.
Paul Weiss moved that the proposal be accepted. Diane Hillmann seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of the committee (8-0-0).
Proposal 99-05: Definition of Field 040 in the MARC Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal which proposes the definition of field 040 (Record Source) in the MARC Holdings Format. This definition is necessary to bring the format in line with the other MARC formats, all of which are defined with a field 040. John Espley of VTLS made brief comments in support of the proposal from the floor.
Paul Weiss moved for acceptance of the proposal. Diane Hillmann seconded the motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of the committee (8-0-0).
Proposal 99-06: Repeatability of Subfield $u (URL) in Field 856 of the MARC Formats
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal, which proposes that subfield $u (URL) be made non-repeatable in field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) so that if two URLs need to be recorded, the field is repeated. Arlene Weible of GODORT added supporting commentary indicating that under current practice there is a lack of clarity between subfields $u and $z (Public note) when subfield $u is repeated; multiple 856 fields would provide more clarity. Additionally, multiple subfield $u's are not displayed in every catalog system, and the multiple 856 fields would allow for easier editing. Todd Downing, of the Government Printing Office, also spoke in support of the proposal.
Paul Weiss suggested that the issue of whether a specific vendor's lack of support is not the problem of the committee, and that the subfield $z should apply to the entire field. A repeat of field 856 should occur when this is not the case.
A comment from the floor reiterated that subfield $u is not supported as repeatable in some library catalog systems.
Rebecca Guenther indicated that PURL and URL data are often assigned in repeating subfield $u's, though many vendors instruct users to repeat field 856. Rich Greene pointed out that due to the prevalence of repeated subfield $u's in records in OCLC, there is a significant implementation issue surrounding a change from repeatable to non-repeatable status.
After additional discussion including committee members and comments from the floor, Robin Wendler made a motion to approve the proposal. Elaine Henjun seconded the motion. Bruce Johnson called for a straw vote of those in attendance with a result of 28 in favor, 12 against, and 13 not voting. The committee then voted on the motion to approve, which carried with a vote of 5 in favor, 3 against.
Discussion Paper No. 112: Defining URL/URN Subfields in Fields other than Field 856
Bruce Johnson introduced the discussion paper, which discusses the possibility of defining subfields to record URLs and/or URNs in various fields in the bibliographic format.
Discussion focused on the numbered questions in section three of the discussion paper.
Is the argument that URLs are changeable reason not to define them in other fields of the format, given the increasing use of field 856? Does the likely use of URNs in the future make this argument untenable?
Diane Hillman: No. It makes it a reason to exercise caution when defining URNs.
Marti Scheel (NLM) indicated that the purpose of subfield $u is to build a link for use of the public. It should not be anywhere else in the record. Paul Weiss suggested the argument is reasonable and should be an issue for the local institution to decide, as should be the decision to display. Michael Fox (SAA): suggested that support for URLs as links would be useful from a variety of fields. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) expressed concern about how data travels from system to system.
Since many systems and browsers already recognize a URL even if it is not separately designed as one, is it necessary to provide separate subfields for URIs? Could they just be included in note subfields as necessary?
John Attig (OLAC) observed that many browsers aren't reliable in indicating the proper end of a non-coded URL [e.g., a period or other punctuation may be included in the hot link]. Thus, this is not a reliable solution. Robin Wendler expressed concern that URLs in records may simply be the "hammer of the moment" and may be used without thought. Michael Johnson (MicroLIF) suggested that the challenge here is being able to steer the user through information.
What sort of guidelines will be needed if URIs are allowed in other fields as to when to record the URL/URN in field 856 and when to record in the other field?
Paul Weiss: Simple ones.
Will the definition of URIs in these specified fields open up the format for the definition of the same in many different fields?
How would this affect the use of the records, given that the URL is changeable? Should they be defined only when an institution submits a specific request?
Paul Weiss recommended that proposals should be submitted before this is defined. Richard Greene (OCLC) asked if the full text must be at a location to be considered a valid URL for inclusion (e.g., would a link to the table of contents of a serial be as valid as a link to the full serial text itself?). Sally McCallum asked if institutions are inserting URLs anywhere [outside of field 856, subfield $u] already. Elaine Henjun suggested that the need for subfielding is so that catalogers don't have to add to field 856, and that the field context would define why the URL is there. Paul Weiss suggested that there is already great inconsistency in practice.
Might commercial publishers want to use a URL subfield in field 037? Are there any problems with commercial use, and should there be any restrictions? Paul Weiss: Yes, they can use it without restriction.
This question generated comments of confusion from the floor. One attendee questioned why, if field 856 was for the item being described, would there be a shift to "catch-all" use. John Attig suggested that there may be interest in a proposal to codify this question. The general consensus was that LC should prepare a proposal for Annual meeting.
Monday, February 1, 1999
Discussion Paper No. 111: Alternative Graphics without 880 Bibliographic, Holdings, Authority and Community Information Records
Sally McCallum introduced the discussion paper, noting that the use of Field 880 in no longer attractive in a multi-script, unicode environment. The library has discussed these issues with the major stakeholders- the utilities and vendors. She suggested that a task force be appointed to consider issues related to this topic. The chair asked for volunteers and ideas for the committee's charge, suggesting that authority file implications be considered as well.
Unicode Encoding and Recognition Technical Issues Task Force
Gary Smith reported that they were focusing on four issues and that their work would be completed by the annual meeting. He was uncertain whether the result would be a proposal or a report.
East Asian Character Set Task Force
John Espley reported on the work of the Task Force, including difficulties with certain mappings to Unicode, such as those presented by simplified ideographs. The Task Force needs to review additional problems with qualified outside experts but hopes to have a proposal ready for the Annual Meeting.
CC:DA Metadata Task Force
Rebecca Guenther updated the committee on the work of the Task Force through the previous day's meeting. A draft interim report has been circulated. The Task Force is working in five areas: analysis of the resource description needs of libraries; building a conceptual map of the resource description environment; devising a definition of metadata; considering how libraries might incorporate metadata; and preparing rule revisions for interoperability with metadata schemes. John Attig described in detail the specific workplan for each of these issues, noting that discussions occur on the Metamarda-l list which is summarized monthly.
The chair indicated that there had been several requests to pursue the topics of two additional discussion papers.
Discussion Paper No. 108: Recording language of heading in USMARC Authority records
Sally McCallum summarized previous discussions which had concluded that it was an interesting and complex concept but one that is not feasible. Joe Altimus concurred, observing that while it might be possible in individual authority catalogs, it would be difficult to share such data. John Espley said that his company felt it needed this capability to respond to customer requests in multi-lingual countries such as Switzerland. Diane Hillman, Robin Wendler and John Attig all spoke to the need to clarify further the issues raised in the paper, observing that they may be part of a larger problem.
The chair asked for volunteers for a Task Force on DP108, requesting that they look broadly at the internationalization issue. A sign-up sheet was circulated throughout the room.
Discussion Paper No. 109: Identifying transliteration schemes in USMARC formats
Sally McCallum observed that the Library could do something internally on this issue for the interim. She suggested that elements of DP109 might be folded into the work of the Task Force on DP111.
Joint Meeting with CC:DA at ALA Annual
Mark Watson reported that CC:DA is interested in continuing such meetings and will be soliciting topics for consideration. Jean Hirons' analysis for CONSER of "seriality" issues arising from the Toronto Conference was suggested as a possibility. Sherry Kelley and John Attig reported on a suggestion that a cosponsored, pre-conference institute on practical metadata might be developed for the Chicago ALA Midwinter Meeting in 2000.
Meeting times at ALA Annual Meeting in New Orlenas will parallel those at Midwinter in Philadelphia
Saturday June 26, 1999, 9:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Sunday June 27, 1999, 2:00-5:30 PM
Monday June 28, 1999, 2:00-4:00 PM.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.Respectfully submitted,