The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> StandardsThe Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
DATE: May 25, 2023
REVISED:
NAME: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Fields 082 and 083 in the MARC 21 Formats
SOURCE: Dewey Editorial Team, OCLC
SUMMARY: This paper proposes adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) to fields 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification Number) and 083 (Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number) in MARC 21 Authority, Bibliographic, and Community Information formats.
KEYWORDS: DDC (AD, BD, CI); Dewey Decimal Classification Number (AD, BD, CI); Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number (AD, BD); Field 082 (AD, BD, CI); Field 083 (AD, BD); Subfield $0, in Field 082 (AD, BD, CI); Subfield $0, in Field 083 (AD, BD); Subfield $1, in Field 082 (AD, BD, CI); Subfield $1, in Field 083 (AD, BD); Authority record control number or standard number (AD, BD, CI); Real World Object URI (AD, BD, CI)
RELATED: 2017-04; 2021-04; 2020-FT03; 2020-FT02
STATUS/COMMENTS:
05/25/23 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
06/29/23 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: MAC expressed support for the addition of URIs in fields 082 and 083 for Dewey Classification numbers. OCLC will be building URIs for non-built numbers in Dewey. Most participants felt that a Dewey Classification number would be most appropriate in subfield $0. The paper will return as a proposal.
Proposals such as No. 2020-FT03 have noted the importance of allowing subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) wherever relevant.
Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) numbers have identifiers, such as Classification-format 001 fields, but have typically not had URIs. This calendar year, OCLC is launching Dewey as linked data, including defined URIs for individual DDC numbers. Thus, authorizing subfields $0 and $1 for DDC fields (082 in Bibliographic, Authority, and Community Information; 083 in Bibliographic and Authority) is only logical.
Full information on DDC URIs will be made available when Dewey linked data is launched. For these purposes, URIs will correspond to the DDC number itself, independent of language, edition, or date data. Dewey linked data will be multilingual, and at this time we only plan to model the current edition, Edition 23. Its contents will be continually updated with the classification.
In the MARC Classification Format, a Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) number is identified in the 001 (Control Number) field. While users of WebDewey can access these numbers by utilizing the MARC view, these control numbers are primarily for internal use (e.g., so automated systems processing DDC updates know when to add a new record vs. updating an existing one).
OCLC previously modeled DDC as linked data via dewey.info, an experimental project, from 2009 to 2015. During this period, there were URIs for DDC numbers, but they were not widely used, and could not have been added to 082 and 083 fields as we are now proposing.
This year's launch of DDC as part of OCLC's linked data resources will mark the availability of stable DDC URIs fit for including in subfields $0 and $1. As of this writing, OCLC has decided on the basic structure of the DDC URIs, but the identifiers themselves have not been set, so this paper uses placeholders where the identifier will be.
There has been an internal discussion as to which subfield should the DDC URI be added to, subfield $0 or $1. The Dewey URI will take you to information about the Dewey number similar to what is found in id.loc.gov for a Library of Congress Classification (LCC) number: https://id.loc.gov/authorities/classification/GV880.html. Our examples only show subfield $1 with a URI placeholder, but we are open to accepting having this URI in subfield $0 if the cataloging community deems it more appropriate to include it there. We still think there is value in having subfield $1 defined for fields 082 and 083 since in theory classification number could be identified as an RWO and thus have the URI recorded in $1.
Field 085 (Synthesized Number Classification Components) already has subfields $0 and $1 authorized. The field is primarily used for DDC. While the new URIs will be of some use to field 085, they will be limited to complete DDC numbers. Built DDC numbers will always involve at least one schedule number as a base, and these will have corresponding URIs, but other elements, such as external table numbers, will not.
In field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification Number) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Community Information Formats, define the following subfields:
$0 - Authority record control number or standard number (R)
$1 - Real World Object URI (R)
In field 083 (Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats, define the following subfields:
$0 - Authority record control number or standard number (R)
$1 - Real World Object URI (R)
082 04 $a 891.6611 $1 https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/ddc/[identifier]
245 04 $a The burning tree : $b poems from the first thousand years of Welsh verse / $c selected and translated by Gwyn Williams.082 04 $a 363.37/7 $2 23 $1 https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/ddc/[identifier]
100 1# $a Keane, Robert E., $e author.
245 10 $a Wildland fuel fundamentals and applications / $c Robert E. Keane.083 0# $a 968.87/02 $2 23/eng/20190402 $1 https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/ddc/[identifier]
082 04 $a 621.952 $2 23/eng/20230428 $1 https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/ddc/[identifier]
150 ## $a Boring machinery082 04 $a 205 $2 23/eng/20230428 $1 https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/ddc/[identifier]
150 ## $a Religious ethics083 00 $a362.29/6 $2 23/eng/20190402 $1 https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/ddc/[identifier]
Including linking information to data in MARC will facilitate the transition to fuller linking in BIBFRAME.
6.1. Do you agree that making stable identifiers for DDC numbers available in fields 082 and 083 is desirable?
6.2. Should a DDC URI be in subfield $0 or $1?
6.3. Does the definition of subfields $0 and $1 in these fields accomplish this in a sensible manner? If not, are there alternative approaches that could be considered?
6.4. Are there any potential issues that this paper does not address?
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards (10/31/2023) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |