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
Lourdes Alonso Viana BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Rachel Decker AALL Chapman University Tamara Fultz ARLIS/NA The Metropolitan Museum of Art Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Lucas Mak PCC Michigan State University Libraries Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa 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 Brittney Washington RBMS University of Texas at Austin Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Ivan Basar Library and Archives Canada Gaëlle Béquet ISSN International Centre Allison Bailund San Diego State University Kathleen Boyd Independent library consultant Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library, Ontario May Chan University of Toronto Chew Chiat Naun Harvard University Ahava Cohen National Library of Israel Kalan Knudson Davis University of Minnesota Andrew Dunnett Library and Archives Canada Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ) Kevin Ford Library of Congress Paul Frank Library of Congress Britannia Gammond Northern Lights College Celia Gavett Columbia Law School Kathy Glennan University of Maryland/RSC Chair Stephen Hearn University of Minnesota John Hostage Harvard University Louise Howlett British Library Mary Huismann St. Olaf College Damian Iseminger Library of Congress/RSC Technical Working Group Chair Kate James Independent contractor Kyla Jemison University of Toronto Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Ebe Kartus University of New England, New South Wales, Australia Caroline Kent British Library Paige Morfitt Whitman College Charlene Morrison OCLC Diane Napert Yale University Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Iris O'Brien British Library Jackie Parascandola University of Pennsylvania Thomas Pease Library of Congress George Prager New York University Kevin Randall Northwestern University Pat Riva Concordia University Elizabeth Robinson Library of Congress Karen Ross Library of Congress Wayne Schneider Index Data Tina Shrader National Library of Medicine Elisa Sze University of Toronto Christina Tarr University of California, Berkeley Manon Theroux Library of Congress Daniela Trunk Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Meta van der Waal-Gentenaar Koninklijke Bibliotheek Deanna White ISSN International Centre Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Jenny Wright Bibliographic Data Services Limited Jessie Zhong Dallas Theological Seminary [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
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 2021 meetings
The minutes of the MAC Midwinter meeting, held online on January 26 - 28, 2021, were approved without correction.
Business Meeting/Library of Congress report/ Other
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) notified MAC members of the addendum paper which he submitted on behalf of the German community in support of 2021-DP10 (Data Provenance). He suggested that MAC members read this ahead of the following committee meetings.
Sally McCallum (LC) led a MAC-committee "Thank you!!" to Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) for service as both a MAC member and long-serving MAC chair. Matthew is stepping down to pursue other ALA opportunities. Cate Gerhart (OLAC/University of Washington), another long-serving MAC member, is the incoming MAC chair.
PROPOSAL 2021-11: Defining Subfields $y and $z for Incorrect/Canceled ISSNs in Field 490 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-11.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: Because descriptive Bibliographic field 490 (Series Statement) is intended for the recording of series data as represented in a manifestation, subfield $y is proposed to enable the recording of invalid ISSNs and subfield $z for canceled ISSNs.
Related Documents: 2008-DP03; 2008-06; 2008-07; 2009-06/2; 2021-DP01
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, OCLC, and PCC support this proposal. However, Britain continues to believe that the proposed solution may require additional work on the part of catalogers, which goes beyond the routine maintenance noted in the paper. Britain also believes that, if 490 subfields $y and $z are defined, it would be beneficial to also define a second indicator value that identifies whether an ISSN is valid, invalid, cancelled, or that no information is provided. And in consideration of legacy data, they also hope that this proposal is not a precursor to limiting subfield $x to the recording of only valid ISSN numbers.
MAC Discussion:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the proposal.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that the U.K. community continues to have reservations over the changes set out by the proposal. It considers that approving these changes may create additional work for catalogers and that they may require monograph catalogers to access the ISSN Portal; previously it has only been serial catalogers who have needed to do this.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that there is no intention to limit the 490 subfield $x to contain only correct, valid ISSNs; 490 remains a transcription field. Catalogers are instructed to record what appears on the piece in hand.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) did not see this paper as creating additional work for catalogers beyond what they currently do: monograph catalogers record ISSNs where necessary; serial catalogers, maintaining 022 ISSN fields within serial resource descriptions, may subsequently have and provide additional information regarding the status of the 490 ISSN (i.e., valid, incorrect, or cancelled).
Adam Schiff (SAC) requested an example of where there would be a repeated subfields $z and $y in a 490. Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) suggested cases where both series and subseries are present.
Adam Schiff (SAC), Everett Allgood (NYU) and others made the point that this paper addresses the life-cycle of bibliographic descriptions, and that a 490 subfield $x may be flipped to a $y or a $z at some point later during the cataloging life-cycle. In fact, some day these subfield codes may be flipped programmatically by OCLC, et al. Only rarely would a cataloger know at the point of transcription that an ISSN was incorrect or invalid.
Thurstan Young (BL) again encouraged MAC to define an indicator value defining whether the 490 subfield $x is valid, or has been checked. Many felt this was unnecessary.
Adam Schiff (SAC) instead suggested that MAC add a phrase or sentence to the 490 subfield $x field definition and documentation explaining that no effort is made to check or validate legacy 490 $x.
Sally McCallum (LC) wondered if OCLC currently had any intention of providing some form of check or validation to 490 subfield $x.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) noted that OCLC has considered doing so, though at present there are no such plans in development.
MAC Action: Proposal approved as submitted.
PROPOSAL 2021-12: Designating an Introductory Statement in Field 672 of the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-12.html
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes the definition of a new subfield in field 672 (Title Related to the Entity) of the MARC 21 Authority Format as a way to separate an introductory phrase from the title information contained in the same field.
Related Documents: 2013-01; 2021-DP02
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Spain, NLM, OCLC, and PCC support this proposal. Britain and Adam Schiff (SAC) suggest that, instead of a placeholder in the 672 subfield $4 of the second example, perhaps a URI from the RDA Registry could be used. OCLC suggests that a separate list of reciprocal relator codes, terms, and URIs should be developed. Also, Canada and OCLC wonder whether a subfield $2 (Source) would be necessary for such codes. And finally, for reasons of consistency, Spain and Schiff suggest that subfield $i should be named "Relationship information," and should probably be made repeatable.
MAC Discussion:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the proposal.
Overall, there was general agreement expressed for the direction of this proposal.
John Myers (CC:DA) had thoughts and comments regarding the use of subfield $4 with this 672 field. He struggled with reconciling these not-quite-reciprocal relationships, expressed in a different way because of the verb requirement in the English language. This may not be a major concern especially if we pursue the use of subfield $4 codes as opposed to language phrases.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB), Thurstan Young (BL) and others agreed that the relationship fields from the bibliographic record and those describing the Agent (i.e., name authority descriptions) are different, so MAC needs to carefully differentiate how the 672 phrase or relationship term/code is applied.
Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed and reminded MAC that many of these reciprocal relationships are available in the RDA Registry, including some unconstrained relationships as well as constrained ones. RDA Registry relationships range from those which are more generic to those which are more narrowly defined.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) was appreciative of this guidance, and said he would look into the RDA Registry relationships to make sure they express the necessary relationships properly. Reinhold and others expressed concern that many RDA relationship terms focus too closely on including the media type/format, etc., and are therefore too restrictive.
Hong Cui (LAC) wondered if it is necessary to define a subfield $2 for the 672 field.
John Myers (CC:DA) noted that in cases where subfield $4 is defined it is typically tied to a specific controlled vocabulary, and therefore subfield $2 would likely be redundant and unnecessary here. This would be unless some other user community decides to develop and maintain another controlled vocabulary for use with this MARC field, as OCLC suggests in the pre-meeting comments.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) added that $2 normally applies to the whole of a preceding subfield string and not just a single subfield in that string (e.g., $4).
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with the amendment to change the label of subfield $i to "Relationship information" and to make subfield $i repeatable.
PROPOSAL 2021-13: Broadening Scope of Field 034 for Geographic Coordinates in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-13.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes modifications in field 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats to allow for the recording of geographic coordinates, when appropriate, for any type of resource.
Related Documents: 2021-DP03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, OCLC, and VRA support this proposal. However, Britain continues to believe that the current definition already supports this need. PCC supports the concept, but is concerned about adding such data to authority records, which already mix information about buildings and their corporate bodies. And VRA wonders whether there needs to be a coded distinction made between the location of a building and the location of its photographer. Also, NLM would like to see an example that includes the concept of "position of the creator."
Canada (the author of the proposal), Everett Allgood (NYU), and Sherman Clarke (VRA) offered corrections to the proposed second paragraph of the Field Definition and Scope, so as to read:
"For non-cartographic materials (i.e., images, graphic materials, textual materials,
etc.), geographic coordinates are recorded to represent the position of the
structure, site or feature depicted or described in the resource, or the geographic
location from which the image was capturedposition of the creator of the images or. In this case, geographic coordinates may be recorded in field
graphic materials
034 without the presence of a corresponding field 255 in the record."
MAC Discussion:
Pat Riva (Concordia Univeristy/CCM) introduced the proposal and responded to the pre-meeting comments by saying that, even if the existing definition of field 034 supports the use case described by the proposal, the suggested change in wording does no harm by making this more explicit. She added that she recognized the need to distinguish between recording coordinates for the structure or building captured, and the position of the photographer when taking the photo; in many cases application profiles will be expected to do this.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that an additional set of changes beyond the field scope were being recommended by the proposal, i.e., the definitions of subfields $a, $c, and $g. The U.K. community wondered why subfield $b was not similarly modified.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) and Hong Cui (LAC) responded that subfield $b did not appear to present any problem, and so was not addressed. This is because, unlike subfields $a, $c and $g, the definition of $b does not mention the item, and therefore doesn't require modification.
Hong Cui (LAC) noted the 034 field definition contains governing language for the use of subfields $a, $b, and $c. The proposed changes in the field definition has covered the application of subfield $b for cartographic materials.
John Myers (CC:DA), Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) and others acknowledged the relationship of this paper with 2021-DP11.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with the amended text to the proposed 034 field definition as offered above.
PROPOSAL 2021-14: Defining a New Subfield for Original Sound Capture and Storage in Field 344 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-14.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress, in consultation with the Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper proposes the addition of a new subfield to field 344 (Sound Characteristics) to record the sound capture and storage of the original recording.
Related Documents: 2021-DP04; 2021-DP05; 2021-15; 2020-DP14; 2011-08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, and OCLC support this proposal. However, MLA notes that they would like the definition of subfield $j (Original capture and storage technique) to match that of the new 007/13 definition proposed in Proposal no. 2021-15:
"How the sound was originally captured and stored. Sound recordings should be
coded for the original capture and storage technique, regardless of the physical
format of the manifestation being cataloged or whether the sound on the
manifestation being cataloged has been enhanced using another technique."
OCLC also expressed a desire for the two proposals to be in harmony with each other.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Willliamschen (Library of Congress) introduced the proposal; in response to requests from MLA, OCLC, et al., Jodi assured MAC that the subfield definitions in the two papers and MARC fields would indeed be aligned.
John Myers (CC:DA), referring to pre-meeting comments he submitted for 2021-15 (below), raised the question of "rationalizing" the labels for the 007/13 code values listed in the paper so that they distinctly identify the capture and storage techniques and record them consistently as capture, then storage technique. Karen Peters (MLA) responded that she does not see a problem, but would like to hear from Jay Weitz (OCLC).
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) suggested that there may be an editorial revision and alignment that can take place following approval. Jay Weitz (OCLC) agreed.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, subject to: 1) the alignment of the definition of subfield $j to the proposed field definition for 007/13 in 2021-15 and 2) editorial review of the 007/13 code labels.
PROPOSAL 2021-15: Updates to Definitions in 007/13 for Sound Recordings in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-15.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress, in consultation with the Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper proposes an update to the name and definitions of the terms used in MARC 007/13 for Sound Recordings.
Related Documents: 2021-DP05; 2021-DP04; 2021-14
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, and OCLC support this proposal. MLA confirmed that "electrically" is the correct term to be used in the revised definition of code d (Digital storage). John Myers (CC:DA) wonders whether it would be helpful for the names of the coded values to consistently state both the capture and storage mechanisms, i.e., a (Acoustical capture, direct storage), b (Electrical capture, direct storage), d (Electrical capture, digital storage), and e (Electrical capture, analog electrical storage). As expressed in regard to Proposal 2021-14, OCLC hopes that the two proposals will end up in harmony with each other.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williasmchen (Library of Congress) introduced the proposal. As discussed in the previous paper (Proposal 2021-14), Jodi noted that field labels and definitions in this paper and in 2021-14 would be coordinated and aligned editorially.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, subject to editorial review of the 007/13 code labels.
PROPOSAL 2021-16: Recording the Type of Binding for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: Recording the Type of Binding for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper proposes a means for coding RDA's controlled list of values for "type of binding" in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2021-10; 2020-DP17
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, and PCC support this proposal. However, Britain suggests alternative wording to the proposed definition of 340 subfield $l, "A method used to bind a published or unpublished resource, or other binding information. May be recorded using a controlled term or other structured description." Also, now that the scope of this proposed subfield is broader than "original binding," so as to accommodate the use cases provided by the rare books community, Britain notes that the subfield label should remain "Binding." There was confusion expressed about the sudden and unexpected broadening of the element's scope, since the discussions in January. However, Britain noted that broadening the scope was what the January meeting had instructed the MARC/RDA Working Group to do.
Britain and John Myers (CC:DA) note that, in the examples, subfield $3 should be included at the beginning of a field. OCLC re-emphasized that, in the cooperative environment of WorldCat, a difference in bindings alone does not justify separate records. All other bibliographically significant points being equal, such instances as a hardback and a paperback can still be represented with a single bibliographic description.
MAC Discussion:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group and responded to the pre-meeting comments by noting one contributor to the MARC list had suggested the reference from field 340 to field 563 would be more usefully located at the $l subfield rather than field level: i.e. "Additional unstructured (or textual) information on binding may be recorded in field 563." He accepted that this would be a more appropriate location for the note.
Liz Plantz (NLM) supports the broadening of the subfield intent, especially in support of the RBMS community, and others. That said, she asked Thurstan Young (BL) whether the current direction of the proposal continues to meet the RDA community's initial intent.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that ideally the RDA community would have liked to see these values constrained, but it also recognized the broader MAC community would not have approved such a proposal. Broadening the paper and using subfield $2 "rdatb" to control the contents of $l works for RDA. If other communities choose to use the $l subfield to record terms from their own vocabularies, then they can use source codes in $2 which correspond to those vocabularies.
Further, Thurstan Young (BL) recognized the "Plantz Theorem" (attributed to Liz Plantz (NLM)): "Once MAC approves a MARC field or subfield for use, communities of practice will use the format however they see fit." Therefore, it is encumbent on MAC to anticipate those use cases and tailor the wording of MARC changes in such a way which anticipates them.
Hong Cui (LAC) wondered whether the 563 field note should be explicitly specified as an item-level binding/concern for special collections.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) responded that MAC does not typically include field definition language representing a library's specific collection and added that "special collection" was a red hot term which he felt MAC should not get involved in.
Kate James (Independent contractor) and Sherman Clarke (VRA) both believe the revised BL definitions are clear and specific enough. The aforementioned concern with the 563 field application is likely a training issue.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with the following editorial revision to the definition of 340 subfield $l:
$l – Binding (R)
A method used to bind a published or unpublished resource, or other binding information. May be recorded using a controlled term or other structured description.
Additional unstructured (or textual) information on binding may be recorded in field 563.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP07: Recording Cluster ISSNs in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp07.html
Source: ISSN Review Group
Summary: This paper discusses the need for a new field, field 023, to record Cluster ISSNs in MARC 21 records. The Cluster ISSN is a new concept defined in ISO 3297:2020. Cluster ISSNs are identifiers intended to provide a mechanism to group various categories of related continuing resources. The ISSN-L is the first example of a Cluster ISSN and is currently recorded in 022 $l. During the January 2021 MAC meeting, URI subfields $0 and $1 were approved for field 022. Anticipation of future Cluster ISSNs with their associated URIs necessitates a new repeatable field to provide a separate field for each Cluster ISSN and its associated URIs.
Related Documents: 2007-DP03; 2007-05; 2020-DP11; 2021-04
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP questions:
6.1. Is a new field for Cluster ISSNs needed?
Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) agree that a new field is needed. But Australia and Britain question its value at the present time. Also, Canada believes that it would be helpful to have more examples illustrating its usage, as well as a more comprehensive explanation of cluster ISSNs in the proposed definition.
6.2. What problems might the addition of the new field cause?
Australia and Britain point to the potential challenges of bulk legacy conversion and record sharing. And John Myers (CC:DA) wonders whether there will ever be a need for more than nine first indicator values, to represent the various cluster ISSN types.
6.3. What problems might be caused for those organizations that use Linking ISSN data by the change from locating ISSN-L data in field 022 to locating ISSN-L data in field 023?
Canada and OCLC believe that there would likely be no problems caused by this change from field 022 to field 023.
6.4. What problems might be caused if 023 is implemented by some organizations and not others?
Canada and OCLC remind us that library systems are supposed to implement MARC changes consistently and in a timely manner, in order to remain interoperable.
6.5. Is there any potential for confusion in using $y and $z for incorrect and canceled Cluster ISSNs in order to align with the subfields for incorrect and canceled ISSNs in field 022?
Canada and OCLC believe that the consistency with other similar incorrect and cancelled elements, which this solution provides, may reduce any confusion.
6.6. Are there any additional issues or possible consequences of the suggested changes that have been overlooked?
NLM would like it stated somewhere that when a 023 field is used, a 022 field is required. Britain asks that a list of actual ISSN cluster types, matching the eight remaining first indicator values, be in any follow-up proposal, if possible. Also, they would like the placeholder sentence about future clusters in the definition of subfield $a to be replaced with something more concrete. Also, OCLC wonders whether field 758 (Resource identifier) was considered as a possible solution.
MAC Discussion:
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) introduced the discussion paper and mentioned a late-breaking amendment from the ISSN International Centre (ISSN IC) regarding the use of indicator values to represent different types of Cluster ISSN. Instead, the ISSN IC proposes developing a controlled vocabulary of Cluster ISSN name types. This controlled vocabulary would be developed and maintained by the ISSN IC. Using a controlled vocabulary rather than a set of indicators to designate cluster types would make the range of values more extensible than would be possible if it were limited to an indicator value context (i.e., code numbers 0-9) and will also provide more flexibility to the ISSN IC to add new cluster types possibly without a new MARC proposal.
ISSN considered but ultimately rejected the idea of using field 758 as a means of recording cluster ISSNs. The 758 field is used for purposes of linkage, whereas ISSN's requirement centers on an identifier which groups ISSNs or, alternatively, groups records.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) also expressed appreciation to OCLC for raising the issue of migrating/moving legacy ISSN-L data from the 022 fields into this new MARC field. This sort of thing can be troublesome; early concern and attention to the process is appreciated. However, she noted that decisions were taken to move data from one place to another at various times during the development of MARC 21. For instance, when it was decided to move ISSN coding from the Leader to field 022 $2 in 2003, this did not result in chaos. When system changes are necessary to make them remain compatible with MARC, then those changes are made
In response to the suggestion that a controlled vocabulary be used in in preference to new indicator values as a means of flagging different cluster ISSNs, Adam Schiff (SAC) and Thurstan Young (BL) noted that URIs could be provided for any such controlled terms.
Thurstan Young (BL) queried whether consideration had been given to union catalogs as regards the legacy conversion of 022 $l and $m and also in terms of match and merge processes: some contributors to a union catalog may choose to implement the new field while others do not. In addition, while some institutions may have complete control over their systems as regards configuring MARC changes, others do not. Furthermore, he noted that if data was coded correctly in the 022, then conversion to the 023 should not be a problem. However, this is not always the case. For instance, a common problem arises from the mis-coding of ISSNs for electronic versions as cancelled ISSNs in the 022 $z subfields of print ISSNs. The reciprocal can be found in records for e-journals.
Responding to Thurstan Young's (BL) point, Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) made reference to the old "Garbage in; garbage out” principle (i.e., if the data was wrong before, it will continue to be wrong). As for different libraries or agencies participating in large consortial or union catalog arrangements, it is incombent on shared systems to keep up to date. The governance and policing of consortial or union catalog arrangements lies far outside the scope of the MARC standards community. The current intent is to deprecate 022 subfields $l and $m.
Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) expressed an interest in additional MAC feedback and input regarding the use of URIs with the new controlled vocabulary terms.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that recording two URIs in the same string may be problematic from a machine processing perspective: i.e., one URI associated with the ISSN cluster and a second URI associated with the type of ISSN cluster could lead to ambiguities in terms of linkage.
John Myers (CC:DA) noted that MARC already deals with these types of pairing in terms of name headings which contain relationship designators. Subfield $4 could be explored as a means of recording a secondary URI for the type of Cluster ISSN. Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed with this view and noted that $4 (where it is expressed elsewhere in the format) may contain either a URI or a MARC code value.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP08: Cleaning Up Redundancies Related to Fields 34X in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp08.html
Source: OCLC, in consultation with Music Library Association (MLA) and Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes narrowing the definition of Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f, currently defined for "Production Rate/Ratio," to be specifically for microform "Reduction Ratio," reducing redundancies and confusion about more recently defined fields and subfields that are now specifically suitable for several historical uses of subfield $f.
Related Documents: 2016-DP10, 2016-DP22, 2020-DP03, 2020-DP04, 2020-DP14, 2021-DP04; 94-17, 2003-05, 2011-08, 2017-05, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2021-07, 2021-10.
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP questions:
6.1. Are the potential points of confusion caused by the overlapping definitions noted in this paper serious enough to be worth trying to clean up, for the sake of working catalogers, in looking forward to linked data, or for any other reasons?
Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, and MLA agree that the confusion needs to be cleaned up. However, John Myers (CC:DA) notes that such cleanup would not be limited to just OCLC records. There are ramifications for libraries with local copies of OCLC records and for ILS validation routines. NLM wonders whether this clean up is really necessary for such a small number of microfilms, since the number of microfilms is not really growing.
6.2. Has the benefit of resolving the overlap between Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f (Production rate/ratio) and field 344 (Sound Characteristics) subfield $c (Playing speed) been adequately presented?
See response to Question 6.5.
6.3. Has the benefit of resolving the overlap between Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f (Production rate/ratio) and field 345 (Moving Image Characteristics) subfield $b (Projection speed) been adequately presented?
See response to Question 6.5.
6.4. Has the benefit of resolving the overlap between Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f (Production rate/ratio) and field 345 (Moving Image Characteristics) subfields $c (Aspect ratio value) and $d (Aspect ratio designator) been adequately presented?
See response to Question 6.5.
6.5. Has the benefit of resolving the overlap between Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f (Production rate/ratio) and field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) subfield $f (Encoded bitrate) been adequately presented?
Questions 6.2 through 6.5: Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, and John Myers (CC:DA) believe that the benefits have been adequately presented.
6.6. Has the benefit of resolving the overlap between Bibliographic field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) subfield $b (Encoding format) and field 352 (Digital Graphic Representation) subfield $q (Format of the digital image) been adequately presented?
Regarding the 347 subfield $b and the 352 subfield $q, Britain and John Myers (CC:DA) request either clearer articulation of the benefit or the separate development of another solution.
6.7. Would it be useful to add guidance from Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f (Production rate/ratio) to any of the preferred fields and subfields?
Britain, Canada, Spain, and John Myers (CC:DA) believe that the definition of 340 subfield $f should direct catalogers to the other fields that will house data formerly coded there, and that the subfield is now only to be used for microform reduction ratios.
6.8. If the decision is made to redefine Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f from its current “Production Rate/Ratio” to “Reduction Ratio,” is there any additional value in limiting the numerical expression of the reduction ratio to either the reduction designation form (e.g., 16x, 90x) or the reduction ratio form (e.g., 16:1, 90:1), and if so, which?
See response to Question 6.9.
6.9. If the decision is made to limit the definition of Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f, is there any additional value in limiting it further to verbal reduction terms (such as "low reduction") and defining either one additional subfield for both numerical options or two additional subfields, one for the numerical reduction designation (such as "16x") and one for the numerical reduction ratio (such as "16:1")?
Questions 6.8 and 6.9: Britain notes that a distinction should be made between "reduction ratio" and "reduction ratio designation," in terms of coding, since they are separate elements in RDA. John Myers (CC:DA) wonders whether there is any information about the prevalence of "reduction designation form" versus "reduction ratio form" in existing data.
6.10. Are there any potential consequences of the contemplated changes that this paper does not take into consideration?
Australia, Britain, Spain, PCC, and Myers note that the challenges around legacy conversion, the volume of this work and how it may be managed, are unclear.
MAC Discussion:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper.
John Myers (CC:DA) commented that, although he had voiced concerns, he supported this proposal; in response to NLM's query about the value of dealing with microforms, John suggested that the real intent and benefit here is rather for those non-microform resources that had previously been coded in 340 subfield $f. As a result of this proposal and the resulting cleanup, those resources will now be described more clearly because there is a more appropriate place in MARC to encode the necessary data.
Thurstan Young (BL) asked Jay Weitz (OCLC) if he believed the U.K. community's comment regarding 6.8 and 6.9 (i.e., "reduction ratio" and "reduction ratio designation") was clear. Jay agreed that the comment did make sense. If MAC was re-designing the 340 field from scratch, it would have been a good approach from that perspective too. Jay Weitz (OCLC) has noted to himself that the resulting proposal paper should address this issue more fully. The current structure of the 340 means that two subfields distinguishing between reduction ratio and reduction ratio designation would not be adjacent, but that is not an insurmountable problem.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP09: Recording Record Equivalent Relationships in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp09.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange; Library and Archives Canada; OCLC
Summary: Library and Archives Canada creates equivalent English and French records for a resource when the manifestation contains expressions in more than one language for the same or different works. This paper explores options to allow the linkage between the paired equivalent records in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP questions:
6.1. Is the need to link equivalent relationships sufficiently demonstrated?
Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, OCLC, PCC, Everett Allgood (NYU), and John Myers (CC:DA) believe that the need has been demonstrated.
6.2. If yes to 6.1., which option is preferred: broaden the field 777 to include the use case of the equivalent relationships with a new second indicator value, or a new MARC linking entry field for the equivalent relationships?
Australia, Germany, NLM, OCLC, PCC, Everett Allgood (NYU), and John Myers (CC:DA) prefer option 2 (a new MARC field). However, Britain and Spain would prefer option 2, only if field 787 with a second indicator value of 8 and a subfield $i does not offer a workable solution.
6.3. If the preference is option 2, a new MARC linking entry field, which field is more appropriate to express the relationships: field 778 or field 788?
Germany, Spain, NLM, OCLC, PCC, Everett Allgood (NYU), and John Myers (CC:DA) prefer field 788, while Britain prefers field 778.
6.4. If the preference is option 2, a new MARC field, is the name of the field clear enough?
The field labels "Parallel description," "Equivalent description in another language," and "Equivalent Bibliographic description" have been suggested instead of "Equivalent Description". But OCLC believes that the text of the proposed Field Definition and Scope just needs to be made clearer.
6.5. Is there another solution to meet the need to record the equivalent relationships?
Britain and Spain suggest the use of field 787 as another possible solution.
6.6. Is there anything else that this paper needs to take into account?
Britain and John Myers (CC:DA) note that this technique for the encoding of equivalent relationships could also support multi-lingual communities beyond Canada, or even be used for mono-lingual resources. This reminded PCC and John Myers (CC:DA) of OCLC's earlier use of field 936 to link parallel-language-of-cataloging records. However, NLM has some concerns about administrative metadata being mixed with descriptive metadata.
MAC Discussion:
Hong Cui (LAC) introduced the discussion paper.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) emphasized the importance of clarifying that bibliographic record identifiers encoded in field 787 represent parallel language descriptions, not parallel language editions. She emphatically does not want to see the 787 field used, because the field has a long history of usage within continuing resource legacy descriptions.
Hong Cui (LAC) responded, thanking others for the additional use cases presented, and emphasizing that LAC is interested in its need to describe multi-lingual, often tete-beche manifestations (i.e., those bibliographic resources containing parallel content in more than one language that Canada catalogs in both English and French bibliographic descriptions, per their national policy). LAC is in agreement with OCLC's detailed response to the historical reference, and does not see the need to address/include historical reference information in parallel language bibliographic descriptions.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) raised the use case of parallel bibliographic descriptions representing equivalent descriptions but existing outside of library catalogs, or indeed outside of the MARC environment (e.g., Dublin Core, Wikidata, etc.).
Lourdes Alonso Viana (BNE) asked whether this field may be used to link Work entity descriptions to bibliographic descriptions.
Hong Cui (LAC) again thanked MAC for the additional use cases, including raising the FRBR/LRM WEMI question. Regarding the LAC use case which happens to be set in a bilingual environment, with the new RDA Toolkit, they need to designate a preferred title in bibliographic records. This has created a challenge for Canada's national policy of creating parallel French and English bibliographic descriptions for bilingual resources. LAC needs a mechanism for linking these equivalent descriptions.
Kate James (Independent contractor) noted that in RDA the preferred title is not required to be single and unique. They can both be valid in their respective language applications/preferences.
Everett Allgood (NYU) later raised a procedural question: he recognized that Hong Cui (LAC) and OCLC presented this Discussion Paper based on the LAC use case. However, MAC discussion has presented additional use cases this paper may address. Procedurally, he wondered whether MAC might consider including some of these additional use cases.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) responded that this paper was written to address a specific need. Broadening the scope in this way would require: 1) the agreement of the DP authors, and 2) another rewritten Discussion Paper.
Hong Cui (LAC) responded that given this urgent need within the Canadian cataloging community, LAC prefers to address their use case in isolation.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP10: Recording Data Provenance in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp10.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding data provenance in the MARC 21 Formats.
Related Documents: 2021-DP06
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Rather than answers to the questions posed by the discussion paper, Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) gave an overall summary of comments. Many expressed appreciation and admiration for the considerable amount of thought and effort that went into the drafting of this discussion paper. The MARC/RDA Working Group is to be commended for its effort. This paper, as well as its predecessor, have helped the community to become better informed about the scope and limitations of recording data provenance.
Unfortunately, there seems to be majority agreement that none of the proposed solutions are considered acceptable. Many expressed concerns about the practicality and expense of including and maintaining so many different types of data provenance information, noting that the "justified" RDA provenance elements are already fully accommodated in MARC. Most believe that all of the options would be too complex to implement, would be prone to error, would likely "explode" the size of MARC records, and would require major re-engineering of systems. This type of far-reaching change is undesirable at a point in time when MARC is poised to give way to BIBFRAME and other linked data implementations. Finally, several requested that any new proposals should focus on specific instances of data provenance, and then only when the necessity to record such provenance is clearly justified.
However, Germany strongly supports this paper, stating that the German-speaking part of the MARC community urgently needs the ability to designate automatically-generated metadata and the standards used for its transliteration. They prefer option 5, the subfield $7+ solution.
Prior to the discussion, Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB), on behalf of the German National Library and the German MARC 21 community, posted an addendum paper to 2021-DP10, which emphasizes and illustrates the importance of metametadata in MARC 21 from a German perspective. The paper is available at: http://www.heuvelmann.de/Importance_of_Metametadata.pdf
MAC Discussion:
Thurstan Youn (BL) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
John Myers (CC:DA) observed that the German addendum to the discussion paper does demonstrate a specific, current MARC need/use case. He questioned whether it would be better for MAC to instead consider this use case, rather than the all-encompassing approach suggested in 2021-DP10. He also noted that at least two of the 2021-DP10 proposed solutions violate the current MARC 21: Background & Principles document and would therefore be problematic.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) asked Thurstan Young (BL) if he had enough MAC guidance to cease and desist with this RDA use case. Matthew then asked Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) if the German speaking library community might be willing to write a Discussion Paper addressing their current, specific need.
Thurstan Youn (BL) acknowledged that, for the most part, the MARC 21 community's feedback so far was very much against the further development of MARC 21 to accommodate RDA's conception of data provenance. The only exceptions to this view were voiced by OCLC, NLA and DNB: OCLC advocated an 883 solution if one had to be found; NLA and DNB advocated a $7 + solution (i.e., deployment of various subfields to the same purpose across different fields in combination with the technique of coded values). He added that CCM's feedback to the paper had challenged the MARC 21 community to seek specific use cases for additional data provenance coverage in the MARC 21 formats; the paper addendum provided by DNB appeared to address this challenge.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded by noting that RDA related MARC 21 changes are usually brought forward as requirements to the community. The community's response so far seemed to indicate that it was not interested in pursuing this requirement of RDA in the MARC formats. He added that the German community had, in some respects, driven the development of the current discussion paper through its engagement with the MARC/RDA Working Group. The DNB's comments on the paper were the most supportive of those voiced because they already have data and recent developments which add to the requirement pipeline for expressing data provenance in MARC 21. It was unusual for a group effort such as the current discussion paper on data provenance to be passed on to an individual MARC constituency for further development, but further discussion on a way forward would have to take place within the MARC/RDA Working Group and German community as to how this might be undertaken.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) observed that Reinhold's addendum paper was helpful for understanding the German library community’s workflows and current processes as they relate to data provenance. She remained uncertain and unclear on how useful this information may be and whether it needed to be shared broadly. In other words, she questioned whether this was useful only within a specific consortium setting, or for the larger library community. She also commented that certain data provenance elements were not applicable to all MARC fields (for example, "undifferentiated name indicator") and suggested that this should be noted in any further discussion of the subject.
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress/RSC) emphasized that data provenance is not a requirement for inputting and distributing RDA descriptions. Guidance documentation in RDA provides a suite of options for recording such information. The real question was whether the MARC community was interested in providing a place to record data provenance. If it was interested in recording such information, then decisions were required on how and where it should be recorded.
Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) noted that MARC development in this area needs to be applied in different contexts as we move forward. Thurstan Young (BL) added that as we move out of MARC 21 it is important to record data provenance in a more flexible way than previously was the case: e.g., such that it can be associated with individual linked data triples and support the round trip conversion of information in and out of MARC 21. These applications went beyond the exclusive needs of the German community, but also encompassed wider initiatives such as BIBFRAME. The British Library, Library of Congress, DNB and others had all committed to implementing RDA and so, if further developments of MARC 21 did occur in support of data provenance, then these should be considered in an RDA context.
Kate James (Independent contractor) offered some practical observations to bolster the case for making changes to the formats in support of data provenance:
John Myers (CC:DA) presented a series of questions that might be pragmatically addressed within another, more focused Discussion Paper or Proposal in order to winnow out the requirements and feasible implementations for data provenance:
Thurstan Young (BL) spoke in favor of John Myers' focused questions as a basis for further analysis; he noted that the German community would likely be the first implementers of any new MARC 21 developments in support of data provenance information and also its preference for pursuing a solution which involved option 5 set out in the discussion paper. This being the case, he asked for a straw poll to gauge support from the MARC community for further developing a solution around option 5.
Straw poll results: 22 in favor of another MARC/RDA Working Group paper based on exploration of Option 5 in 2021-DP10: i.e., deployment of various subfields to the same purpose across different fields in combination with the technique of coded values ($7 + with coded values); 3 opposed.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) thanked meeting attendees for the direction they had provided in the straw poll; responding to some aspects of John Myers’ earlier questions, he made the following observations:
Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that Reinhold Heuelmann (DNB) focus upon the most important types of data provenance information to the German community rather than the full range of categories as set out by RDA and described in 2021-DP10.
The paper will return as another discussion paper or as a proposal from the MARC/RDA Working Group, focusing on option 5 ($7+ with coded values) and seeking to address the issues raised by John Myers (CC:DA).
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP11: Recording Non-Cartographic Scale Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp11.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper explores the option to broaden the field definition and scope in field 507 (Scale Note for Graphic Material) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to better align with the RDA scale definition when recording non-cartographic scale content.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP questions:
5.1. Is field 507 the appropriate field to record non-cartographic content information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format?Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, OCLC, and PCC believe that field 507 is appropriate. However, John Myers (CC:DA) notes that the reasons why fields 034 and 255 were not considered have not been clearly articulated.
5.2. Is the need to broaden the field 507 Field Definition and Scope to better align with the RDA definition sufficiently articulated?
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, and Spain believe that the need has been sufficiently articulated. Canada and OCLC also note that the name of the field could also be broadened, perhaps to "Scale Note for Visual Materials."
5.3. Are there other options to record non-cartographic scale content that should be explored?
Britain believes that, although a broadening of field 507 would support the recording of a structured note, it would fail to support a URI. Perhaps field 034 could be further developed to carry a controlled term, source, and URI for the "scale designation" element. And Canada suggests the definition of another subfield in field 340.
5.4. Is there anything else that should be taken into account?
Britain and John Myers (CC:DA) note that a follow-up paper would benefit from some examples.
MAC Discussion:
Hong Cui introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
Thurstan Young (BL) wondered whether we might record controlled values for this element rather than variable information; perhaps record this data in a more structured way via Field 034 rather than in Field 507.
Adam Schiff (SAC) observed that subfields $0 and $1 for URIs are available in the 034 Field.
John Myers (CC:DA) also encouraged the use of 034 Field for this data, especially with MAC's approval of Proposal 2021-13.
Hong Cui (LAC) commented that it would make sense to make this change for scale of non-cartographic resources, except that each bibliographic 034 Field (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) is dependent on a parallel 255 Field (Cartographic Mathematical Data) which does not support non-cartographic resources.
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) agreed; she is not in support of changing the definition of the 255 field, but does support the change to field 507 described in this paper.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP12: Recording Representative Expressions in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp12.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding representative expressions in the MARC 21 Formats.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP questions:
6.1. Has the paper established the utility for recording representative expression information in MARC 21?
See response to Question 6.2.
6.2. Would adding more specific coding for expressions to the Authority format be a preferable way of recording the characteristics of representative expressions?
Questions 6.1. and 6.2.: Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) believe that the paper has established the utility of recording representative expressions. And all recognize that the Authority format is the more appropriate place for this data, but understand the need for an option to extend its inclusion in the Bibliographic format.
6.3. Would adding field 075 (Type of Entity) to the Bibliographic format be a preferable way of recording the characteristics of representative expressions?
Britain, Canada, MLA, NLM, and OCLC do not favor the definition of field 075 (as described in section 3.2), since it would further complicate the use of subfield $8.
6.4. Would expanding the use of field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) be a preferable way of recording the characteristics of representative expressions?
Britain, Spain, MLA, NLM, and OCLC do not favor the expansion of field 381 (section 3.3), since it would likely be incredibly clumsy.
6.5. Would defining a new field 387 (Representative Expressions) be a preferable way of recording the characteristics of representative expressions?
Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, and PCC believe that the definition of a new field 387 (section 3.4) has potential.
6.6. Would defining new indicator values in existing fields be a preferable way of recording the characteristics of representative expressions?
Because of the parsed nature of "medium of performance" data, which cannot be entered in a single subfield, MLA prefers the definition of new indicator values in existing fields (section 3.5), as that would be the only workable option for them.
6.7. Would a combination of one or more of the above options listed above be a preferable way of recording the characteristics of representative expressions?
Canada believes that too many methods of encoding the same kind of data would become extremely confusing. But MLA and OCLC would prefer to use a combination of the suggested options, perhaps the method described in section 3.5 for existing fields, and in section 3.3 for other data, as needed.
6.8. Should coding for the element "medium of performance of choreographic content" be agreed to before a decision is made on the coding for "medium of performance of choreographic content of representative expression"?
See response to Question 6.8.
6.9. Should coding for the element "extent of expression" be agreed to before decisions are made on the coding for "extent of representative expression" and further development of "Extent" in RDA as noted by the RSC Action Plan 2021 – 2023?
Questions 6.8. and 6.9.: Britain, Canada, Spain, MLA, and John Myers (CC:DA) agree that any decisions about the coding of "medium of performance of choreographic content of representative expression" and "extent of representative expression" should be deferred until coding for the elements "medium of performance of choreographic content" and "extent of expression" has been decided. However, OCLC believes that it would be prudent to acknowledge this need now, and to work out the details later.
6.10. Are there any relevant issues which the discussion paper has not considered?
PCC believes that the concept of "representative expressions" also needs to be discussed further with the music and audiovisual communities, in order to identify better and clearer use cases.
MAC Discussion:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group and responded to the pre-meeting comments by noting a general preference for either expanding field 381 or defining a new field 387 to carry representative expression information in the MARC Authority and Bibliographic formats. However, he also noted the argument from MLA that an exception be made for recording medium of performance of representative expression, since there was a need in the music community to coordinate a numeric value with medium of performance being recorded. As things stood, this could only be done using field 382.
Adam Schiff (SAC) observed that for several years he had been thinking about how MARC might encode some expression information not currently accommodated in the Authority format (for example, aspect ratio, scale, duration, etc.). If MAC is adding Representative Expression elements, perhaps we could also address these others.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded by agreeing with Adam Schiff (SAC) that various expression level elements were absent from the Authority format. Indeed, option 3.1 of the paper considers adding various coding associated with expression level data in the Bibliographic format (field 300, 340, etc.) to the Authority format. However, feedback to a recent discussion paper on developing the 046 field (2020-DP13) noted that the utility of adding coding to the Authority format alone was limited, since the information it holds is often not displayed to end users.
Kate James (Independent contractor) added that, while certain expression elements were missing from the Authority format, RDA did not require the recording of expression elements as well as their representative expression equivalents (e.g,. aspect ratio as opposed to aspect ratio of representative expression).
Karen Peters (MLA) reiterated the music community's need to have a combination approach for representative expressions: i.e., one which allows the medium of performance of representative expression to be recorded in conjunction with numeric values; other categories of representative expression information do not have to be recorded in the same way. She also noted that the music community had been encoding representative expression data in its records for a long time; the only new requirements were indicator values in the 382 field to distinguish expression from representative expression information.
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress/RSC) replied to Karen Peters (MLA) by noting that MLA has implemented the 382 field (Medium of Performance) in one way, while the German community (DNB) has interpreted the use of the field differently. Hence, there were multiple possible implementation scenarios for medium of performance of representative expression.
Thurstan Young (BL) added that if a bibliographic description represents a musical work of which there is only one expression, then flipping the 382's existing indicator value to flag a representative expression would be fairly straightforward in a programmatic way; however, when multiple expressions of a work exist (as is often the case with music and other categories of a resource), this becomes more challenging and more intellectual input may be required.
Karen Peters (MLA) responded to Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress/RSC) by commenting that even if the number attribute were eliminated from medium of performance, there may be multiple mediums of performance terms which make no sense if they are not linked together in the same string.
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress/RSC) responded by noting that there are multiple implementation scenarios for medium of performance; MLA’s implementation of the 382 field represents one and he supported this. However, he still thought it is worth pointing out that other libraries or user communities may choose a different implementation.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) added that the DNB's implementation of 382 is based on recording a separate instance of the field for each instrument with an additional 382 to summarize the number of instruments which are required to perform a piece of music. He offered to provide examples of application as part of any follow up work undertaken by the MARC/RDA Working Group on representative expressions.
Thurstan Young (BL) queried whether there were any additional communities beyond MLA which considered an exceptional approach should be taken when encoding their representative expression data.
Sally McCallum (LC) commented that within the MARC/BIBFRAME environment, LC is interested in moving forward with considering representative expressions as bibliographic entities rather than authority content; with that shift in thinking, she queried the wisdom of continuing to cram the Authority format with information which is already encoded in the Bibliographic format.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested using indicator values in order to record both representative expression entities and expression entities in the same fields where that was possible to do so.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that feedback so far to the paper had favored the use of 387 or 381 with the noted exception for 382 as a means of recording representative expression information.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that if field 387 were defined to record representative expression information, then it could also be used to record expression information which is not already possible to record elsewhere in the MARC 21 formats.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that the current paper was specifically geared towards the coding of elements which are new to RDA (i.e., representative expression elements). He also noted that many expression elements could already be recorded in the formats and that there was a risk of bifurcation if a new field were defined to serve both purposes.
Kate James (Independent contractor) added that field 381 could already be used in both the Authority and Bibliographic formats as a means of recording expression information which cannot be recorded elsewhere.
A series of successive straw poll votes was performed, to help define the specifics of the revised MAC paper to return.
RESULTS OF STRAW-POLL VOTES
*"Not workable" votes unrecorded.
**i.e., with field 382 indicators used as a sole exception to a new field 387.
The paper will return as a proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 01/24/2022 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |