The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Hong Cui LAC Library and Archives Canada Thurstan Young BL British Library Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Matthew W. Wise, Chair NYU New York University Everett Allgood, Secretary NYU New York University
Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Rachel Decker AALL Chapman University Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington John A. Maier ARLIS/NA Pratt Institute Libraries Lucas Mak PCC Michigan State University Libraries Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa María Jesús Morillo Calero BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España John F. Myers CC:DA Union College Karen A. Peters MLA Library of Congress Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Adam L. Schiff SAC University of Washington Libraries Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Ben Abrahamse MIT Libraries Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Julian Allen University of the Arts London Bryan Baldus OCLC Gaëlle Béquet ISSN International Centre Allison Bailund San Diego State University Martin Baumgartner Bavarian State Library, Munich Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library, Ontario Christopher Carr Concordia University Duncan Chalmers ProQuest May Chan University of Toronto Chew Chiat Naun Harvard University Ahava Cohen National Library of Israel Andrew Dunnett Library and Archives Canada Kevin Ford Library of Congress Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Luanne Goodson OCLC Violet Fox OCLC Paul Frank Library of Congress Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Ashlea Green Appalachian State University Stephen Hearn University of Minnesota John Hostage Harvard University Louise Howlett British Library Kate James Independent contractor Ed Jones National University Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Caroline Kent British Library Alex Kyrios OCLC Gerlind Ladisch Southwestern Regional Library Network, Konstanz Francis Lapka Yale University Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada (retired) Nancy Lorimer Stanford University Cheryl Manuel Lee County Library System, Florida Ellen McGrath University at Buffalo Kelley McGrath University of Oregon Casey Mullin Western Washington University Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Iris O'Brien British Library Jean Pajerek Cornell University Felicia Piscitelli Texas A&M University George Prager New York University Kevin Randall Northwestern University Martha Sanders Innovative Interfaces Elizabeth Schlueter OCLC Wayne Schneider Index Data Tina Shrader National Library of Medicine Amy Strickland University of Miami Jessie Tam Maryland Courts Vitus Tang Stanford University Manon Theroux Library of Congress Daniela Trunk Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Deanna White ISSN International Centre Lori Williams Appalachian State University Jenny Wright Bibliographic Data Services Limited Siu Ying Yip University of the Arts London [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
This year, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent disruption(s) to travel and professional gatherings, the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) held its Annual meeting virtually via WebEx meeting software. MAC met three times during late June and early July to discuss 15 proposals and discussion papers.
Preliminaries
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) began with an explication of the online meeting protocols and voting procedures.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) performed a roll call and asked committee members to introduce themselves. 18 voting members were present.
Approval of minutes from MAC January 2020 meetings
The minutes of the meeting at ALA Midwinter in Philadelphia, PA, January 25-26, 2020, were approved, without correction.
Business Meeting/Library of Congress report/ Other
There have been no fast-track approvals since the MAC Midwinter meeting.
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that the Library of Congress recently published new specifications and conversion programs for: 1) MODS 3.7 to MARC/MARC to MODS 3.7 conversions, and 2) BIBFAME to MARC conversions, which will allow catalogers working in BIBFRAME to create MARC records out of BF records good enough to load directly into LC's ILS, and to distribute to the community, without having to double key.
PROPOSAL 2020-03: Modernization of Field 856 in the MARC 21
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-03.html
Source: OCLC and the German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes the modernization of the existing field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) in all MARC formats, including making nine subfields obsolete, clarifying the use of existing Second Indicator values, and defining a new Second Indicator value for Portion of Resource.
Related Documents: Proposal 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2019-01; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; 2018-DP11; 2020-DP01; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised August 1999; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised March 2002
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, and PCC supported the intention behind the first part of this proposal (i.e. the clean up of redundant subfields in the 856. However, there was less consensus with regard to the proposal's second part (i.e. the changes which it recommends for the 856 second indicator). OCLC has expressed a willingness to convert some second indicator values and to clean up any obsolete subfields. However, Britain, Canada, and Germany were concerned about what, if anything, should or will be done to legacy data outside of OCLC. Also, there was much confusion and concern expressed about the newly proposed second indicator value 4, "Portion of resource", its definition, its relationship to the other second indicator values, and their usage with subfield $3. Britain suggested dropping the word "constituent" from the definition of value 4; Germany wondered about why value 3 had been skipped over. Australia noted that the proposed use of subfield $3 under the terms set out by OCLC would go beyond its currently defined scope.
Germany suggested that subfield $2 might also be made obsolete and/or redefined as "Source", similar to its usage elsewhere in the MARC format. They also asked about the meaning of "a mere general subject relationship to the resource" in section 3.2.3. (i.e. whether an additional value for a subject relationship needed to be added).
PCC asked about the situation in which multiple URLs "add up" to a complete representation of the resource described. Germany wondered about the need for a new value for when the resource described by the record is just part of a larger resource, to which the URL in the 856 field points. For example, this could be a journal article that is described, but which is lacking a specific URL, although the whole journal issue does have a URL (in the 856). Finally, John Myers (CC:DA) asked about the coding of several other whole-part relationships between the resources described and their related URLs.
MAC Discussion:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the proposal.
There was a great deal of confusion regarding the introduction of second indicator 4 and precisely what is to happen with the obsolete subfields.
John Myers (CC:DA) pointed out that currently, 856 subfield $2 is "paired" with second indicator value 7, so MAC needed to consider that carefully. This is especially relevant if the subfield is re-defined or made obsolete.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded to confusion over second indicator 4, noting that this new element developed from MAC’s Midwinter discussion, and subsequent comments. Based on MAC’s current response, Weitz suggested that OCLC bring the 856 second indicator value 4 back as a future Discussion Paper, and that for now, perhaps MAC should consider only the "first step" of making nine 856 subfields obsolete, as set out in the first part of the paper.
A straw poll vote conducted by Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) indicated clear preference for only considering the subfields component, and for setting aside the indicator value definitions, etc. for now.
Thurstan Young (BL) considered that making changes to the 856 second indicator values would require more work. Also, he expressed a view that the specificity allowed by subfield $3 should be retained in 856.
There was discussion concerning what OCLC plans to do with these obsolete subfields. Jay Weitz (OCLC) reminded MAC that there is every possibility that OCLC will return with a Discussion Paper/Proposal for a "modernized" 857 field.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that, as things stood, there was still disagreement within MAC as regards the need for an 857 field; it has previously been proposed that this new tag be used to record restrictions on access information and other information which for a resource itself can already be recorded elsewhere in the Bibliographic format (i.e. fields 506 and 540) and in the Holdings format (i.e. fields 506 and 845).
OCLC and the German National Library will also draft another Discussion Paper addressing 856 indicator values, as well as subfields $2 and $3.
MAC Action: The proposal was revised in committee to include only the portion dealing with making obsolete nine current subfields in field 856. The proposal to make subfields $b, $h, $i, $j, $k, $l, $n, $r, $t obsolete in field 856 was approved unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2020-04: Defining a New Subfield for Illustrative Content in Field 340 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-04.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding a new repeatable subfield to Field 340 (Physical Medium) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to record the illustrative content of resources.
Related Documents: 2020-DP03, 2017-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, and NLM support this proposal. Australia, Britain, and NLM reminded MAC that linked data best practice calls for separate fields for terms from separate vocabularies, even when URIs are not initially present, and that this needs to be explicitly stated in the format (see the field definition and scope for field 344).
OCLC offered a more clearly worded definition of the proposed subfield $p, which removed the sense of a binary choice between the presence versus absence of illustrations, because the very use of the subfield implies that "general" and/or "specific" illustrations are present. They also wondered whether there was a preference for terms or codes to be used in subfield $p, and if so, whether that could be made explicit. OCLC emphasized that subfield $p is not intended to replace subfield $b in the 300 field.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed a general concern about the mixing of content and carrier data within a single field, and wondered whether a new "Nature of Content" field might be necessary. He noted that Discussion Paper 2020-DP14 has a similar issue. MLA noted the lack of a term for "notated music" in the RDA Illustrative Content vocabulary. Everett Allgood (NYU) wondered, as requested during the 2020 Midwinter meetings, whether NDMSO had consulted with OLAC, MLA, and VRA for additional community input, as no mention had been made of doing so in the proposal.
Britain noted that there continues to be a difference of approach between the RSC and PCC about whether RDA Registry URIs should be coded in subfield $0 or in subfield $1; the former approach is advocated by PCC, while the latter is preferred by the RSC.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williamschen (LC) introduced the proposal and expressed interest in working with other user communities regarding clarification and refinement of the proposal. Her initial request for feedback received no responses.
Thurstan Young (BL) offered additional explanation regarding URIs in subfield $0 or $1 and cited the Final Report of the PCC Task Group on Linked Data Best Practices. Thurstan also mentioned the RSC response paper to this PCC report available here.
John Myers (CC:DA) re-emphasized content vs. carrier concerns and stated that the 340 may not be the proper place for this data element. Thurstan Young (BL), Jodi Williamschen (LC), and others pointed out that the 340 field already contains both content and carrier characteristics, and that furthermore, this ship left the MARC 21 harbor long ago. Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that a new field name and definition/scope could work as a solution to the issue. This path might be explored at a future meeting.
While some wondered whether the $0/$1 issue may need to be resolved before proceeding, others emphasized that the subfields $0 and $1 are available throughout the MARC formats; it is a matter for user communities (e.g., PCC, etc.) to develop Best Practices for where Real World Object URIs belong. Chiew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) acknowledged that the PCC were aware of the RSC paper mentioned above and added that the PCC was considering a response.
MAC Action: Proposal approved (17 for; 1 against), with the following editorial amendments:
PROPOSAL 2020-05: Renaming Field 345 and Defining New Subfields for Aspect Ratio in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-05.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes renaming field 345 from "Projection Characteristics of Moving Image" to "Moving Image Characteristics" and adding new repeatable subfields to record the aspect ratio.
Related Documents: 2020-DP04, 2017-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, and NLM support this proposal. Britain noted that, since the label and definition of field 345 are being generalized, perhaps something could be added to the definition about the other video characteristics that are being excluded and encoded in field 346. They also reminded MAC, again, about the linked data best practice of separating terms from different vocabularies into separate fields.
OCLC attempted to correct a misunderstanding about the definitions of subfields $a (Presentation format) and $b (Projection speed) by suggesting new definitions that would more clearly encompass motion picture film, tangible video recordings, and digital recordings.
As with Proposal 2020-04, Everett Allgood (NYU) wondered whether NDMSO had consulted with OLAC.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williamschen (LC) introduced the proposal and responded that OLAC had no comments, when consulted. NDMSO will also look into the suggested changes for the 346 field.
Adam Schiff (SAC) and others expressed concerns with possible confusion regarding the terminology. Aspect ratio applies to any sort of moving images, but may also be applied to still images.
Kelly McGrath (University of Oregon) observed that previously this 345 field was restricted to attributes of film but then RDA applied some really odd decisions regarding moving image attributes.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) described a long-standing problem with regard to descriptive cataloging practices when recording attributes of motion picture films and video – that is celluloid film vs. video or digital content.
Thurstan Young (BL) questioned how catalogers are encoding aspect ratio for still images. Kelly McGrath (University of Oregon) responded that she did not think most moving image/OLAC catalogers encoded this attribute beyond the dimensions of the image.
Cate Gerhart (OLAC) felt MAC may have wandered too far afield in this discussion – both the 345 field and the RDA current definition specify "aspect ratio of moving images." Any discussion of still images is separate, and in practice is not an attribute most OLAC catalogers record.
MAC Action: Proposal approved (16 for; 1 against; 1 abstain), with editorial revision and clarification which substitutes the reference to "projected image" with the more neutral "moving image" in subfields $a and $b (noted by OCLC’s pre-meeting comments). Revise the current definitions of subfields $a and $b in field 345, as follows:
PROPOSAL 2020-06: Defining a New Field for Manifestation Statements in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-06.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper proposes defining new field 881 to accommodate Resource Description and Access "Manifestation Statements" in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2020-DP06
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Spain, and MLA supported the definition of a new field 881. But Spain asked whether a better definition of the field's use could be provided, such as "used for literal transcription from the resource, due to automatic ingestion of data, paleographic descriptions or other sources."
OCLC suggested that, if the intention of the "manifestation statement" is to allow for scanned and unmanipulated data to be fed into bibliographic records, most such statements could not be subfielded. Likewise, the option to normalize transcription, as in example 1.2, would be impossible. Germany echoed this sentiment, as some felt that defining only one subfield, subfield $a, should be sufficient. There needs to be more clarification about the method by which data will be entered into this field. Application of the RDA element which lies behind it appears to allow for both unmanipulated and human-manipulated input.
There have been several requests from the community for an additional subfield for "other manifestation statement." However, Britain reminded MAC that, if such a manifestation statement could not be encoded more granularly using subfields $b through $n, then subfield $a should be used. If there were an identifiable need for an "other" manifestation statement, then it would need to be pursued through the RSC. Also, Canada requested an indicator value, similar to that found in the 505 field, for "Basic" versus "Enhanced" input. But, at least initially, the Working Group would like to "keep things simple." Again, the inclusion of indicator values would not reflect the requirements on RDA.
Thurstan Young (BL), on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group, reminded MAC that this proposal did not set out to encode the source of a manifestation statement nor the content standard used to record it, which will be considered in the future as part of a larger approach to the recording of data provenance. However, Canada and PCC expressed concern about such a delay.
Canada wondered whether a subfield $3 might be useful. NLM wondered about the need for a subfield $5. Finally, Britain and Germany noted that corrections were needed to examples 1, 2, and 4.2, regarding the use of subfield $e. NLM wondered about the "non-series" in subfield $l of example 4.
MAC Discussion:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
The majority of discussion revisited points made both during the initial Discussion Paper presentation at 2020 Midwinter, and during MAC’s pre-meeting discussions. Primary concerns expressed included the following:
John Myers (CC:DA) noted that, in respect of the pre-meeting comments, it was not MAC's place to define the practice of applying manifestation statements. MAC’s business responds to the needs for MARC encoding expressed by the cataloguing community. In this case, the RDA community had defined a new set of manifestation statement elements with varying degrees of granularity. MAC should not be straying into hypotheticals beyond what RDA defines.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) responded that she still felt the 881 was being used to do two separate things : i.e. record statements using a basic transcription and in a normalized form.
Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) responded that RDA's manifestation statement elements had been defined with a view to supporting flexibility. Their definitions make no reference to scanned as opposed to other types of recorded data. Rather, they are defined to record information which appears in the manifestation and is useful for purposes of identification.
Everett Allgood (NYU) revisited the question of whether there was a need for 881 indicators which distinguished between basic and enhanced statements.
John Myers (CC:DA) responded that the use case for distinguishing between basic and enhanced statements in field 505 is disjoint from the 881. In field 881 it is apparent from the proposed definition of $a that anything general can be recorded in this subfield. Other 881 subfields can be used to provide more comprehensive coding.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with one abstention.
PROPOSAL 2020-07: Recording the Extension Plan for Bibliographic Works in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-07.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper proposes that the new RDA element "extension plan" is encoded in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority formats
Related Documents: 2020-DP07
Summary of pre-meeting comments
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, and MLA supported the definition of a new repeatable field 335. Germany and OCLC requested that some of the examples include placeholders for RDA-based codes in subfield $b and their URIs from the RDA Registry in subfield $1.
NLM's question about the need for a new record if an extension plan (or mode of issuance) changes was responded to by Deborah Fritz (previous Chair of the RSC Aggregates Working Group) in the affirmative. OCLC noted that, in light of Proposal No. 2020-07 and Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP16, the Leader byte 19 may continue to have possible value and may still need to be implemented.
MAC Discussion:
Thustan Young (BL) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group
John Myers (CC:DA) queried the application of extension plan in a cataloging context where inferences are made about the nature of a resource which may, in the fullness of time, turn out to be incorrect. Such inferences could include the description of a resource in terms of one plan which then turns out to be another plan over time.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that the value recorded based on an initial inference under these circumstances would not be wrong; it would have been recorded based on the information which was available at the time. A change of plan could be used to trigger a new description to which the original description could be linked; alternatively, the original description could be deleted and the holdings for that description moved over to the new description.
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) commented that the ISSN Network would not want to create a new description based on a change of plan from one type of continuing resource to another: for example integrating to successive. She added that the practice of assigning a new ISSN to a resource on the basis of such a change in plan was unlikely to fly with publishers. Hence it was necessary for the community to repeat a value for the extension plan in cases where such a change occurred rather than having to create a new description. Everett Allgood (NYU) also advocated this approach, saying that it offered both a practical and pragmatic alternative to one which required only one extension plan to be recorded per description.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that there were practical reasons for creating separate records to reflect different extension plans. For example, the change of a record’s value for extension plan would require a significant number of key strokes in deleting redundant data associated with one plan and substituting it with data for another plan; linking from one record to an associated record, or replacing the original record wholesale, as previously suggested, could save time in this regard.
Adam Schiff (SAC) commented that cataloging around extension plans was very common and often made by paraprofessional staff, for example when a serial record is opened. Under these circumstances, staff should not be expected to create new descriptions, but rather use subfield $3 in order to record multiple plans.
Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) responded that making judgements on the implementation of new RDA elements was important, but that these should not rest on MAC's shoulders. Thurstan Young (BL) added that to include subfield $3 in the definition of field 335 would be counterproductive since it could lead to a misrepresentative impression of the resource being described. For example, a primary resource such as a serial might be issued with a single supplement. Using the same description to record successive indeterminate and static plans would be to indicate that both were of equal significance; only by creating separate descriptions and linking them would the user appreciate the primary/subordinate relationship of these two components.
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) responded that if subfield $3 were not implemented as part of the change, then community uptake of the field may be delayed until this coding was provided. Everett Allgood (NYU) added that including subfield $3 in field 335 would support different communities of practice; this would avoid the need to create additional descriptions which were not helpful to anyone.
Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) responded that the recording of multiple extension plans in the same description would throw it out of conformance with RDA. Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that if a community of practice chose to be out of conformance with RDA, then it could choose to do so and use subfield $3 under the circumstances described.
Thurstan Young (British Library) commented that if subfield $3 were considered a necessary addition to field 335, then a separate MARC paper should be tabled to this effect. The paper, as written, articulated why using the same description to describe different extension plans would be counterproductive. He added that, if the ISSN Network had concerns with regard to how the extension plan should be applied, then it should approach the RSC for consultation. A protocol of understanding already exists between the RSC and ISSN International Centre.
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) recommended that the paper be amended to include subfield $3. Adam Schiff (SAC) added that, if subfield $3 were defined, then an individual institution would not have to use it should they wish to be in strict compliance with RDA. Everett Allgood (NYU) added that if the ISSN Network were to consult with RSC, as previously suggested, then this discussion would need to involve PCC and CONSER as well.
MAC Action: Proposal approved (16 for; 1 against; 1 abstain), with the amendment of adding subfield $3.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP08: Subfields for Recording Date of Assignment of Dewey Decimal Numbers in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp08.html
Source: Dewey Editorial Team, OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes provision in various fields for the dates on which a classification number is assigned for electronic versions of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) scheme in MARC 21 Authority, Bibliographic, Classification, and Community Information formats. These changes will bring MARC up to date for the current Dewey publishing environment and allow catalogers to more meaningfully describe the classification of a work given the continuously updated nature of 21st-century Dewey.
Related Documents: 97-5; 2007-DP06; 2008-01; 2011-11; 2011-12
Summary of pre-meeting comments
Responding to the DP Questions:
7.1. Has the need to account for electronic and print-on-demand versions of DDC in helping to document the currency of Dewey numbers been adequately demonstrated?
Australia, Britain, Canada, and John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that it had.
7.2. Is the label of the newly defined subfield $e, "Date of classification number assignment based on electronic version," clear and appropriately reflective of its intention?
Australia, Canada and John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that it is. But Britain suggested shortening the label to "Date assigned based on electronic version."
7.3. As stated in the discussion paper’s historical "Background" section, the first electronic version of the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme was made available in 1993. Since then, updates to the schedule have grown more frequent and more dynamic. In the "Field Definition and Scope" sections, we’ve chosen to condense and generalize what could easily have become a convoluted history of DDC updates. Is the condensed history sufficient, or is there value in providing more detail about the evolution from static print editions to a dynamic online environment with annual print-on-demand versions?
Australia, Britain, Canada, and John Myers (CC:DA) felt that the summary was adequate.
7.4. The new subfield $e has been defined for the date a DDC number was assigned from an electronic version. The existing subfield $2 has been expanded to allow its use for all printed sources including the annual print-on-demand DDC, not only discreet editions. Does this strict and simple division between subfield $e for electronic versions and subfield $2 with First Indicator value 7 for any print version make sense or might it be more useful to allow both subfields to be used in the same field?
Britain believed that the division was clear. John Myers (CC:DA) wondered whether a new first indicator value should be developed. However, Germany was not in favor of this approach, stating that it is not good data practice to change the scope of an existing subfield, and then to leave potentially invalid data in it. They suggested that a less disruptive approach would be to merely use subfield $2, or to define two new subfields - subfield $e, as proposed, and perhaps subfield $f for "Edition number of print version." They also pointed to the MARC "Source Codes for Vocabularies, Rules and Schemes" documentation, which contains a section about "edition" and "date of publication of the source documentation," in which the data is separated by a slash. This could even be designated in combination with the language of the source documentation, since some non-English editions of Dewey are not just pure translations, but are adapted to the specific needs of other cultures. Kevin Ford (Library of Congress ) asked to see some of these language codes in the examples.
7.5. WebDewey does not easily or consistently indicate the most recent date on which a DDC number was changed. Does the date on which the number was assigned by the cataloger based on an electronic version of the DDC serve as an adequate substitute?
Britain felt strongly that the granularity of recording the date should match the granularity of the source. Britain also wished that the WebDewey product was able to better indicate dates of revision.
7.6. Of the other Dewey-related fields that were considered but rejected for alteration, are there any that would benefit from similar changes?
Britain did not think that there were.
7.7. Are there any additional issues or possible consequences of the suggested changes that have been overlooked?
Some respondees wondered whether there might be a similar need for the editions of LC or NLM class numbers. And it was suggested that, in section 3.4.2, under the "National Library of Medicine," perhaps "Washington: for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S.G.P.O." could also be deleted.
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Alex Kyrios (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) commented that the current direction of the discussion paper did not seem to represent good data practice; $2 in the DDC fields is special because no code list of DDC editions is available from either LC or the DDC community. He added that the proposed usage of $e may lead to questions arising as to whether the date recorded represents the date of WebDewey edition change or the date when this change was recorded in the MARC record. Since this latter issue relates to issues of data provenance, it may be something which is considered in the context of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
Cui Hong (LAC) commented that WebDewey makes updates to editions 22 and 23 available as well as abridged edition 16. Further updates might be made available via WebDewey which conform to the discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that, whatever additional coding is defined, it should be cognizant of the distinction between print Dewey (print-on-demand products and the latest published edition.) as opposed to the electronic product.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP09: Chronology-Only Data in Holdings Fields 853-855 and 863-865
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp09.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: For chronology-only publication patterns, the current MARC Holdings standard requires that first-level caption and chronology data be stored in the first-level enumeration fields, requiring the presence of subfield $a in fields 853, 854, 855, 863, 864, and/or 865. This paper recommends that the requirement be changed to require the presence of either subfield $a or subfield $i in Holdings fields 853, 854, 855, 863, 864, and/or 865.
Related Documents: 82-20; 87-7; 89-8/3; 89-8/4; 89-8/5; 89-8/6; 89-8/7; 89-10; 92-8; 92-22; 2000-1; 2000-01R; 2006-05; 2006-08; 2007-06; 2001-DP08; 2001-DP09; 2001-DP10; 2001-DP11
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Everett Allgood (NYU) questioned the 4th example in section 4, believing that subfield $8 should never be followed by subfield $b; 85X/86X fields always contain the first level of enumeration/chronology in subfield $a. In addition, he rarely saw months spelled out within 85X/86X encoding; as numerical month equivalents were more typically recorded, he wondered whether at least some of the examples might be altered to reflect this common practice.
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Has the case been sufficiently made that, for chronology-only publication patterns, requiring the presence of either subfield $a or subfield $i in Holdings fields 853, 854, 855, 863, 864, and/or 865 is a desirable and justified change?
Britain, Germany, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that it had. However, although Canada and Spain understood the problem, they failed to see the justification for allowing a choice between using either subfield $a or subfield $i, without providing guidance for a preferred method. Such a practice would only lead to inconsistent data. John Myers also suggested that it would be nice to have the ability to assign primacy of enumeration versus chronology. For instance, when an annual is issued in multiple volumes or parts, the chronology element should have primacy.
6.2. Are there additional passages of "853-878 - Holdings Data-General Information," "853-855 - Captions and Pattern-General Information," "863-865 - Enumeration and Chronology-General Information," or any of the individual fields that need to be reworded to accommodate these changes that may have been overlooked?
Britain and Spain considered that nothing had been overlooked.
6.3. Is there any impact of this change on the automated compressibility or expandability of these data?
Britain and Spain considered that there was no impact.
6.4. Are there potential consequences to this proposed change that have not been considered?
Britain considered that there were no other consequences. However, Canada and Spain both considered that there were (see their response to question 6.1)
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Elizabeth Schlueter (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed concern that the proposed changes would introduce inconsistencies of recording chronology data from a legacy standpoint.
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) noted the ISSN Centre has recently begun applying Item level holdings information, so they will watch this development with interest.
Everett Allgood (NYU) described the multiple variables involved in determining how libraries record Holdings and Item information for serials/continuing resources when they elect to do so. These include the following: communications/exchange standard applied (MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data); content standard applied (ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006 (R2011)); individual library ILS and discovery systems (may support varying degrees of chronology/enumeration information).
Cui Hong (LAC) commented that a problem faced by Library and Archives Canada relates to the conversion of non-MARC chronology/enumeration data into MARC and the inconsistences which may arise with it.
Elizabeth Schlueter (OCLC) responded that, in essence, OCLC’s discussion paper was interested in providing a practical means for libraries to submit holdings information following either of the methods different libraries have chosen to apply. At present, the barrier to application set by MARC is too high for certain local applications.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP10: Changes to Fields 008/21 and 006/04 for Type of Continuing Resource in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp10.html
Source: ISSN Review Group, ISSN International Centre, Paris
Summary: The current options for type of continuing resource in 008/21 and 006/04 do not provide enough granularity for useful faceting or statistical reporting in the ISSN Portal and likely in library OPACs. Additionally, more granularity is needed for research and scholarship concerning global production of continuing resources. The ISSN Network would like to add additional codes to 008/21 and 006/04 to provide facets for searching in the ISSN Portal and for gathering statistics on types of continuing resources to which ISSN are assigned rather than depending on the non-standard solution it now uses.
Related Documents: 2001-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Will the additional codes be useful for other communities besides the ISSN community?
Australia, Britain, Canada, Spain, OCLC, and PCC supported the additional values, provided there is international agreement on their definitions, particularly the distinction between journals, magazines, and newsletters. Canada wondered about the definition of directories, and whether it applied only to printed directories, or also to those on the web. They also asked whether online directories are presently coded as "d" (for database) or "w" (for website)? NLM asked about the values for podcasts, video blogs, non-institutional repositories, non-organizational newsletters, and "other."
Germany was skeptical of this solution, and suggested exploring the 655 field, or perhaps bytes 24 and 25-27 of the 008 field. OCLC added field 380 to this list of alternative possibilities.
6.2. Code "p" is being retained with an instruction to use it when less granularity is desired. Does this help avoid confusion about when to use "p" and when to use the more granular codes?
All seemed to prefer that code "p" be retained in legacy records for backward compatibility.
6.3. Will these codes align with RDA vocabulary?
Speaking on behalf of the RDA experts, Thurstan Young (BL) said that RDA does not have a vocabulary that subcategorizes periodicals in this way; in addition, it should not conflict with the new vocabularies for diachronic resources introduced by the Beta RDA Toolkit, e.g., Mode of Issuance and Extension Plan.
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) introduced the discussion paper.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) recommended that the ISSN Centre consider other options than those proposed, including the utilization of 008/24 and 008/25-27 codes rather than 008/21. He noted that, while the paper recommends a new coded value to represent directories in 008/21, a code "r" for this material already exists in 008/24 and 008/25-27. Usage of the existing coded values defined in 008/24 and 008/25-27 would avoid the need for recording a significant number of additional 006 fields than at present. If additional codes were deemed necessary, then they could be defined in 008/24 and 008/25-27 rather than 008/21. Always providing parallel coding, both 008/24 and 008/25-27 still have sufficient space to define eight additional codes.
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) responded with a description of CONSER & ISSN Centre practice(s) and how the continuing resources community has historically applied fixed field encoding. While 008/24 and 008/25-27 have been used to code monograph material as well as continuing resources, 008/21 has been used exclusively for the latter type of material. If subcategories of continuing resource were coded in 008/24 and 008/25-27 going forward, then this would present challenges in terms of the faceting and statistical analysis of serials information which is located in multiple 008 bytes rather than just one. She added that CONSER did not routinely use field 006 for coding continuing resources, but only by exception. It might, for example, be used to describe continuing resources which are also computer files or videos.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that, if the principle of specificity is applied to to 008/21 value "p" for some of the more granular values which are proposed in the paper, then consideration should be given to providing similar hierarchical granular values below 008/21 value "w" (Updating Web site). This is because, for example, a website could consist of a blog, a journal, a magazine, etc.
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) agreed that some clarification could be provided in that regard. She added that the ISSN Centre would also appreciate input and feedback regarding problems some MAC members had mentioned about the current definitions used within ISO standards.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that, besides ISO codes, genre/form terms might provide a source for subcategories of continuing resource in MARC.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) noted that using ISO codes alone may be too constraining and not serve the whole community's needs.
Cate Gerhart (OLAC) queried how web comics and podcasts would be coded using 008/21. Deanna White (ISSN Centre) responded that ISO 3297 did not currently include a code for podcasts. However, this should not preclude MAC from defining a coded value for podcasts in the future.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP11: Adding Subfield $0 to Field 022 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp11.html
Source: ISSN Review Group, ISSN International Centre, Paris
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to Field 022 (International Standard Serial Number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, in order to provide a place in the ISSN field for the ISSN URI.
Related Documents: 2017-08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Do you agree that there is a use for subfield $0 in field 022?
Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) believed that there was a need for subfield $0 in field 022, as it applies to subfield $a. Britain, NLM, and Everett Allgood (NYU) also suggested that parallel changes might be considered in the MARC 21 Authority Format. However, Australia did not support the addition of subfield $0, and would prefer to wait until the role of the ISSN, and in particular the ISSN-L has been reviewed in light of IFLA-LRM.
6.2 Does the information provided for $0 make it sufficiently clear that $0 pertains only to $a?
Britain and OCLC noted that the placement of subfield $0, directly following the subfield to which it applied, was inconsistent with and contrary to its placement in most or all other fields, where it is placed at the end. Such sequencing cannot be relied upon to establish a binary relationship when more than two subfields are included in the same string. Therefore, Britain, Germany, Spain, OCLC, and PCC would prefer to make 022 repeatable, in order to make separate statements about ISSNs and ISSN-Ls and so that the subfield $0 would always be positioned at the end of the field, as has been previous MARC practice.
6.3. Would it be possible or desirable to make $0 repeatable to enable inclusion of URIs for other subfields, e.g., ISSN-L?
See responses to 6.2.
6.4. Are there any potential consequences that this paper does not address?
OCLC raised an issue about the single-character ISSN Centre codes in subfield $2. The examples include a leading underscore character that makes the subfield appear to contain a two-character code, for instance “_1”. This is not how the codes are actually input, and as such, they do not pass validation.
6.5. Are additional examples needed?
There was much concern expressed about future modeling and implementation of the ISSN-L; and several respondents requested examples of such.
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
In introducing the paper, Regina Reynolds (ISSN) noted that the forthcoming proposal would include parallel changes for the 022 field in the MARC 21 Authority format. She also addressed the concerns raised with encoding ISSN and ISSN-L within a single MARC 022 tag. The ISSN Centre is considering a future MARC paper proposing that ISSN-L be moved to another MARC field, possibly the 023. The ISSN Network have no plans to propose that the 022 field is made repeatable. As regards the issue of ISSN codes modeled in subfield $2, these would be removed from any follow up proposal.
Chiew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) and others expressed concern with recording multiple iterations of subfields $0/$1 in the same 022 tag. Regina Reynolds (ISSN) responded that this issue could be addressed by not recording the URIs for ISSNs and ISSN-Ls in the same 022 field, but rather waiting until there is a separate MARC field available for encoding ISSN-Ls
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted that it was acceptable to record more than one $0 in the same iteration of a field, but only when the contents of those repeated subfields referenced the same thing. Recording separate $0 subfields for an ISSN and ISSN-L in the same tag would be out of scope for this.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that the follow up proposal note that $0 was only defined in relation to 022 $a. Thurstan Young (BL) responded that, since the overall definition for $0 was located in Appendix A of the MARC formats, it was meant to have a generic applicability rather than one which varied on a field by field basis.
Chiew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) commented that 022 may be a special case, because it is unlikely that there would be multiple sources of URIs for ISSNs. Therefore, the coupling of 022 $0 and $a might be acceptable in the MARC documentation.
The paper will return as a proposal.
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Does either of the proposed solutions meet the needs discussed? Is one of the proposed solutions to be preferred?
In order to avoid repurposing existing subfields, Australia, Canada, and Germany preferred option 2. However, citing the issue of legacy data, Britain, Spain, and OCLC have strongly suggested a third option, which would retain the current definition of subfield $b for "Format of Notated Music Code," especially for human-readable display, and the definition of a new subfield $c for "Form of Musical Notation Term."
For sections 3.4 and 3.5, in order to avoid confusion over the change in practice, OCLC suggested that perhaps a reference to field 348 could be added to the definition of field 546. They also observed that the similarity between the RDA Form of Musical Notation codes (subfield $2 "rdafmn") and the RDA Format of Notated Music codes (subfield $2 "rdanm") would cause confusion.
6.2. Are there any alternate solutions that should be considered?
John Myers (CC:DA) noted that, with either option, we would be mixing together work-level and expression-level elements in the same field. And with subfields $0 and $1 defined for field 348, he questioned how multiple elements would be correctly paired. Also, he wondered whether an indicator value should be considered for pairing subfields $a and $b for Format term and code, and subfields $c and $d for Notation term and code, which might solve the subfields $0 and $1 issue.
6.3. Regarding RDA 7.13.3.4 Details of Form of Musical Notation, is there any reason why recording such details in Field 546 subfield $b is preferable to recording them in a Field 500 note? Would recording them in a Field 500 note be preferable?
There seemed to be no agreement about whether Details of Form of Musical Notation should or should not be recorded in a 500 note.
6.4. Is there a need for code lists corresponding to controlled vocabulary lists such as the existence of Field 348 $b seems to suggest? Is the ability to identify and link to controlled vocabularies via subfields $2, $0, and $1 insufficient in some way?
All agreed that there was no need for a code list corresponding to the controlled vocabulary. The use of subfields $2, $0, and $1 is sufficient.
6.5. Assuming that the answer to Question 4. is yes, what are the implications for the other controlled vocabularies used in the 34X fields? What about the treatment of the uncontrolled terms that are used in certain 34X subfields?
OCLC noted that it will never be possible to create a controlled vocabulary list (and code list) for every 34X element.
6.6. Assuming that the answer to Question 4. is no, do you see any disadvantage to the redefinition of Field 348 subfield $b proposed here?
See the suggested third option under 6.2.
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Karen Peters (MLA) introduced the discussion paper and, responding to the pre-meeting comments, noted that both Format of Notated Music and Form of Musical Notation were expression level elements in the Beta RDA Toolkit, so there would be no issue of mixing work and expression level information in the same field. In addition, field 348 is repeatable, so terms from the two different vocabularies could be recorded in separate iterations of the field and an indicator was not needed to make such distinctions. She also questioned whether there was a need for coded values which aligned with vocabulary terms in the 348 field, since coded values were not associated with any other 34X fields in the Bibliographic format.
Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) noted that RDA accommodates specific terms in vocabulary encoding schemes; they are assigned notations which are a form of identifier or code.
Adam Schiff (SAC) added that these codes were available in the RDA Registry; he reminded MAC that one of the benefits to using codes was that they were language-neutral.
John Myers (CC:DA) and Thurstan Young (BL) both commented that, if a coded set of values were not defined for use in the existing 348 $b, the subfield should still not be repurposed to accommodate Form of Musical Notation terms. This represented the best practice approach in matters of obsolescence.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) suggested that format of music codes in the 008/20 could be made to correspond to a coded list which is recorded in field 348. Where gaps occur in the existing set of codes defined at 008/20, these could be addressed. Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) added that if this was considered desirable by MLA, then Karen Peters (MLA) could liaise with OCLC on the matter.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP13: Defining New Subfields in Bibliographic and Authority Field 046 for Expression Dates and Related Elements
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp13.html
Source: ALCTS SAC Subcommittee on Faceted Vocabularies
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfields for expression dates, materials specified, and explanatory notes to the MARC Bibliographic field 046, and subfields for materials specified and explanatory notes to the MARC Authority field 046. It also asks MAC to consider whether 046 subfields $u and $v should be added to the Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1 Has the use case for expression date subfields been adequately made? Are the proposed subfields $q and $r acceptable?
Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) agree that subfields should be added to field 046 for dates of expression in the Bibliographic and Authority formats. However, Canada and OCLC noted that, because subfields $q and $r have already been defined in the Authority format, and because most respondents seemed to prefer that the coding between the formats be kept in parallel, subfields $h and $i would be preferred. Also, Canada, MLA, and OCLC noted that the definitions of subfields $k and $l would need to be revised accordingly.
Britain strongly disagreed, believing that a solution was already available in the Authority format if one used the 075 field for denoting the type of entity; no attempt to code this information should be undertaken in the bibliographic record, since it is not used to make those kinds of distinction at present. PCC suggested that perhaps an 046 indicator value could be defined to specify the entity type of each of the multiple occurrences of the field. John Myers (CC:DA) suggested either using 046 subfield $i in tandem with subfields $k and $l, or expanding the code list of subfield $a to identify the nature of the dates in this field.
6.2. Do you agree that separate subfields for expression dates are not needed in the Authority format? Or is it more desirable to keep the coding in both Bibliographic and Authority formats in parallel? If separate coding for expression dates is desirable to have in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats, then subfields $h/$i could be used instead of the proposed $q/r in just the Bibliographic format ($q/$r are already defined as Establishment date and Termination date in the Authority format). In addition to $h/$i, the following subfields are also still available in both formats: $w, $y, $0, $1, $4, $5, $7, $9.
See 6.1.
6.3. Do you agree that adding both non-public and public note subfields is a useful enhancement of the field? Is another subfield needed to hold codes that could be used to explain the type of date?
Britain, Canada, and NLM did not support the definition of subfields $x and $z for nonpublic and public notes. However, Spain, MLA, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) did support their definition. Germany noted that the second example in section 4.1.3. did not sufficiently represent a nonpublic note. NLM added that they were not even sure how one would decide whether a note was to be public or not. OCLC suggested that perhaps a controlled vocabulary of public notes could be devised.
6.4. Has the case for adding subfield $3 for materials specified been adequately made?
Britain, Canada, Spain, MLA, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the addition of subfield $3 for materials specified.
6.5. Do you agree that there is a use case for adding subfields for source of information of dates to the Bibliographic format? Subfields $u and $v are currently established only in the Authority 046.
Britain, Spain, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) were not opposed to adding subfields $u and $v for data provenance, though some noted that it would be an unusual approach to take. However, Canada, Germany, and NLM preferred to wait for the MARC/RDA Working Group to propose a more general data provenance solution in the Bibliographic format.
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Casey Mullin (SAC) introduced the discussion paper and addressed some of the pre-meeting comments and concerns, saying that he had no philosophical objection to using an indicator value rather than subfielding in field 046 in order to make expression level distinctions.
Chiew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) addressed the proposed PCC approach and discussed why asserting expression entity type information in the bibliographic record was more difficult than with authority records; in the bibliographic record one has to record at the field level what can be recorded at the record level in an authority. Thurstan Young (BL) agreed, speaking in favor of using the authority record 075 field for such assertions. He added that the date of expression was just one element in a list of expression level elements which RDA defines; if discrete subfielding were defined for date of expression, then this could represent the thin end of a very large wedge.
John Myers (CC:DA) responded that if, in the fullness of time, the community determined that additional coding was needed to address these additional expression level elements, then it could come back with further recommendations to MAC at that point. He added that the bibliographic record represents a composite of different entity types including expression level data. Under those circumstances, it is more important to make expression level distinctions in the bibliographic context.
MAC held a straw poll to determine whether it preferred a coding solution for dates of expression based on that set out by the paper or the alternatives set out by PCC. There was a preference for the PCC position over that set out by the paper: 25 votes for an 046 indicator or subfield denoting entity type; 9 votes for a solution involving the definition of new subfields for date of expression and the redefinition of existing subfields to make them work-specific.
MAC held a second straw poll to determine which of the PCC solutions it preferred. There was a preference for an 046 indicator value rather than a subfield to denote entity type: 19 votes to 13 votes.
Thurstan Young (BL) continued to emphasize a preference for recording this information in the 075 field of the Authority record description. Adam Schiff (SAC) and others responded with the practical observation that authority descriptions do not yet exist for the majority of expression entities. However, if an authority record were being used in this context, then an 075 approach may make sense.
Cate Gerhart (OLAC) spoke in favor of trying, if at all possible, to retain parallel development of the 046 field in both Bibliographic and Authority formats. Kate James (independent contractor) observed that there were already disconnects between the two and that differing approaches to dates of expression in the bibliographic and authority record were therefore acceptable.
When Casey Mullin (SAC) asked for clarification regarding question 6.5 of the discussion paper, Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) responded that the MARC/RDA Working Group was currently considering data provenance as it relates to the MARC 21 bibliographic context overall. It is hoping to develop a broad solution to this issue rather than a piecemeal one.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP14: Defining a New Subfield for Sound Content in Field 344 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp14.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding a new repeatable subfield to Field 344 (Sound Characteristics) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to record the sound content of resources, in addition to expanding the field definition and scope to record "silent" as a sound characteristic.
Related Documents: 2020-DP03, 2017-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Do you agree there is a use for a subfield in these fields to record sound content URIs?
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, and OCLC agreed that there was a need for a place to record sound content. However, Canada and OCLC believed that, rather than being recorded in the 344 field, which is normally associated with sound recordings, the "silent" aspect might better be recorded in the 345 field, associated with moving images. Although Canada, MLA, and OCLC noted that coding sound content in field 344 for all audio media might be redundant, they pointed to the third example in section 4, for which the sound content of the accompanying material is recorded, even though it does not meet the restrictive definition of subfield $i.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed concerns about the mixing of content and carrier data elements in one field.
6.2. Does the proposed solution meet the needs discussed?
All believed that the proposed solution met the need, with the exceptions noted above.
6.3. Are there any alternative format solutions to what is being proposed?
None were noted
6.4. Are there any potential consequences this paper does not address?
Australia and Britain continued to note RSC’s view that RDA Registry URIs should be coded in subfield $1, as Real World Objects.
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Jodi Williamschen (LC) introduced the discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that since the RDA definition of sound content is broader than the scope of moving image resources, it would be preferable that this information was accommodated in the 344 field (Sound Characteristics) rather than in the 345 field (Projection Characteristics of Moving Image).
Karen Peters (MLA) commented that "sound characteristics" are typically not recorded in descriptions created by the sound recording community; therefore, her feeling was that field 344 was not the right place to record this information; it is generally of more relevance to the moving image community.
Kate James (independent contractor) explained that non-musical bibliographic resources could contain sound elements which catalogers may want to record. For example, a children's book may include sound elements which are activated as readers turn the pages. Under these circumstances, being able to use a field for recording sound content which is as neutral as possible in terms of the implied carriers would be desirable.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP15: Changes to Supplementary Content Information to Accommodate URIs and Notes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp15.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper presents two options for augmenting supplementary content information to accommodate URIs and free-text notes. The first option proposes the addition of subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to field 504 in the MARC Bibliographic format and changing the field definitions for fields 504 and 525. The second option proposes the creation of a new MARC field 353 to store coded supplementary content information.
Related Documents: 2020-DP02, 2017-08, 2019-DP05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
5.1 Which proposed option is preferred?
Britain, Canada, Spain, MLA, NLM, OCLC, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported Option 2, i.e. the definition of a new field 353. They all agreed that Option 1 and its redefinition of fields 504 and 525 would have a serious impact on legacy data. However, Canada believed that the need for a subfield $b (Supplementary content code) had not been demonstrated. In addition, Germany preferred Option 1, in order to avoid redundancy in the format.
Several respondents were confused by the examples in section 3.2. Option 2, in which the text in subfields $a and $b was identical. OCLC suggested that, in the absence of a code list for "Supplementary content code," the subfield $b should more properly contain a placeholder, such as "[supplementary content code]" in square brackets.
5.2. Are there any alternative format solutions to what is being proposed?
As an alternative, Germany suggested leaving subfield 504 and 525 $a as it is now for textual information, and adding a subfield $c for a controlled vocabulary term, which would have a direct relationship to a URI in subfield $0 or $1.
5.3. Are there any potential consequences that this paper does not address?
See 5.1.
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Jodi Williamschen (LC) introduced the discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that, of the two options put forward by the paper, the second (i.e. defining a new 353 field) seemed best in terms of backwards compatibility.
John Myers (CC:DA) asked whether consensus had been reached by MAC as regards the option it preferred. Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) noted that, with the exception of Germany, all the MAC constituency feedback had expressed a preference for the second option.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP16: Recording the Mode of Issuance for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp16.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding the RDA element "mode of issuance" in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2015-07; 2020-DP07; 2020-07
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Does this paper establish the utility for recording mode of issuance in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format?
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that there was utility in recording the mode of issuance.
6.2. Is the benefit of recording mode of issuance using a structured description, identifier or URI sufficiently articulated?
All recognized the benefit of recording mode of issuance using a structured description, identifier, or URI.
6.3. Is field 334 a suitable field in which to record a structured description, identifier, or URI for mode of issuance?
All agreed that field 334 was the appropriate place.
6.4. Are there any circumstances under which it may be necessary to record different modes of issuance as part of the same resource description, for example a re-basing integrating resource?
Almost all believed that there would never be a reason to record more than one mode of issuance for the same resource. Field 334 should not be repeatable, unless there were different vocabularies used, with different $0, $1, and/or $2 subfields. However, NLM asked whether it would be possible to change the value recorded for the mode of issuance in a description if a single unit resource turned out to be a multiple unit resource at a later point in time. In addition, they suggested that it might be desirable to record multiple values for the mode of issuance and attach dates to these over time.
Addressing a separate issue, NLM asked whether, if field 334 were approved, Leader bytes 7 and 19 would be made obsolete. However, OCLC noted that byte 19 may continue to have value and may need to be implemented. John Myers (CC:DA) wondered whether it would make sense to establish new Leader values that essentially say "go look at the 334 and 335 fields for relevant information."
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group and addressed the points raised by NLM as regards changing the value recorded for mode of issuance or repeating the element in a MARC record. He noted that changing the existing value recorded for mode of issuance may be considered preferable to creating a new description in terms of the resulting time saved; however, if one chose to change this value, then many other aspects of the same record would have to be unpicked and reentered at the same time: e.g. the LDR, 008, 245, 264, 6XX etc. This is a reflection of how fundamental the mode of issuance is to what is recorded in the rest of a catalog record. It also indicates that creating a new record and linking it to the old one or deleting the old one entirely may be a more efficient approach to take when the mode of issuance is found to change. In terms of repeating the element, he noted that recording multiple values for mode of issuance would give a misleading impression of the resource represented by the record. For example, if one repeated the value "single unit", this would mask the fact that the resource was actually composed of multiple units; if one recorded one value for "single unit" and another for "multiple unit", then catalog searches/management statistics for single units would erroneously include results for multiple unit resources. As regards the LDR values associated with positions 07 and 19, he noted that there was still a place for these in the MARC Bibliographic format. Terms such as monograph, serial and multipart resource still have a role to play for faceting and indexing purposes; when compared with the values for mode of issuance, they are not mutually exclusive.
Thurstan Young (BL) spoke further with regard to the broader matter of RDA conformance which arose during previous discussions of the extension plan element, but which also have a relevance to the mode of issuance and indeed all of the RDA elements under discussion at 2020's Annual MAC meetings. He noted that the mode of issuance, extension plan, manifestation statement and type of binding elements were not part of what the Beta RDA Toolkit defines as the "minimum description of a resource". Therefore, the community was not obliged to start recording them when implementing the new RDA. He also noted that if individual communities of practice wished to consult on whether aspects of the new RDA were suitable for them, then the RSC was available to provide assistance.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) commented that the feedback to the discussion paper was favorable and that it provided what was required at this stage.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP17: Recording the Type of Binding for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp17.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper discusses RDA’s controlled list of values for "type of binding" and how to code this data in the MARC Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Regarding the examples, Germany wondered why the paperback information was missing from the 020 field in example 1. As regards example 2, they asked why hardback information in field 020 was not encoded in subfield $q.
Many respondents suggested that the rare books cataloging community should be consulted before this paper is converted into a proposal, and that examples from the RBMS Binding Terms thesaurus should be included. Many comments were received from Francis Lapka (RBMS) regarding the confusion about terms for "type" and "method", the description of item-specific bindings, and the use of subfield $5 for institution-specific information.
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Is the benefit of recording type of binding using a structured description, identifier or URI sufficiently articulated?
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that RDA has identified a need to record type of binding (as originally issued by the publisher) using a structured description, identifier or URI, although some are less enthusiastic about this need than others. Australia noted that the field definition and scope would need to make it clear that terms from different source vocabularies were to be recorded in separate occurrences of the field, as instructed in field 344.
OCLC expressed grave concerns about the implications of adding a manifestation-level type of binding element to bibliographic records in what have historically been "binding neutral" shared databases. NLM questioned the real usefulness of this element. There was also much confusion about where the line was being drawn between manifestation and item-level types of binding.
6.2. Is field 340 subfield $l a suitable subfield in which to record a structured description for type of binding?
Britain, Canada, Spain, and John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that field 340 subfield $l was a suitable place to record this information. However, OCLC would like to see other options explored such as new subfields in fields 020, 024, and 027, alongside the existing subfield $q, in field 563, or in subfield $c of field 366.
6.3. Are there any circumstances in which it would be desirable to record more than one value for type of binding in the same description (e.g. an aggregate resource, the components of which represent different binding types)?
Britain, Canada, MLA, and OCLC felt that it was essential for subfield $l to be repeatable, since multipart and continuing resources are often bound or housed in different manners, over time. PCC offered the example of a "spiral binding enclosed in boards" which has multiple types of bindings: i.e."spiral" and "hardback."
MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the discussion paper and responded to comments from the community regarding the paper. Regarding those raised by Francis Lapka (RBMS), he noted that, rather than "type of binding", another new RDA element "binding of item" may be a more appropriate one to use when recording some of the values which Francis listed; whereas "type of binding" is defined as a manifestation level element in RDA, "binding of item" is confined to item level information. Francis also suggested that some of the vocabulary terms associated with the element "type of binding" might be amended. Thurstan encouraged him to liaise with RSC in order to discuss this issue.
In response to PCC’s comment on the vocabulary encoding scheme for type of binding, Thurstan Young (BL) noted that some of the values which currently make up this list in the Beta RDA Toolkit are not mutually exclusive. For example, a manifestation could be both hardback and spiral bound at the same time. This raised a question of application: whether it was acceptable to record multiple values under these circumstances or whether the vocabulary as written should be reworked by RSC so that combined terms are included in the list.
In response to comments raised by OCLC with regard to repeatability, Thurstan Young (BL) acknowledged that the application of type of binding in a "binding neutral" environment may represent a challenge. It is true to say that certain communities of practice follow a cataloging model which describes multiple manifestations using the same bibliographic description. In taking this approach they may wish to record multiple types of binding, reflecting the multiple manifestations they encompass. However, taking this approach also runs the risk of introducing ambiguity into the data being recorded and how it relates to different parts of the same description. For example, if multiple values for type of binding are recorded, it may not be apparent which of these is associated with the dimensions recorded in field 300 $c. Thurstan added that the issue of repeatability would crop up again and again in the course of the MARC/RDA Working Group's business.
Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that, in terms of dimensions information, a BIBCO record would not record that level of detail. Given the previous comments on repeatability, he noted that certain communities may choose not to record the type of binding element at all. John Myers (CC:DA) added that, while the constraints on its use may work in theory, RSC should reconsider their guidance on how this element should be applied and not seek to impose a particular application on the community.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that, as noted in the discussion of 2020-DP17 and mode of issuance, the element type of binding was not being imposed on the community. It did not form part of the minimum resource description as set out in the Beta RDA Toolkit. He encouraged the community to look at each of the elements addressed by the MARC/RDA Working Group and determine what, if any value, they would provide users in terms of performing catalog searches and other associated functionality.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) noted that, in certain circumstances, their cataloging practice did allow for recording separate descriptions for different manifestations of the same expression: for example, where the dimensions of hardcover and paperback resources were significantly different, the dates of publication were different, etc. Kate James (independent contractor) added that, rather than not record the type of binding element at all, the community could take the decision that it is only to be applied under limited circumstances, e.g. in cases where only one manifestation of an expression is available or being cataloged.
Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) commented that the RSC would not be revisiting the decisions it had made around the type of binding element apart from with regard to the vocabulary encoding scheme terms which are associated with it. While the repetition of elements made practical sense in terms of achieving efficiencies in a MARC environment, RSC was mindful of the limits this placed on data when it was taken out of MARC to make it play in the wider world.
Regina Reynolds (ISSN) noted that if type of binding was not part of RDA's minimum resource description, then certain constituencies such as the provider neutral community may choose not to apply it. Thurstan Young (BL) agreed with Regina's analysis and added that the same thinking may be applied to other elements such as extension plan and mode of issuance if communities did not feel that they met their needs. Alternatively, they may feel that these elements should only be applied on a limited basis.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) to provide further details on how the community could liaise with RSC with regard to recent RDA developments. She expressed some dismay with the suggestion that there was not scope for RSC rethinking some of its decisions. However, she believed that RSC were interested in community engagement and in hearing what the community had to say.
Kathy Glennan (RSC) responded that, while RSC would not be making changes to RDA which broke relationships to the LRM, it was open to discuss the issues raised by implementing RDA developments wherever possible. RSC contact information is available on the RSC website : http://rda-rsc.org/. The RSC has a Wider Community Engagement Officer, Ebe Kartus. Alternatively, queries can be addressed to Kathy as the RSC Chair. The RSC also has a number of long standing protocols with other bodies in the wider cataloging community, including ISSN and NDMSO.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed concerns that the feedback from MAC on what changes were necessary to implement new RDA elements in MARC were being dismissed out of hand by the RSC. He added that it may be the IFLA LRM itself which should be looked at again in terms of the principles it set forth. Furthermore, he noted that, as catalog users themselves, he and other members of MAC were already considering the practical benefits which new RDA elements could offer the community. It was with this in mind that he and others were suggesting that RSC review some of its previous decisions.
Everett Allgood (NYU) acknowledged RSC's view that implementation of the new RDA should be mindful of a post MARC environment; however, he also noted the community expectation that MARC 21 would be part of the cataloging picture for some time to come. He added that a balance needed to be struck between the needs of a MARC and post MARC environment. Furthermore, he noted that, from the PCC's perspective, it would be concerning if sections of the community implemented changes relating to RDA which had a detrimental effect on shared cataloging practices. Adam Schiff (SAC) echoed this view and added that some communities may choose to be out of conformance with RDA in order to record multiple values for the element type of binding in the same description.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that, as explained in the paper, there were circumstances in which the type of binding could be repeated in a way that is conformant with RDA: e.g. for multipart resources composed of different bindings which are described as part of the same record; or for kits which contain units with different bindings.
Kate James (independent contractor) commented that many MARC users did not use OCLC WorldCat or other shared cataloging models; it was important for those communities that they were given the means to record type of binding information. She gave the art book cataloging community as one example. Going forward, it would be for different MARC communities of practice to determine how best to implement this element and others. RDA application profiles could be used for that purpose.
The paper will return as a proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 01/11/2021 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |