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: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Fields 506 and 540 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
SOURCE: PCC Standing Committee on Standards, PCC Standing Committee on Applications
SUMMARY: This paper proposes adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) to fields 506 (Restrictions on Access Note) and 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
KEYWORDS: Field 506 (BD); Restrictions on Access Note (BD); Field 540 (BD); Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note (BD); Subfield $0, in field 506 (BD); Subfield $0, in field 540 (BD); Subfield $1, in field 506 (BD); Subfield $1, in field 540 (BD); Authority record control number or standard number (BD); Real World Object URI (BD)
RELATED: 2020-FT02; 2020-FT03; 2021-04; 2023-FT01; 2017-06; 2017-08
STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/14/23 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
01/25/24 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Support for the paper was generally favorable, though there was one strong dissent. Discussion centered around the theme of how $u, $0, and $1 are deployed generally and specifically to these fields, and a desire for clarity around the definition and use of $u vs. $0/$1. The paper authors acknowledged the need to improve the $u definition in the next paper for further clarity. Additional discussion focused on which subfield the proposed $0/$1 would be paired with and on best practices with respect to the pairings for multiple terms. The paper will return as a proposal.
Over the course of multiple proposals, subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) have been added to numerous fields in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats to enhance linked data compatibility in MARC. In 2022, the PCC Standing Committee on Applications (SCA) charged a task group to review and identify additional descriptive practices and MARC fields that could benefit from linked data vocabularies, and to propose strategies to implement those improvements. The group reviewed descriptive (non-access) MARC fields in which subfields $0 and $1 were not already defined, and ultimately recommended the definition of these subfields in several fields in the Bibliographic format. The PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) approved a majority of the task group's recommendations in 2023 and thereafter charged the PCC Standing Committee on Standards (SCS) to implement the approved recommendations. This paper represents one element of this work, and pursues the definition of subfields $0 and $1 in fields 506 and 540, with a goal of enabling linked data enhancements in those fields. Due to a number of similarities between fields 506 and 540, this paper combines the two proposals. The other approved recommendations of the SCA task group will be pursued in separate discussion papers.
This paper considers defining subfields $0 and $1 in field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note). The identifier contained in subfield $0 or $1 may correspond to the standard term contained in subfield $f (Standardized terminology for access restriction) of field 506, taken from the vocabulary specified in subfield $2. Subfield $2 is coded from the Access Restriction Terms Source Codes list. New source codes have recently been approved for two vocabularies on this list, including the COAR Access Rights Vocabulary and Wikidata, and URIs from either source could be recorded in the new subfields. Or, identifiers may be used independently of a controlled term. In that case, URIs from other sources could also be used, with or without established source codes.
The task group noted that the existing subfield $u in field 506 serves a different purpose than subfields $0 or $1 would. Subfield $0 could also contain control numbers or standard numbers that are not machine actionable URIs. Meanwhile, subfield $u could contain URLs that do not necessarily serve as identifiers for the access status itself, such as patron registration forms, institutional access policies, etc. During review of the task group's recommendations, it was also suggested that it may be redundant to define subfields $0 and $1 in field 506 when the existing subfield $l (Standardized information governing access) in field 856 can be used to more directly link an identifier for the access status to the URL to which it applies. In response, the authors of this paper note that field 506 is also used to indicate access restrictions for non-electronic resources, such as archival collections, which may not have an 856 field for electronic access. Or, a bibliographic record for an archival collection may contain an 856 field for a related resource such as a finding aid, which may have different access parameters than the collection itself. This suggests that subfields $0 and $1 in field 506 are not always redundant, as a record could contain meaningfully different URIs in fields 506 and 856.
This paper considers defining subfields $0 and $1 in field 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note). As with field 506, subfield $2 is coded from the Access Restriction Terms Source Codes list. The identifier contained in subfield $0 or $1 may correspond to a standard term from one of these vocabularies contained in subfield $f (Use and reproduction rights) of field 540 or may be recorded independently of a controlled term. A new source code was recently approved for Wikidata, and URIs could also be assigned from Rights Statements or other sources, with or without a source code established in the list.
Similar to field 506, the existing subfield $u in field 540 serves a different purpose than the new subfields $0 and $1 would. Also, there is an existing subfield $r (Standardized information governing use and reproduction) in field 856 which can contain identifiers related to terms governing use and reproduction of an electronic resource. But again, field 540 is also used in bibliographic records for non-electronic resources, such as archival collections. This suggests a distinct use for subfields $0 and $1 in 540, whether or not an 856 field with a URI in subfield $r is also present in the same record.
The Standing Committee on Standards has recently considered different ways to ensure reliable machine actionability of information contained in field 506, and to a lesser extent 540. In particular, the ExLibris Alma ILS system currently uses standardized information in subfields $f and $2 in field 506 to generate an "Open Access" indicator for open access resources in public displays. Other systems rely on first indicator values in field 506, or codes in subfield $7 (Access status) of field 856, to provide similar machine actionability. Subfields $0 and $1 would provide other options for both linked data enhancement and machine actionability related to access and rights status, such as displaying icons or labels related to the status, faceting searches based on status, and restricting access based on status.
During the initial review of this discussion paper, it was noted that it was unusual to have subfields $0 or $1 in a note field (Bibliographic 5XX block). At the time of writing, the only exceptions are 518 (Date/Time and Place of an Event Note) and 567 (Methodology Note). Subfields $0 and $1 were established in these fields in proposals 2017-08 and 2017-06. The use case for subfields $0 and $1 is the most straightforward in note fields in which subfield $2 already exists, as is the case with fields 506 and 540. In these fields, a term in subfield $f can already be associated with a controlled vocabulary or code. The definition of subfields $0 and $1 would build on the control provided by associating a term with a source in subfield $2, such as term maintenance, mapping, translation, and faceting. Other note fields that contain structured or standardized data points could also be candidates for similar linked data enhancement and machine actionability through the establishment of new control subfields, including subfields $0, $1 and $2. The SCA task group also recommended adding subfields $0 and $1 to field 586 (Awards note), which SCS will consider in a future paper. As other possible examples, the names of universities in Bibliographic field 502 (Dissertation note) or the standardized citation forms of bibliographic sources in Bibliographic field 510 (Citation/References Note) could be controlled in a similar fashion. Alternatively, potentially controllable elements of note fields in the 5XX block could be instead accommodated in other fields. For example, a controlled term for a form of musical notation is now recorded in subfield $c of field 348 (Notated Music Characteristics) instead of subfield $b of field 546 (Language Note).
In fields 506 (Restrictions on Access Note) and 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, define the following subfelds:
$0 - Authority record control number or standard number
See description of this subfield in Appendix A: Control Subfields.$1 - Real World Object URI
See description of this subfield in Appendix A: Control Subfields.
506 1# $a Access restricted to authorized researchers $f restricted access $2 coarar $0 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec506 1# $a Access restricted to registered users by appointment. Plan your visit and view user policies here: $u https://library.columbia.edu/libraries/rbml/usingcollections.html $0 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec
506 0# $a Open access $f open access $2 wikidata $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q232932
506 1# $a Access restricted; materials have been deemed culturally sensitive $u https://wellcomecollection.org/pages/YJkM-REAACMABEhW $0 https://localcontexts.org/label/tk-culturally-sensitive/
540 ## $f In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted $2 rs $0 http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/540 ## $a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License $f CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 $2 cc $0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
540 ## $a Rights status not evaluated. For general information see "Copyright and Other Restrictions..." $u http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html $0 https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservation/copyrightStatus/unk
540 ## $a This work is in the public domain. $f Public domain $2 wikipedia $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q19652
540 ## $a This work has entered the public domain. $0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservation/copyrightStatus/pub
The BIBFRAME conversion programs can be modified to accommodate this change.
6.1. Do you agree that there is use for subfields $0 and $1 in fields 506 and/or 540?
6.2. Do you agree that the use case for the new subfields $0 and $1 is not already accommodated by the existing subfield $u in fields 506 and 540, and/or subfields $l and $r in field 856?
6.3. 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 |