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 18, 2024
REVISED:
NAME: Defining Field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
SOURCE: Yale University
SUMMARY: This paper presents a case for defining field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format.
KEYWORDS: Field 655 (HD); Index Term-Genre/Form (HD)
RELATED: 2022-DP09
STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/18/24 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
01/29/25 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Support for the paper was mixed. There was appreciation for addressing the use case, however there were operational concerns expressed by various constituencies, ranging from the preferability of other solutions, the suitability of recording item-level data in the Holdings format, the complications of recording item-specific data in a holdings record for multiple items, the extension to inclusion of 7XX fields, to the question of whether such data in the Holdings format would be able to be indexed or displayed. Solutions for connecting such item-specific information to the respective individual item(s) within a holdings record for multiple copies were discussed, focusing on use of $3 or multiple holdings records. There may be insights to gain from the corresponding NISO and ISO standards. Record sharing concerns were raised both from perspective of the presence of institution specific data in records serving multiple institutions and the transmission and ingest of such data when shared with other institutions. PCC is exploring the use of field 842 (Textual Physical Form Designator) to similar ends and to facilitate linked data enhancements. Field 842 also has the benefit of already being defined in the Holdings format. There were other observations regarding the distinctiveness of genres/field 655 within the wider cluster of subject headings/6XX fields, and how the distinction might justify its inclusion in the Holdings format. The authors welcomed collaboration with RBMS and other interested parties. The paper will return as a proposal.
Field 655 is currently defined in the MARC Bibliographic Format as follows:
FIELD DEFINITION AND SCOPE
Terms indicating the genre, form, and/or physical characteristics of the materials being described. A genre term designates the style or technique of the intellectual content of textual materials or, for graphic materials, aspects such as vantage point, intended purpose, characteristics of the creator, publication status, or method of representation. A form term designates historically and functionally specific kinds of materials distinguished by their physical character, the subject of their intellectual content, or the order of information within them. Physical characteristic terms designate historically and functionally specific kinds of materials as distinguished by an examination of their physical character, subject of their intellectual content, or the order of information with them. Examples of genre terms for textual materials are: biographies, catechisms, essays, hymns, or reviews.
Examples of form and physical characteristic terms are: daybooks, diaries, directories, journals, memoranda, questionnaires, syllabi, or time sheets.
May contain terms constructed from a faceted vocabulary. For each term found in the field, an identification is given as to the facet/hierarchy in the thesaurus from which the term came. In addition, identification is given as to which term is the focus term of the expression.
Standard published lists are used for the genre and form terms. The lists are identified either by the second indicator (Thesaurus) or by subfield $2 (Source of term).
Although the genre/form terms recorded in 655 fields in the bibliographic record more commonly apply to all copies of a resource (e.g., "$a Exhibition catalogs. $2 lcgft"), there are many cases in which a term from a controlled vocabulary applies only to a specific copy. These cases often arise during rare materials cataloging and describe unique, item-level characteristics such as extra-illustration, provenance evidence, and bespoke bindings. Currently, such copy-specific genre/form terms are usually recorded alongside general genre/form terms in field 655 of the bibliographic record, often with a subfield $5 indicating the holding institution. This practice does not allow for a clear association between the genre/form terms and the relevant holdings record(s) and can lead to ambiguity when a bibliographic record has multiple holdings.
In addition, Fields 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note), 561 (Ownership and Custodial History), 562 (Copy and Version Identification Note), and 563 (Binding Information) are already defined in both the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats, enabling the recording of copy-specific information at the holdings level. Defining field 655 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format would extend this capability to controlled genre/form terms. The rare materials cataloging community has expressed interest in defining this field in the Holdings Format, as evidenced by discussions on the DCRM-L mailing list in May 2024.
Yale University has identified a need to record copy-specific genre/form terms in the MARC holdings record to enhance data clarity and align with current bibliographic data models. The current inability to directly record these terms in holdings records creates complications in both public and staff displays. This limitation makes it challenging to visually associate metadata with the specific copy it describes, potentially leading to ambiguity when a bibliographic record is linked to multiple holdings. It also hinders the effective use of copy-specific data in dependent systems, such as discovery layers, digital collections platforms, and other library systems that rely on the MARC-based catalog as their "system of record".
While it is possible to use a $8 linking subfield to associate copy-specific genre/form terms in the bibliographic record with particular holdings records, there are several reasons why utilizing a 655 field in the holdings record may be preferable. Keeping copy-specific information in holdings records maintains a clearer separation between edition-level and copy-specific data, and for institutions with large collections or multiple copies of the same resource, this would prevent bibliographic records from becoming crowded with fields and difficult to manage. It also provides a more standardized approach that could work across different systems, as not all may support the use of $8 for linking embedded holdings data. Additionally, separate holdings data may be easier to manage and transfer when migrating between systems or sharing data, especially when moving to a more granular, entity-based model like BIBFRAME. Finally, catalogers may find it more intuitive and efficient to add copy-specific genre/form terms directly to a holdings record rather than navigating a complex bibliographic record with multiple 655s containing different embedded holdings data alongside general 655s that apply to all copies of a resource.
Another potential alternative is field 361 (Structured Ownership and Custodial History) in the Holdings Format, but this serves a different purpose and should complement, not replace, a 655 MARC Holdings field. While the 361 field includes subfield $f for "ownership and custodial history evidence terms," its scope is limited to custodial-history-related features like bookplates, stamps, and autographs – not general genre/form terms. The 361 field is also intended to record these features in relation to an agent in $a, whereas many custodial history evidence terms and broader copy-specific genre/form terms apply without a known agent. For example, an unidentified armorial bookplate would be more appropriately recorded in a Holdings 655 field rather than in a 361 $f without an associated agent, and for copy-specific genre/form information like "hand coloring" or "Imposition errors," agents, though perhaps implied, are typically considered unimportant. These two MARC fields serve distinct yet complementary purposes: field 361 documents custodial history terms related to specific agents, while field 655 would be better suited for recording general genre/form characteristics of specific copies.
Additionally, defining field 655 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format would also enhance control and flexibility in shared cataloging environments. Institutions often face challenges with unintentional sharing of local data through synchronization processes with utilities like OCLC. By allowing copy-specific genre/form terms to be recorded in holdings records, catalogers would gain greater control over which data remains local, and which is shared along with the bibliographic record. This flexibility is particularly valuable when deriving records containing copy-specific information, such as for facsimiles or digital surrogates. For example, when creating a digital record from a print record, having both the Bibliographic 655 $5 and Holdings 655 as options allows catalogers to precisely choose which copy-specific data applies only to the original and which should be included in the surrogate record. In general, defining the 655 field in holdings records would give catalogers more choice about where to record this information to best align with their local practices and systems. This increased flexibility has the potential to lead to improved data management both within individual institutions and across shared cataloging systems.
The existing ability to record copy-specific notes in both bibliographic and holdings records using fields 541, 561, 562, and 563 provides institutions with valuable flexibility in describing individual copies. Defining field 655 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format would extend this flexibility, allowing institutions to record genre/form terms directly in the relevant holdings record. This approach would establish a clear link between the terms and the specific copy they describe, enhancing the granularity and precision of copy-level metadata. Moreover, it would bring the MARC Holdings Format into closer alignment with the Item entity as defined in prevailing linked data models such as LRM and BIBFRAME, marking a step forward in MARC's linked data compatibility.
Define field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format with the same indicators, subfields, and guidelines as in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format (illustrated in Section 1).
655 #7 $a Extra-illustrated copies. $2 rbmscv655 #7 $a Authors' annotations. $2 rbmscv
655 #7 $a Armorial bookplates. $2 gmgpc
655 #7 $a hand coloring. $2 aat
The BIBFRAME Initiative has not been focused on conversion of the MARC Holdings Format to Linked Data and so there would be no immediate support for this in the BIBFRAME conversion.
6.1. In what field in a MARC Bibliographic record would one be expected to find the $a data from each example?
6.2. Do you agree that there is a use for field 655 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format?
6.3. Are there any potential drawbacks or unintended consequences to implementing a holdings-level 655 field that should be considered?
6.4. Do you recommend any changes to the 655 field before it is defined in the MARC 21 Holdings Format?
6.5. Are there any further concerns regarding system indexing and display of a 655 field in the MARC Holdings Format?
6.6. Looking beyond this paper, should we consider a future paper proposing a Holdings 7XX block that mirrors some, or all, of the Bibliographic 7XX block? Similar to a Holdings 655 field, this would allow for controlled agent (or place/title/etc.) headings associated with a specific copy to be recorded in the corresponding holdings record for that copy.
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards (04/24/2025) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |