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 Subfield $7 for Data Provenance to Additional Fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
SOURCE: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
SUMMARY: This paper proposes adding subfield $7 (Data provenance) in fields 024 (Other Standard Identifier), 506 (Restriction Access Note), 511 (Participant or Performer Note), 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note), and 586 (Awards Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
KEYWORDS: Subfield $7 (Data provenance) (BD); Data Provenance (BD); Field 024 (BD); Subfield $7, in field 024 (BD); Other Standard Identifier (BD); Field 506 (BD); Subfield $7, in field 506 (BD); Restrictions on Access Note (BD); Field 511 (BD); Subfield $7, in field 511 (BD); Participant or Performer Note (BD); Field 540 (BD); Subfield $7, in field 540 (BD); Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note (BD); Field 586 (BD); Subfield $7, in field 586 (BD); Awards Note (BD)
RELATED: 2022-05; 2024-05; 2024-DP06; 2024-DP07
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 supportive of the proposed $7 use cases presented in the paper, although some support was qualified. There was mixed support for going further than what the paper already sets out and conducting a "holistic" systematic review of MARC 21 to add $7s across the formats, with some pointing out that this is not how the standard has been developed up to this point. MARC 21 development generally occurs based on an existing requirement or proven use case (e.g., that was set out by the German community when $7 was first defined to carry data provenance information). A wider deployment of $7 for the sole purpose of consistency would not be sufficient justification. There were mixed views on fast-tracking the paper. The paper may return as a proposal (confined to the immediate use case).
Data provenance subfields were defined by Proposal 2022-05 in several fields across the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats. In most cases, subfield $7 was defined for this purpose. In a few cases, when subfield $7 was already defined for another purpose, another subfield was used, such as subfield $e in fields 856 and 857 in the Bibliographic and Authority Formats. In general, data provenance subfields are defined as follows:
Authority Format:
$7 - Data provenance (R)
See description of this subfield in Appendix H: Data Provenance Subfields.
Bibliographic Format:
$7 - Data provenance (R)
See description of this subfield in Appendix J: Data Provenance Subfields.
In the documentation of each field in which a data provenance subfield is defined, specific guidance or examples are generally not provided. Instead, there is a reference to either Appendix J in the MARC Bibliographic Format, or to Appendix H in the MARC Authority Format. The appendices themselves give only four examples of the use of data provenance subfields in each format.
Though Proposal 2022-05 also did not provide specific use cases or examples for each field in which subfield $7 (or an equivalent) was being proposed, the apparent overarching justification for the choice of fields included in that proposal reflected "fields and field ranges in which the German community would welcome the deployment of a $7+ solution to support the recording of data provenance information as it relates to RDA."
In the course of preparing other papers and proposals, SCS noticed that subfield $7 (or an equivalent) was lacking in several other fields that were otherwise being revised by those papers. Instead of including subfield $7 in those papers, we decided to address subfield $7 separately. At this time, this paper is considering the definition of subfield $7 only in those fields that SCS is otherwise considering in another simultaneous or forthcoming paper or proposal, namely: Bibliographic fields 024 (Other Standard Identifier), 506 (Restriction Access Note), 511 (Participant or Performer Note), 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note), and 586 (Awards Note). Though these fields are otherwise unrelated, we consider the definition of $7 in these fields to be a relatively straightforward matter of increasing the consistency of application of data provenance subfields across the MARC formats. We offer some additional discussion and examples below to further illustrate.
Field 024: Subfield $7 is already defined for field 024 in the Authority Format. Defining it in the Bibliographic Format (along with $0 and $1, as SCS is also proposing separately in Discussion Paper 2024-DP06), would achieve fuller alignment of field 024 across the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
Field 511: Proposal 2022-05 defined subfield $7 in field 508, but not 511, despite the similarity between those two fields, as SCS discusses in a separate discussion paper, 2024-DP07, which proposes the definition of subfield $3 in both of those fields.
Fields 506 and 540: Though Proposal 2022-05 noted that subfield $q in these fields already conveys one type of data provenance (supplying agency information), data provenance may include other types of information, such as script and language, context of use, and more. SCS is proposing the addition of subfields $0 and $1 in these fields in a separate proposal, 2024-05.
Field 586: Awards information frequently comes from sources other than the manifestation itself, as awards are often granted after the manifestation has already been published. Subfield $7 may be used to convey the source of information (such as the website of the award-granting body). SCS is considering other changes in this field in a forthcoming discussion paper.
In fields 024 (Other Standard Identifier), 506 (Restriction Access Note), 511 (Participant or Performer Note), 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note), and 586 (Awards Note) of the MARC Bibliographic Format, define the following new subfield:
$7 - Data provenance (R)
See description of this subfield in Appendix J: Data Provenance Subfields.
024 1# $a 680160601042 $7 (dpesc/dpsfz)container
[A UPC code found on a resource container]
506 1# $a Closed for 30 years; $d Federal government employees with a need to know. $7 (dpertow/dpsfa)1998-2028 $7 (dpeaa/dpsfd)United States.National Archives and Records Administration
[A collection that was classified for 30 years, starting in 1998]
511 1# $a Μελίνα Μερκουρή, Ζυλ Ντασέν, Γιώργος Φούντας $7 (dpes/dpsfa)Grek
511 1# $a Melina Mercouri, Jules Dassin, Giorgos Foundas $7 (dpes/dpsfa)Latn
[A DVD with the cast list given in both Latin and Greek script on the container]
511 1# $a Max von Sydow, Gunnar Bjönstrand, Bengt Ekerot, Nils Poppe, Bibi Andersson, Inga Gill, Maud Hansson, Inga Landgré, Gunnel Lindblom, Bertil Anderberg, Anders Ek, Åke Fridell, Gunnar Olsson, Erik Strandmark $7 (dpesc/dpsfa)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050976/
[A cast list for a film taken from IMDB.com]
540 ## $a This work is in the public domain. $f Public domain $2 wikidata $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q19652 $7 (dpertow)2021
[A work that entered the public domain in 2021]
586 ## $a National Book Award for Nonfiction, 2023 $7 (dpesc/dpsfa)https://www.nationalbook.org/awards-prizes/national-book-awards-2023/?cat=nonfiction
[Award information taken from the website of the award-granting body]
The BIBFRAME data conversion programs do not yet include $7. Adding $7 to additional MARC fields will ensure they are included when the BIBFRAME data conversion programs are updated to add $7.
6.1. Do you agree that there is a need for subfield $7 in Bibliographic fields 024, 506, 511, 540, and 586?
6.2. Should MAC consider these as candidates for fast-track additions to the MARC Bibliographic Format?
6.3. Should MAC also or instead consider a more comprehensive approach to reviewing and proposing subfield $7 (or an equivalent data provenance subfield) wherever it is lacking and wherever there is a potential use case, across the Bibliographic and/or Authority Formats?
6.4. 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 |