The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> StandardsThe Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List
DATE: December 18, 2024
REVISED:
NAME: Adding Subfields $i and $4 to Fields 368, 376, and 381 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
SOURCE: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
SUMMARY: This proposal seeks to add subfield $i (Relationship information) and subfield $4 (Relationship) in fields 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) and 376 (Family Information) in the MARC 21 Authority Format, and in field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats.
KEYWORDS: Relationship information (AD, BD); Relationship (AD, BD); Field 368 (AD); Subfield $i, in Field 368 (AD); Subfield $4, in Field 368 (AD); Subfield $2, in Field 368 (AD); Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body (AD); Field 376 (AD); Subfield $i, in Field 376 (AD); Subfield $4, in Field 376 (AD); Family Information (AD); Field 381 (AD, BD); Subfield $i, in Field 381 (AD, BD); Subfield $4, in Field 381 (AD, BD); Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression (AD, BD)
RELATED: 2024-DP09; 2017-02; 2017-03; 2022-DP05; 2022-FT01
STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/18/24 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
01/29/25 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Rejected. There were concerns with privacy issues around the potential data being recorded as well as concerns about the relationships connected to the recorded data in the provided examples. The PCC SCS Task Group on Privacy in Name Authority Records recently submitted its report and the examples could be reworked to take its findings into consideration. Given the anticipated impact of the Task Group's findings on improving the examples and implicit guidance on use of the fields, a consensus was arrived at to return the paper to the authors for revision. The paper will return as a proposal.
04/24/25 – Results of MARC Steering Group review - Agreed with the MAC decision.
Subfields $i and $4 for relationship information have been added to several 3XX fields in the Authority and Bibliographic Formats over time. Proposal 2017-02 added them to field 370 (Associated place) in both the Authority and Bibliographic Format. Proposal 2017-03 added them to field 386 (Creator/Contributor Characteristics) in both the Authority and Bibliographic Format. Most recently, 2022-FT01 added the same subfields to field 373 (Associated group) in the Authority Format.
This proposal suggests adding relationship subfields $i and $4 to three additional 3XX fields in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats, paralleling their application in fields 370, 373, and 386. For example, in Authority field 370, subfields $i and $4 can express a more specific relationship to the place recorded in subfield $f (Other associated place), such as place of burial for a person, place of recording for an expression, rather than establishing separate subfields for specific relationships. Similarly, establishing relationship subfields in fields 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body), 376 (Family Information), and 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) could provide a relatively open-ended way to express a broader array of relationships that are not currently accommodated by another subfield or field elsewhere in the MARC Authority or Bibliographic Formats. This approach potentially reduces the need for further MARC development to establish specific content designators for each element or relationship that might be expressed in this manner.
First, in field 368, these subfields could express a more specific relationship to an attribute or characteristic of a person or corporate body that is recorded in subfield $c (Other designation) of the field. Similarly, for families, the new relationship subfields can express a more specific relationship to a designation for the family recorded in the recently-established subfield $d (Other designation) of field 376. Lastly, for works and expressions, the relationship subfields would express a relationship to a characteristic recorded in subfield $a (Other distinguishing characteristic) of field 381, in either the Bibliographic or Authority Format. We also propose a minor revision to the definition of subfield $2 (Source) in field 368 to specify which subfields it controls, paralleling the definition of subfield $2 in other 3XX fields.
In combination with the existing 3XX fields in which subfields $i and $4 are already defined, these new subfields may also facilitate mapping relationship statements into MARC from other encoding formats, including cases when they cannot be reliably mapped into a more specific field or subfield, for example, when the entity types, domain, and/or range of the relationship cannot be determined. When a relationship is expressed through subfields $i and $4 in field 370, the range is constrained by the field (i.e., associated place), but not the domain. Any entity named in 1XX can have a related place or group in field 370, while the relationship itself could have a more specific domain (e.g., only persons can have a burial place). Similarly, the range of a relationship in field 373 is constrained to groups. Meanwhile, if relationship subfields are established in fields 368, 376, and 381, the domain is constrained by the field, which corresponds to the entity named in the 1XX of the same record. The range is not constrained by the field, but the relationship itself may determine the range.
The use of 3XX fields to express relationships also makes it possible to record a broader array of relationships that cannot be recorded in another field due to other constraints in a given implementation (e.g., it may not be permissible to record a relationship in field 5XX if the related entity is not established in the same authority file or vocabulary as the entity in field 1XX). For example, field 368 may be used for the relationship between a person established in the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and an award established in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) file, as in some examples below. As another example, which was previously explored in 2022-DP05 (as option 3), field 381 could be used to express a subject relationship between a work established in the LCNAF and its subject in LCSH.
Discussion on 2024-DP09 at the June 2024 MAC Annual Meeting revealed that some communities had concerns about infringing upon the privacy of the person or family being described, when additional information is recorded in this fashion. Several examples include information about the religion, ethnicity, or medical history of a person, which may indeed be sensitive to record in certain contexts. Other respondents felt that the concern was misplaced, since such potentially sensitive information can already be recorded in Authority 3XX and 6XX fields. The proposal does not establish new content designators for religion, ethnicity, or medical history, nor does it specifically encourage recording those attributes. It merely enables catalogers to provide additional structure and linked data capability to information that can already be recorded in other ways or in other subfields. Instead, we believe that cataloging communities may wish to develop best practices or guidelines around privacy. Based on a number of factors, biographical information could be considered bibliographically relevant, and in other cases, it might be omitted from a record in the interest of privacy of the entity being described. This judgment may be applicable regardless of the specific field or recording method used to convey the information. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging, for example, recently established the Task Group on Privacy in Name Authority Records, and the Task Group on Gender in Name Authority Records, both of which are charged to make implementation recommendations regarding the use or omission of various fields and subfields that may contain sensitive or misleading information.
During discussion of 2024-DP09, some respondents felt that the relationship being expressed in certain examples was already sufficiently apparent and unambiguous without the addition of subfield $i, in which case the additional label in subfield $i was redundant and unnecessary, or possibly even confusing to users. Again, application decisions may best be considered a matter of cataloger judgment or community best practice. We have attempted to provide additional examples in which the relationship is not unambiguous without $i. This includes examples in which there is more than one possible relationship to the same entity, either simultaneously or as the result of change over time, and examples in which a relationship may have multiple values, which may also be true simultaneously or as the result of change over time.
In field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) of the Authority Format, define new subfields $i and $4 as follows:
$i - Relationship information (R)
Designation of a relationship between the other designation of person or corporate body recorded in subfield $c of the 368 field and the person or corporate body entity described in the record. This may be an uncontrolled textual phrase or a controlled textual value from a list of relationships.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in subfield $c of the 368 field.
In field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body), update the definition of subfield $2 as follows (added text underlined):
$2 - Source (NR)
Identification of the source of terms in subfields $a, $b, $c, or $d when they are from a controlled list.
In field 376 (Family Information) of the Authority Format, define new subfields $i and $4 as follows:
$i - Relationship information (R)
Designation of a relationship between the other designation of family recorded in subfield $d of the 376 field and the family entity described in the record. This may be an uncontrolled textual phrase or a controlled textual value from a list of relationships.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in subfield $d of the 376 field.
In field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) of the Authority and Bibliographic Formats, define new subfields $i and $4 as follows:
$i - Relationship information (R)
Designation of a relationship between the other distinguishing characteristic of work or expression recorded in subfield $a of the 381 field and the work or expression entity described in the record. This may be an uncontrolled textual phrase or a controlled textual value from a list of relationships.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in subfield $a of the 381 field.
Examples illustrate a variety of relationship terms/designators. Some are uncontrolled terms while others have been taken from various sources such as Wikidata property labels, Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT) demographic categories, RDA element names, and the MARC relator terms. Cataloging communities may need to develop best practices for using relationship terms, and might be expected to develop their own lists of terms to use.
Example 1:100 1# $a Keller, Helen, $d 1880-1968
368 ## $i Disability: $c Deafblind people $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Americans $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Award received: $c Presidential Medal of Freedom $2 lcshExample 2:
100 1# $a Sartre, Jean-Paul, $d 1905-1980
368 ## $i Religion or worldview: $c Atheists $2 afset $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P140 $0 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/ethnographicTerms/afset000993
368 ## $i Award received: $c Nobel Prize in Literature $2 wikidata $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q37922Example 3:
100 1# $a Kutsukake, Lynne
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Canadians $2 lcdgt $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060002
368 ## $i Ethnic group: $c Japanese Canadians $2 lcdgt $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P172 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060382Example 4:
100 0# $a Benedict $b XVI, $c Pope, $d 1927-2022
368 ## $i Religion: $c Catholics $2 lcdgt $4 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/rel $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060259
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Germans $2 lcdgt $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060340
368 ## $d Pope $s 2005 $t 2013 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q19546Example 5:
100 1# $a Harris, Kamala, $d 1964-
368 ## $i Educational level: $c Historically Black college and university graduates $2 lcdgt $4 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/edu $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2022060422Example 6:
100 0# $a Jerome, $c Saint, $d -419 or 420
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Canonized saint $2 wikidata $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P411 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q123110154
368 ## $i Domain of saint or deity: $c Librarians $2 lcdgt $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P2925 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060192
368 ## $i Religion or worldview: $c Christians $2 lcdgt $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P140 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060258Example 7:
100 0# $a Ana de Jesús, $d 1545-1621
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Blessed $2 wikidata $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P411 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2369287
373 ## $a Catholic Church $2 naf $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79041716 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n79041716Example 8:
100 0# $a Joan, $c of Arc, Saint, $d 1412-1431
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Venerable $s 1904-01-06 $t 1909-04-18
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Blessed $s 1909-04-18 $t 1920-05-16
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Canonized saint $s 1920-05-16Example 9:
100 1# $a Streep, Meryl
368 ## $i Nominated for: $c Academy Award for Best Actress $2 wikidata $s 1982
368 ## $i Award received: $c Academy Award for Best Actress $2 wikidata $s 1983
Example 1:100 3# $a Denney (Family : $g Denny, Anthony, 1501-1549)
376 ## $a Families $2 lcsh
376 ## $b Denny, Anthony, 1501-1549 $2 naf
376 ## $i Nationality: $d Britons $2 lcdgtExample 2:
100 3# $a Nayak (Dynasty : $d 1529-1736 : $c Madurai, India)
376 ## $a Dynasty $2 wikidata $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q164950
376 ## $i Ethnic group: $d Telugu (Indic people) $2 lcsh $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P172 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85133682
376 ## $i Religion or worldview: $d Hindus $2 lcdgt $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P140 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060250Example 3:
100 3# $a Kamehameha (Royal house : $d 1810-1872 : $c Hawaii)
376 ## $a Royal houses $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85115587
376 ## $b Kamehameha I, the Great, King of the Hawaiian Islands, -1819 $2 naf $0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n93094275 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n93094275
376 ## $i Ethnic/cultural: $d Hawaiians (Polynesian people) $2 lcdgt $4 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/eth $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060376
4.3.1. Authority Format:Example 1:
130 #0 $a Report (New Mexico Chile Association)
381 ## $i Issuing body: $a New Mexico Chile Association $2 naf $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60467
381 ## $i Has subject: $a Peppers $2 lcsh $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60805 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85099673Example 2:
130 #0 $a Nevada women's oral histories series
381 ## $i Issuing body: $a Nevada Women's History Project $2 naf $4 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/isb $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no00051099 $1http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/no00051099Example 3:
100 0# $a Aeschylus. $t Oresteia. $l English $s (Buckley)
381 ## $i Translator: $a Buckley $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60385Example 4:
100 1# $a Adler-Olsen, Jussi. $t Department Q novel. $h Spoken word $s (Dreamscape Media)
381 ## $i Publisher: $a Dreamscape Media $2 naf $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60444 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2011025469 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/no2011025469Example 5:
130 #0 $a Herzog Ernst $s (Version B)
377 ## $a gmh
381 ## $i Edition/version: $a Version B $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P97674.3.2. Bibliographic Format:
Example 1:
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400?
240 10 $a Piers Plowman $s (C-text)
245 10 $a Piers Plowman / $c William Langland ; a new annotated edition of the C-text by Derek Pearsall.
260 ## $a Exeter, UK : $b University of Exeter Press, $c 2008.
381 ## $i Edition/version: $a C-text $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P9767Example 2:
130 0# $a Exorcist (Motion picture : $s Director's cut) $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2021144634
245 14 $a The exorcist : $b extended director's cut / $c Warner Bros.
246 3# $a William Peter Blatty's The exorcist
260 ## $a Burbank, CA : $b Warner Home Video, $c 2010.
381 ## $i Edition/version: $a Director’s cut $a 2000 version $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P9767
The BIBFRAME data conversion programs do not yet include MARC field 381 from the bibliographic record. Conversion of fields 368, 376, and 381 in authority records would be part of a MADS data conversion. In BIBFRAME, treatment of $i and $4 is already included in the specifications for other MARC fields, and the conversion could be modified to include MARC field 381.
6.1. In field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) of the MARC 21 Authority Format, define subfields $i (Relationship information) (R) and $4 (Relationship) (R) and update the definition of subfield $2 (Source), as described in Section 3.1.
6.2. In field 376 (Family Information) of the MARC 21 Authority Format, define subfields $i (Relationship information) (R) and $4 (Relationship) (R), as described in Section 3.2.
6.3. In field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) of the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats, define subfields $i (Relationship information) (R) and $4 (Relationship) (R), as described in Section 3.3.
HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards (04/24/2025) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |