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: December 14, 2023
REVISED:
NAME: Addition of Relationship Subfields in Fields 647 and 648 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
SOURCE: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
SUMMARY: This paper discusses the possibility of adding relationship subfields $e (Relator term) and $4 (Relationship) in Fields 647 (Subject Added Entry-Named Event) and 648 (Subject Added Entry-Chronological Term) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
KEYWORDS: Field 647 (BD); Subject Added Entry-Named Event (BD); Field 648 (BD); Subject Added Entry-Chronological Term (BD); Subfield $e, in Field 647 (BD); Subfield $e, in Field 648 (BD); Subfield $4, in Field 647 (BD); Subfield $4, in Field 648 (BD); Relator term (BD); Relationship (BD)
RELATED: 2005-06; 2006-02; 2018-DP01
STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/14/23 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
01/24/24 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: There was strong general support for the paper. In a straw poll, the committee voted in favor of processing the paper as a Fast-Track proposal. The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final processing and approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
MARC Proposal No. 2005-06, prepared by the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) and Visual Resources Association (VRA), proposed defining subfield $e in fields 630 and 651 and subfield $4 in fields 630, 650, and 651 in the bibliographic format. This proposal sought to allow relator codes and terms to be used to enhance the retrieval of visual materials, especially through the use of the relationship designator "depicted." Upon approval of 2005-06, the same subfields were also added to field 654. At that time, subfield $e was already defined in field 650, and both subfields $e and $4 were already defined in fields 600 and 610. Field 611 already had a subfield $4, but since subfield $e was already defined (as "Subordinate unit"), Proposal No. 2006-02 subsequently defined $j in 611 and in the other X11 fields.
In Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP01, The PCC Standing Committee on Standards (SCS) proposed adding subfield $i (Relationship information) to the 600-630 group of fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. This paper noted that subfields $e and $4 already existed in several 6XX fields (along with 611 subfield $j), albeit with different definitions, syntax, and uses than subfield $i. There was general disagreement about this paper and it was not resubmitted by SCS.
As with other 6XX fields in which relationship subfields ($4 and $e or $j) have already been defined, other subject added entries can also benefit from the expression or refinement of relationships to the entity being described. For example, a fictional work may be set in a chronological period or at a named event, or a period or event may be depicted by a photograph or painting. Accordingly, this paper proposes that relationship subfields be added to fields 647 and 648 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
If relationship subfields are added to fields 647 and 648 as proposed, then the only fields in the 6XX block remaining without relationship subfields will be those identified not as Subject Added Entries but as Index Terms: Field 653 (Index Term-Uncontrolled); Field 655 (Genre/Form); Field 656 (Occupation); 657 (Function); and 658 (Curriculum Objective). The authors of the paper considered whether to propose $e and/or $4 for these fields as well, beginning with "depicted" and "setting" as two relationships with the most demonstrated usage in the other 6XX fields. However, we consider the "depicted" and "setting" relationships to be most appropriate as refinements of the basic "aboutness" relationship expressed primarily in subject added entry fields, but less appropriate in the index term fields that may but do not necessarily convey subject information.
The "depicted" relationship did not seem to apply at all to functions or curriculum objectives. Though genres, forms, and occupations can be depicted in works, such depictions can already be expressed with topical terms in field 650. For example, the Magritte painting L'Homme au Journal depicts a man reading a newspaper. The subject added entry "650_0 Newspapers, $e depicted" appropriately conveys this information as a form of subject relationship, while "655 _7 Newspapers, $e depicted $2 lcgft" is less appropriate since field 655 reflects what a resource is, not what it is about. The definition of the 656 field is: "Index term that is descriptive of the occupation (including avocation) reflected in the contents of the described materials." Though this definition suggests some amount of "aboutness" of the described materials, a topical 650 field would again suffice. For example, with Van Gogh’s painting The Stevedores in Arles, "650_0 Stevedores, $e depicted" can convey the subject of the painting's depiction without need for "656_7 Stevedores, $e depicted $2 lcdgt". Similarly, genres/forms, occupations, functions, and curriculum objectives do not readily lend themselves to being represented as settings of a work, but if they should be found to do so, a topical term in field 650 could likely already accomplish this.
Though field 653 is also identified as an "Index term" field, this field could more conceivably express a subject relationship that may be refined by "setting" or "depicted", among other possible relationships. Uncontrolled terms for entities recorded in field 653 may or may not as easily be replaced by controlled topical or other subject added entries in fields 600-651, 654, 662, or 688, but even in the absence of a controlled term from an available vocabulary, a subject entry coded with second indicator 4 (e.g., 650 #4) could serve a similar purpose in most cases. If relationship subfields were defined in 653, it would also be necessary to clarify the applicability of the relationship to the term(s), since subfield $a is repeatable.
Beyond "setting" and "depicted," we considered a number of other potentially useful relationships to genres/forms in field 655. In contrast to the fields discussed above, such relationships would instead be refinements to the basic "is-ness”" relationship expressed in this field. This could include indications of a narrower type of genre or form to which the term belongs. Given the wide variety of vocabularies and concepts commonly represented in field 655 (including artistic, musical, and literary genres/forms; terms indicating physical medium and production method; specialized terms relating to rare book provenance, binding, printing and publication methods, paper and type evidence, and more), the use case is more open-ended and hypothetical.
Because of the above concerns, and because of the absence of clear use cases, this discussion paper does not propose subfields $e and $4 for the index term fields (fields 653 and 655-658) at this time. There may yet be other useful relationships not identified here, that could be used in conjunction with Uncontrolled, Genre/Form, Occupation, Function, and/or Curriculum Objective index terms. If any use cases are articulated, establishing these subfields in fields 653, 655, 656, 657, and/or 658 may be considered in a resulting proposal or in a separate discussion paper or papers.
In field 647 (Subject Added Entry-Named Event) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, define the following subfelds:
$e - Relator term (R)
Specifies the relationship between the named event and the described materials, e.g., depicted or setting.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in the field. A source of relationship codes is: MARC Code List for Relators.
In field 648 (Subject Added Entry-Chronological Term) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, define the following subfelds:
$e - Relator term (R)
Specifies the relationship between the chronological term and the described materials, e.g., depicted or setting.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in the field. A source of relationship codes is: MARC Code List for Relators.
4.1.1. Subfield $e Examples
647 #7 $a Arab Spring $d (2010-), $e setting. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01896290
[A play set during the Arab Spring protests]647 #7 $a Eruption of Mount Saint Helens $c (Mount Saint Helens, Washington : $d 1980), $e depicted. $2 fast $0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1353018
[A photograph of the eruption of Mount Saint Helens]
4.1.2. Subfield $4 Examples
647 #7 $a Arab Spring $d (2010-), $e setting. $2 fast $4 stg $0 (OCoLC)fst01896290
[A play set during the Arab Spring protests]647 #7 $a Eruption of Mount Saint Helens $c (Mount Saint Helens, Washington : $d 1980), $e depicted. $2 fast $4 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/dpc $0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1353018
[A photograph of the eruption of Mount Saint Helens]
4.2.1. Subfield $e Examples
648 #7 $a 1793-1794, $e setting. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst02010881
651 #0 $a France $x History $y Reign of Terror, 1793-1794, $e setting.
[A novel set during the Reign of Terror in France]647 #7 $a World War $d (1914-1918), $e depicted. $2 fast $0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1180746
648 #7 $a 1914-1918, $e depicted. $2 fast $0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1355873
[A documentary about World War I, showing photographs from the war]648 #7 $a Meiji Era, $e setting. $2 periodo $1 http://n2t.net/ark:/99152/p08m57hsw5p
651 #0 $a Japan $x History $y Meiji period, 1868-1912 $v Fiction.
[A novel set during the Meiji Era (1868-1912) of Japanese history]
4.2.2. Subfield $4 Examples
648 #7 $a 1793-1794, $e setting. $2 fast $4 stg $0 (OCoLC)fst02010881
651 #0 $a France $x History $y Reign of Terror, 1793-1794, $e setting. $4 stg
[A novel set during the Reign of Terror in France]647 #7 $a World War $d (1914-1918), $e depicted. $2 fast $4 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/dpc $0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1180746
648 #7 $a 1914-1918, $e depicted. $2 fast $4 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/dpc $0 http://id.worldcat.org/fast/1355873
[A documentary about World War I, showing photographs from the war]648 #7 $a Meiji Era, $e setting. $2 periodo $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P2408 $1 http://n2t.net/ark:/99152/p08m57hsw5p
651 #0 $a Japan $x History $y Meiji period, 1868-1912 $v Fiction.
[A novel set during the Meiji Era (1868-1912) of Japanese history]
The BIBFRAME conversion programs can be modified to accommodate this change.
6.1. Do you agree that the addition of relationship subfields $e and $4 in fields 647 and 648 is sufficiently supported by the use case of "setting" and "depicted" relationships?
6.2. Are there other relationships appropriate for use in subfields $e and $4 in fields 647 or 648 that would further support this proposal?
6.3. Do you agree that the remaining index term fields in the 6XX block (653, 655, 656, 657, and 658) do not need these relationship subfields at this time?
6.4. Should $i (Relationship information) be reconsidered for addition alongside $e and $4 in any fields in the 6XX block?
6.5. Are there any potential consequences that this paper does not address?
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards (05/15/2024) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |