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 23, 2024
REVISED:
NAME: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Field 024 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 field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
KEYWORDS: Field 024 (BD); Other Standard Identifier (BD); Subfield $0, in field 024 (BD); Subfield $1, in field 024 (BD); Subfield $2, in field 024 (BD); Authority record control number or standard number (BD); Real World Object URI (BD); Source of number or code (BD)
RELATED: 2019-03; 2020-FT02; 2020-FT03; 2021-04; 2023-FT01; 2024-DP08
STATUS/COMMENTS:
05/23/24 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
06/25/24 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: MAC was generally but not uniformly supportive of the use case. There were a variety of comments regarding implementation dynamics (including further calls for systemic clarity around the differences and uses of $0/$1). There were also concerns about the use of the $0/$1 to point to URIs not for the data in the field applicable to the manifestation but for the work/expression embedded in the manifested resource. It was suggested that field 758 might be explored for use, provided there is clarity around distinguishing between use of field 024 from field 758. There were also concerns about the need for $2 as the URIs in $0/$1 should be self-referenceable. The paper will return as a proposal.
Field 024 is currently defined in the MARC Bibliographic Format as follows:
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 six Bibliographic fields. 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 work was begun in Discussion Paper 2024-DP04, which sought to add subfields $0 and $1 in Bibliographic fields 506 (Restrictions on Access Note) and 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note). The present paper represents another one of these recommendations and considers the definition of subfields $0 and $1 in Bibliographic field 024 with a goal of enabling linked data enhancement in that field.
This paper considers defining subfields $0 and $1 in Bibliographic field 024 (Other Standard Identifier). Subfields $0 and $1 were defined in the corresponding Authority field 024 in Proposal 2019-03. As currently defined, Bibliographic field 024 contains a "Standard number or code published on an item which cannot be accommodated in another field (e.g., field 020 (International Standard Book Number), 022 (International Standard Serial Number), and 027 (Standard Technical Report Number)). The type of standard number or code is identified in the first indicator position or in subfield $2 (Source of number or code)." As with Authority field 024, definition of subfields $0 and $1 in Bibliographic field 024 would enable clearer separation of the following types of identifiers:
As in Proposal 2019-03, this paper considers related updates to the scope and definition of Bibliographic field 024 as well as the definition of subfield $2 regarding the source of identifiers.
Though subfields $0 and $1 are otherwise usually repeatable where they are defined in other fields, in Authority field 024, they are not. This paper considers defining the new subfields in Bibliographic field 024 as repeatable, but otherwise mirroring the field definition and scope from Authority field 024. However, different implementation scenarios or community best practices likely limit occasions for repeated subfields $0 or $1. For example, if the source of a URI is indicated by subfield $2 or by the first indicator in the field, URIs from different sources should instead be given in separate occurrences of the field. An FAQ Document from the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC states: "Strictly speaking the MARC definitions place no constraints on the number of URIs or their source. But using URIs from different sources creates conceptual and practical problems it would be best to avoid. Generally, only one $0 and/or one $1 should be provided."
The authors also considered the distinction between Bibliographic fields 024 and 758. Unlike Authority field 024, the field definition and scope of Bibliographic field 024 currently indicates that the standard number or code is "published on an item." In contrast, field 758 accommodates a broader range of identifiers including those for the resource being described and for related resources, and does not specify that the identifier needs to be published on the resource. The authors believe the current definition of field 024 should be revised in order to clarify that the URIs or identifiers recorded in field 024 do not need to be published on the resource.
Modeling differences and entity boundaries within and among traditional library standards and bibliographic data sources and those of external sources for identifiers may influence whether field 024 or field 758 is the more appropriate field for a given identifier. This uncertainty currently exists even without the additional definition of subfield $0 or $1.
We also note that it is already technically possible to record a URI in subfield $a, with subfield $2 coded "uri" taken from the Standard Identifier Source Codes list, as it also is in Authority field 024. This usage does not differentiate between RWO URIs and other URIs. We believe that use of $0 and $1 would better reflect current best practice and consistency with Authority field 024 and the implementation of subfields $0 and $1 in the rest of the MARC Format.
Lastly, we note that a separate paper, 2024-DP08, seeks to add subfield $7 (Data provenance) to this field among others; this change would further increase the alignment with field 024 in the Authority Format.
In field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format:
Define new subfields $0 and $1 as follows:
$0 - Authority record control number or standard number (R)
See description of this subfield in Appendix A: Control Subfields.$1 - Real World Object URI (R)
See description of this subfield in Appendix A: Control Subfields.
Rename and revise the current defintion of subfield $2 as follows (added text underlined):
$2 Source
of number or code(NR)
MARC code that identifies the source of the number,orcode, or identifier. Used only when the first indicator contains value 7 (Source specified in subfield $2).
Code from: Standard Identifier Source Codes.
Update the current field definition and scope as follows (added text underlined):
Field Definition and Scope
Standard number or codepublished on an itemassociated with an entity described by the record which cannot be accommodated in another field (e.g., field 020 (International Standard Book Number), 022 (International Standard Serial Number), and 027 (Standard Technical Report Number)).
The type of standard number or code is identified in the first indicator position or in subfield $2 (Sourceof number or code). It is recommended to identify a source for standard numbers or codes in $a; however, indicating the source of a standard number or URI in $0 or $1 is optional when there is no $a. When identifiers are from different sources indicated in $2, they should be recorded in separate occurrences of the field.
Example 1:
024 7# $a 1986.6.92 $2 saam $1 http://edan.si.edu/saam/id/object/1986.6.92
Example 2:
024 7# $a 10.1080/01639374.2023.2243914 $2 doi $1 https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2023.2243914
Example 3:
024 7# $a Q9684 $2 wikidata $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q9684
Example 4:
024 8# $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q923767
Example 5:
024 7# $a 3512134 $2 it-acnp $0 https://acnpsearch.unibo.it/journal/3512134
Example 6:
024 7# $a 147145969949732250346 $2 viaf $1 http://viaf.org/viaf/147145969949732250346
Example 7:
024 8# $0 http://vocab.getty.edu/page/cona/700009036
Example 8:
024 7# $a ark:/12148/cb37522038s $2 bnfcg $0 https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb37522038s
Adding URIs to identifiers hasn’t been fully explored in the current BIBFRAME conversions yet. A possible configuration could be:
<bf:identifiedBy>
<bf:Identifier rdf:about=”https://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/mencformat.html”/>
<rdf:value>1986.6.92</rdf:value>
<bf:source>
<bf:Source>
<bf:code>saam</bf:code>
</bf:Source>
</bf:sounce>
</bf:Identifier>
</bf:identifiedBy>
Greater understanding of what a URI would mean in either the $0 or $1 is necessary. An 024 $a is treated as an identifier of the Instance. If an "authoritative" URI were included (as a $0) in an 024, what Thing does that identify? Same question for a $1. Or is this a URI for an Identifier itself?
BIBFRAME can continue to treat these values as distinct inactionable identifiers (essentially thinking of them as repeated $a subfields) associated with an Instance or, on further study, some kind of "same as" or "equivalent" relationship could be established between either the Work or Instance or they can be treated as identifiers for other identifiers. (It is not certain that last case makes much sense, but absent a clearer use of these identifiers there is a certain logic to it.)
6.1. Do you agree that there is use for subfields $0 and $1 in Bibliographic field 024?
6.2. Do you agree that the definition of subfield $2 should be expanded to include the source of a URI in subfield $0 or $1?
6.3. Do you agree with the expansion of the definition of Bibliographic field 024 to accommodate identifiers not published on an item?
6.4. Should subfields $0 and $1 be defined as repeatable or not repeatable in field 024 in the Bibliographic format? In the Authority format?
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 (10/31/2024) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |