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: January 15, 2026
REVISED:
NAME: Recording Container Designation in the 87X Fields of the MARC 21 Holdings Format
SOURCE: OCLC
SUMMARY: This paper proposes the definition of subfield $n (Container designation) and subfield $o (Invalid or canceled container designation) in fields 87X (Item Information Fields) of the MARC 21 Holdings Format.
KEYWORDS: Fields 87X (HD); Item Information Fields (HD); Container designation (HD)
RELATED:
STATUS/COMMENTS:
01/15/26 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
02/19/26 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: There was general support for the paper, however MAC felt it needed more work before the changes could be approved. OCLC was asked to consider whether it would be appropriate to add these container designation subfields to fields 852 (Location) and 863–865 (Enumeration & Chronology) in the Holdings format, as well as field 852 (Location) in the Bibliographic format. MAC also called for more clarity in the examples, along with additional use case examples illustrating different container descriptions. The paper will return as a proposal.
Multiple OCLC member libraries have requested a way to record a barcode or other designation for the container of an item in which the item is housed. This is needed for items that are separately barcoded but housed in the same container. In such situations, the container may not be represented by a holding record—it may be used simply to store items that circulate separately and are intellectually separate, but the containers are barcoded for inventory. Although OCLC's WorldShare Circulation has a Container management solution to circulate multiple items together in a container, this is only a circulation solution. We need a way to represent container membership on holdings records for the items within the container for data load purposes.
We believe adding subfields to record container designations could benefit many institutions. Common situations in which libraries may have individually barcoded items within a barcoded container include educational kits for children with multiple resources for children like "Museum in a Box," tool kits containing various hardware-type items, and unrelated books stored in boxes at offsite storage facilities. Providing a standardized way to accommodate these practices in MARC reduces fragile local practice, prevents mixing of item and container identifiers that can confuse validation and uniqueness constraints, and improves data quality during data loads, migrations, and inter-system exchanges. A defined MARC location allows circulation, discovery, and resource-management systems to recognize container membership consistently.
OCLC reviewed existing subfield options for fields 87X. Although subfield $p is repeatable, it is for an item piece designation so using it for both piece and container barcodes is not desirable. Furthermore, it is expected that the piece designation be unique, but a container designation would not be so we would want to have different validation requirements for those designations. Subfield $9 is defined for local use, but OCLC has long used that subfield for temporary location dates, as subfield $l of the 87X fields indicates: "Not intended to provide circulation information. If desirable, a local subfield $9 may be used for dates." There is no current subfield in fields 87X that seems suitable to record a container designation.
We propose adding and defining two new subfields to fields 876-878: a subfield for container designation and a subfield for invalid or canceled container designation. There are several subfield codes that have not been used in these fields: $f, $g, $i, $k, $m, $n, $o, $q, $s, $u, $v, etc. We do not have a strong preference for which subfield codes should be used. We have suggested subfields $n and $o because they are consecutive and are not widely used for another purpose across the Holdings Format.
In fields 876-878 (Item Information-General Information) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format, add and define new subfields $n and $o as follows:
$n – Container designation (R)
Barcode or other machine-readable container designation (such as OCR) associated with the container (e.g., a storage box or case) that houses multiple pieces.$o – Invalid or canceled container designation (R)
Invalid or canceled machine-readable container designation.
4.1. 876 ## $n 36004429583 $p 3600442958303C4.2. 876 ## $n AA1507300 $o AA143400 $p A1507341
4.3. 877 ## $n 80776534 $j Lost $p 8077234315
4.4. 877 ## $n 80809832 $o 800112211 $j Lost $p 217657345
4.5. 878 ## $3 Chronological index $a ABH134-7 $n 007655344 $p 1497543453
4.6. 878 ## $3 Alphabetical index $a BBZ999-1 $n 02342356 $o 576534210 $p 0875663
The BIBFRAME item can store this information as an identifier:
<bf:identifiedBy>
<bf:Barcode>
<rdf:value> XXX </rdf:value>
</bf:Barcode>
</bf:identifiedBy>
An invalid barcode can be designated adding bf:status within the identifier resource.
6.1. Do you agree that there is a use for subfields for container designation and canceled or invalid container designation in Holdings fields 876-878?
6.2. Is there a preference for using $n and $o or other codes for this purpose?
6.3. Are there any potential consequences to this proposed change that have not been considered?
6.4. Would MAC be open to fast-tracking this to a proposal?
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards (05/19/2026) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |