The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Hong Cui LAC Library and Archives Canada Sam Ziesler BL British Library
Catherine Gerhart, Chair UW University of Washington Everett Allgood, Secretary NYU New York University
Sherman Clarke (sub.) VRA Alfred University and Avery Index Nick Curotto ARLIS/NA Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Ethan D'Ver MLA The Juilliard School Peter Fletcher SAC University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Matthew Haugen RBMS Columbia University/PCC SCS TJ Kao PCC University of California, Davis Yoko Kudo OLAC University of California, Riverside Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa Hayley Moreno OCLC OCLC John F. Myers CC:DA Union College Kate Peck AALL UC Berekeley, School of Law Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Ricardo Santos Muñoz BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Kerin Arnold Boston University Allison Bailund San Diego State University Bryan Baldus OCLC Rebecca Belford Oberlin College and Conservatory Alyssa Buck Parkland Regional Librayr System, Alberta Cecilia Caride Yale University Christopher Carr Concordia University Charlene Chou New York University/RSC Emma Clarkson New York Public Library Lia Contursi Princeton University Iman Dagher UCLA Bonnie Dede University of Michigan Zoe Dobbs Yale University Krina Doekes Brandt Hebrew University of Jerusalem Andrew Dunnett Library and Archives Canada Kevin Ford Library of Congress Paul Frank Library of Congress Julie Gagnon Université de Moncton Peggy Griesinger University of Notre Dame Kirk Hess OCLC Julia Hickie National Library of Australia Chris Holden Library of Congress/RSC John Hostage Harvard University Sarah Hovde University of Maryland Mary Huismann St. Olaf College Kyla Jemison University of Toronto Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Joanne Macdonald City of Ottawa Greg McCollum University of Chicago Dafna Mizrahi Melcer Hebrew University of Jerusalem Timothy Ryan Mendenhall Columbia University/CC:DA/ALA-LC Romanization Table Review Board Adrian Nolte Axiell Germany (retired) Iris O'Brien British Library Jean Pajerek Cornell University Law Library Veronica Ranieri Library of Congress Pat Riva Concordia University/CCM Charles Riley Yale University Amanda Ros Texas A&M University Karen Ross Library of Congress Adam Schiff University of Washington Trina Soderquist Library of Congress Amy Strickland Library of Congress Hermine Vermeij UCLA Emily Vieyra Milwaukee Public Library Colleen Williams University of Arkansas Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Lihong Zhang National Library of Australia Helena Zinkham Library of Congress/RBMS Jessalyn Zoom Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Preliminaries
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) began with an explication of the online meeting protocols and voting procedures.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) performed a roll call and asked committee members to introduce themselves. 17 MAC voting members were present.
Approval of minutes from MAC January 2025 meeting
The minutes of the MAC Midwinter meeting, held online on January 29, 2025, were approved without correction.
Fast-track proposals
One Fast-track proposal was approved since the Midwinter meeting:
Business meeting
Library of Congress report
NOTE:
Full pre-meeting feedback commentary of the MARC proposals and discussion papers can be accessed on the MARC Listserv at: https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1=202501-202501&L=MARC&O=D&D=0&TOC=&S=
PROPOSAL 2025-03: Adding Subfields $i and $4 to Fields 368, 376, and 381 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-03.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This proposal seeks to add subfield $i (Relationship information) and subfield $4 (Relationship) in fields 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) and 376 (Family Information) in the MARC 21 Authority Format, and in field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats.
Related Documents: 2025-01; 2024-DP09; 2022-FT01; 2022-DP05; 2017-02; 2017-03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Canada, CC:DA, Germany, AALL, MLA, OLAC, RBMS, and Spain. No feedback: ARLIS, Australia. There is general support for this proposal. The main objections come from Britain, OCLC, NLM, and LC, who are concerned that we are making the authority record into a mini biography. The question of whether this kind of granularity is needed to disambiguate people in our authority file was frequently mentioned. There is also the concern that the number of requests to remove data from people's authority records will increase the more data we put in them. OCLC, LC, and BL all get requests to remove information on a regular basis. NLM wonders why example 4 and 5 of the 381 does not include the entire name of the person. OCLC, RSC, and PCC are especially concerned with adding subject relationships to authority records. VRA: Sherman Clarke points out a typo in 4.1 ex.2, the second URI is missing its subfield.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (RBMS), co-author of the paper and member of PCC SCS, introduced the proposal and responded to pre-meeting comments. He said the 381 form or name examples represented the name forms from the cited/related subfields. If needed, full forms of name might be included elsewhere (i.e., 5XX fields). The paper included lots of examples; not all of them need to be included in the final documentation, including examples containing subject relationships.
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) expressed concern about an increasing number of privacy requests OCLC has received from international members, especially from OCLC users in the European Union where there are laws protecting privacy; the addition of this type of data in authority records would proliferate and create more complaints, especially from countries where there are a lot of laws around privacy.
Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (Columbia University) responded to concerns expressed by OCLC and the Library of Congress regarding the rising number of complaints received. He said that as GLAM institutions make more data available (and more visible) on the Open Web, the number of complaints regarding name entity descriptions for living persons is almost certain to continue to rise. From a name identifiers and PCC perspective, especially where names repeat commonly and overlap, it is often necessary for NACO catalogers to include more attribute information in order to properly identify and disambiguate. PCC and NACO need to somehow strike a balance here.
John Myers (CC:DA) suggested that privacy concerns were a red herring. MAC and the MARC community defined these fields and subfields in response to user needs. It is up to user communities of practice to determine best practices for implementing them.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) said that based on the availability of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards Task Group on Privacy Final Report, authors of this proposal have made changes, particularly to remove most of the "living person NAR" examples.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) said that GLAM institutions are experiencing "mission creep" within our name identifier entity descriptions. As noted previously, there appears to be interest in using NACO identifiers as "mini-biographies"— important when needed to disambiguate, but not as something to add by default because these fields and subfields are available.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) agreed with both the concerns expressed and also the importance of recording specific attribute information in NARs when it is needed and publicly available. If this paper is approved, he is confident that the PCC Standing Committee on Standards will develop best practices to help inform usage and application.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) emphasized the important distinction made earlier by Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (Columbia University) and others between "living" and "deceased" personal name NARs, and also Adam Schiff’s (University of Washington) point about the need to develop "best practice guidelines" for specific user communities. When working with names, catalogers must sometimes make case-by-case decisions on recording specific attributes when necessary (to identify or disambiguate).
MAC Action:
Proposal approved as submitted.
PROPOSAL 2025-04: Defining Field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-04.html
Source: Yale University; co-sponsored by the Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of ALA (American Library Association); and by the Cataloging Advisory Committee (CAC) of the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA)
Summary: This paper proposes defining field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format.
Related Documents: 2025-DP03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: ARLIS, Canada, CC:DA, Germany, AALL, MLA, OCLC, PCC, RBMS, and Spain. No Comment: Australia, VRA. There is general support, however, there remain many concerns. Britain does not like that the same data will have a place in the bibliographic record and the holdings record. Canada feels the use of the $3 in this proposal is stretching the definition. LC indicates that they will continue to use the $3 and $5 in the Bibliographic Format for this information. NLM points out that the examples are often descriptions of things added to the thing rather than the thing itself, like bookplates, annotations, etc. They wonder if a new field or subfield would be better to describe this supplementary material. OCLC has a few comments: Do we need a statement indicating this field is identical to that in the Bibliographic format? They would like an example with the indicator 0 and $a, $b, and $c. They also point out that there are typos in example 3.2.3. AAT terms are usually lowercase so the "H" in "Hand" should be lowercase "h", and there should probably be a space between the "comma" and the 6 in the $3. While OLAC supports this proposal, they think that redefining an existing field might have been a better solution rather than adding another one. RSC points out that there is no mapping between the RDA toolkit and the Holdings format.
MAC Discussion:
Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) introduced the propsal and, responding to pre-meeting comments, clarified that the Holdings 655 examples in the paper were patterned on existing Bibliographic 655 examples. This paper focused on a different, specific use for the 655 in holdings records to apply copy-specific genre terms for an individual library's unique copy or copies. Those examples could be corrected for the Holdings Format documentation, as necessary.
Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) also noted that the concern about replicating data or information in both bibliographic and holdings descriptions is something that is already common in MARC 21. She reminded MAC that this field is already in use for copy-specific media description attributes in bibliographic descriptions, often via the use of subfields $3 and $5 to designate particular components or aspects for particular libraries, collections, etc. Catalogers recognize the 655 field as a place to record genre-related data. This paper is advocating that the 655 field also be available in the Holdings format where it more logically belongs.
Sherman Clarke (Alfred University & Avery Index/VRA) followed up clarification from the Getty Institute regarding AAT (Art & Architecture Thesaurus) vocabulary capitalization. The folks at the Getty like to assert that they developed the words and terms in the vocabulary, but not necessarily how they are presented, capitalized, etc. Art Catalogers often follow LCSH-style capitalization input guidelines.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) strongly supported this paper. She clarified that CCM did not have questions when the subfield $3 was pushed to distinguish copies in bibliographic records. However, in the Holdings Format, each copy could have its own holding record and therefore it is not necessary to make the distinction.
Sam Ziesler (BL) reiterated Britain's previous concerns with recording data in more than one place, within both Bibliographic and Holdings Formats. Although this sort of repetition happens throughout MARC 21 this proposal potentially exacerbates the issue.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed CC:DA's concerns regarding the recording of holdings and item-specific information. He recognized and encouraged the continuing capability for libraries to record this information at either the bibliographic or the holdings level depending on local discovery system capabilities.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) also supported the continuing ability for libraries to record this data in the Bibliographic or the Holdings Format depending on local system configurations, etc. He also appreciated the way this proposal would provide people with another option for recording information.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) agreed that this MARC 21 flexibility would be necessary and welcome.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) noted the overall flexibility and extensibility to implement holdings data either embedded in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format or in the Holdings Format. Holdings records are flexible and extensible by design; both attributes are intentionally included within the Holdings Standard, and represent one of its marvels. One precedent this proposal did set was including a field that is commonly viewed as "an authority-controlled field" (i.e., 6XX field) in the Holdings Format.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved as submitted.
PROPOSAL 2025-05: Tagging Transliteration Schemes and BCP 47 in Data Provenance Subfields in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-05.html
Source: ALA-LC Romanization Tables Review Board; PCC Standing Committee on Standards; ALA Core Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials
Summary: This proposal adds two category codes to the MARC data provenance elements to enable the tagging of transliteration schemes at the field- and/or subfield-level, including the use of BCP 47 tags.
Related Documents: 2024-DP11; 2022-05; 2021-DP06; 2016-DP26; DP109
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Canada, CC:DA, Germany, AALL, LC, MLA, NLM, OCLC, OLAC, PCC, RBMS and RSC. Does not support: Britain. No comment: ARLIS, Australia, Spain, and VRA. There was general consensus that the code bcp47 should be used rather than dpebcp since it is best practice to specify a specific standard. LC is planning to establish a code list directly after this meeting so that its use can be ready immediately. The main constituent that does not support this proposal is Britain. They do not feel the need has been adequately demonstrated and also feel it is not fully in line with RDA. Canada points out that there is a typo in example 4.4.2. The "c" has been left off the code at the end of the 880 $7. It should be "grc", not "gr".
MAC Discussion:
Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (Columbia University) introduced the proposal and stated that this proposal would aid the ability to distinguish/disambiguate transliteration schemes in cases where there are numerous or multiple schemes available. It would also help conversions to and from BIBFRAME, while avoiding data loss. He noted that BCP47 is widely deployed in many modern standards, such as HTML and XML, and is the only permitted standard for tagging string data in RDF. He argued that tagging transliteration schemes would promote data reuse and interchange across cataloging communities.
Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (Columbia University) also stated a general preference for the BCP47 code instead of the less-specific BCP. Particularly as numerous BCP standards exist (i.e., preferable to cite the specific code or scheme used in order to disambiguate),
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) said the ISSN Centre has use cases that will benefit from this new capability to indicate transliteration schemes, especially with 95+ countries within the ISSN user community. Within an international context, this capability will be most useful.
Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (Columbia University) agreed with Regina Reynolds's (LC/ISSN) comments and added that the National Library of Medicine (NLM) has also contacted authors with specific interest regarding serial resources. The authors of the paper did reach out to the RSC Technical Working Group who responded that this paper could indeed align with RDA.
Hong Cui (LAC) said that Canada & LAC also saw the need and valuable use cases for this capability. She also pointed out other minor editorial typos within the paper: dollar-sign subfield delimiter and double-dagger were co-existed in some examples.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) noted a further error in one of the examples. The current ISO 639 language code for Modern Greek is "el" ; the ISO 639-3 code for Ancient Greek is "grc".
Sam Ziesler (BL) stated that since the authors of this paper had talked with the RDA Steering Committee (RSC), Britain's prior comments about a lack of RDA alignment were no longer valid. Britain's remaining concern was minor and centered around the decision to use BCP vs BCP47. They preferred the broader umbrella of BCP, rather than the specific BCP47 value.
Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (Columbia University) responded that the authors wanted to zero in on BCP47 because some constituencies the authors are working with needed that level of granularity, and because it is the only standard that can be used with RDF (and therefore BIBFRAME) et al. The authors thought it was important to be precise. There are other broader "structural" concerns that user communities will need to address carefully. The authors really appreciate the MAC guidance towards preferring the BCP47 language tag instead of the less-specific BCP.
Hong Cui (LAC) clarified that when applying BCP47 there are two language codes from the different sets of the ISO 639 standard (i.e., ISO 639-1 for two-letter codes; and ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 for three-letter codes).
Timothy Ryan Mendenhall (Columbia University) thanked Hong Cui (LAC) for pointing that out. He believed that BCP47 allows two or three-letter codes from either of these standards; he agreed that community guidance from specific cataloging constituencies would be particularly helpful.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the amendment to change the code to "bcp47".
PROPOSAL 2025-06: Defining a New Subfield for Context of Title Statement in Field 245 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-06.html
Source: The Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) of the Rare Book and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of ALA (American Library Association); co-sponsored by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging Advisory Committee on Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Belonging, and Accessibility (PCC EDIBA)
Summary: This proposal seeks to define an optional subfield $z for "Title statement context note" to field 245 (Title Statement) in the MARC Bibliographic Format to meet the reparative description need for immediate contextualization of racist, homophobic, ableist, and other biased, prejudicial, or hateful language, especially as found in transcribed titles of many special collections resources.
Related Documents: 2024-DP02; 2025-DP01
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Canada, CC:DA, Germany, Law, LC, MLA, OCLC, OLAC, and RBMS. There was mixed support from Britain who continue to have reservations regarding the effectiveness of this solution. No comment: ARLIS, Australia, NLM, PCC, RSC, Spain, and VRA. Britain, Canada, and AALL find the definition troublesome and would support a definition that is broader and clearer. There is concern that the word "harmful" is a value judgement and might lead to misuse. Germany had some wordsmithing suggestions for the placement of the $z, given the current definition of $c which states that "no further subfield coding of field 245 is possible" once a subfield $c has been recorded; and they would like to add a statement explaining that the use of the square brackets comes from ISBD principles. OCLC notes that ending punctuation is not consistent in the paper and should be agreed upon before publication. There was a general sense from those that commented that this solution is not ideal and that in the long term using the $7 is probably a better idea. However, they still support this proposal as a way to proceed while the implementation of the $7 happens.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) introduced the proposal and responded to pre-meeting comments by saying there are currently other 245 subfields that are encoded following subfield $c despite MARC 21 documentation instructing catalogers not to do this. That documentation needs to be revised/corrected. He also agreed about ISBD punctuation and that it needs to be consistently applied, when used. The authors concurred that this current solution is not ideal, but the subfield $7 option will take time to develop and implement widely. This, though, is an immediate use case and there is a need for recording this information now.
Hong Cui (LAC) gave a reminder regarding MARC 21 input conventions.
Sam Ziesler (BL) objected to the use of language within the MARC 21 standards that may easily be construed as a value judgement (i.e., "harmful language"). Britain believes such language and moral judgements should not be incorporated into standards documentation.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) said that she would like to see MAC move away from enshrining continuing references to ISBD punctuation within the MARC standards. ISBD represents one of numerous possible display conventions. Also, recent ISBD initiatives change many of the earlier ISBD punctuation and presentation guidelines considerably. So looking at these earlier ISBD conventions may not be advisable for MAC, and MAC has the right to make input conventions.
Peter Fletcher (SAC) referred to Britain's (and others) discomfort with the phrase "harmful language", and wondered if MAC could instead consider using "language advisory" or some other substitute.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) said that the authors were considering rewording the definition and possibly taking out the term "harmful" altogether.
Kate Peck (AALL) wanted more information regarding use of the phrase "harmful language" as well as some contextual, historical background. She said it will be important to provide guidance for catalogers who may be using this optional subfield infrequently, and only within some bibliographic descriptions.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) followed up on Peter Fletcher's (SAC) suggestion: perhaps MAC might consider "content advisory" or something similar.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) stated that several of these comments about the term "harmful" demonstrated MAC's interest in providing context for the language or terminology used rather than trying to mitigate the effects of that language. Therefore, he wondered whether the term "harmful" might not totally gel with the contextualizing intention of the subfield.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) asked if the phrase "inappropriate historical language" would move MAC closer to an agreeable solution.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded to Regina Reynolds's (LC/ISSN) comment: Yes, but these sorts of works continue to be published even today. This is not strictly a "historical" concern.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) agreed that this paper has focused on the immediate use case, but there are other bibliographic examples in many special collections or rare book resource descriptions, etc. that this solution would prove helpful for (e.g., cataloger interpolations within transcription fields, etc.).
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the amendment that the phrase "harmful language" be revised editorially to remove value judgements.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP05: Adding a Code for Remote Sensing Image to Fields 008/25 and 006/08 (Maps) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp05.html
Source: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus Library - Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials; MAGIRT Cataloging and Classification Committee
Summary: This paper continues the discussion of adding an additional code for "Remote sensing images" to fields 008/25 and 006/08 (Maps, Type of cartographic material) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format in order to provide increased granularity for useful faceting and statistical reporting in library OPACs.
Related Documents: 2025-DP02; 97-6; DP95
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Australia, Canada, Germany, MLA, OCLC, OLAC, RBMS, Spain, and VRA. PCC had no consensus. No comment: ARLIS, AALL, NLM, and LC. Britain is not against the change but thinks in general the authors should have considered a structured code instead of alphanumeric text, namely something in the 3XX field rather than in the fixed field, as MAC moves away from these codes in Modern MARC. CC:DA is also hesitant to support a new code since the combination of 008/25 and the "r" in the 007 in the existing format already represents one current solution. OCLC would like the authors to consider adding similar guidance that exists for atlas series and serials to this code as well. Namely, guidance for remote sensing images that are in series or are serials—which code should be used? LC and Canada suggested fast-tracking the discussion paper.
MAC Discussion:
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) introduced the discussion paper and responded to pre-meeting comments by saying that this paper had not really considered the map serials component, but will certainly consider it. It does sometimes happen that map resources are issued in series, less often as what we would consider serial resources. In general, maps and these sorts of images are more typically described as "singletons/monographs." She agreed that encouraging RDA/RSC to add a 33X term for these resources would also be helpful, but that is outside of MAC's scope/purview.
Pat Riva (Concordia/CCM) made some clarification regarding IFLA's LRM document and distinguishing between what LRM allows versus what LRM permits. LRM in general, advocates strongly for the sort of categorization this paper describes. RDA represents a content standard in alignment with LRM, but it is by no means the only content standard that can be used with LRM.
John Myers (CC:DA) said that OCLC's comments about map series and serial resources should indeed be acknowledged and considered. Perhaps MAC needs to specifically encourage the authors to pursue that potential going forward.
Krina Doekes Brandt (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) stated that the idea of map series and/or a map serial remote sensing map/image will be incredibly rare.
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) agreed and said that even though these sorts of flights and image capture initiatives may take place over time and even regularly, the agencies involved constantly tweak and improve the image capture equipment, settings, and flight paths, etc. That being the case, catalogers and GLAM institutions typically prefer to describe these monographically in order to accurately capture the specifics of these image characteristics. Some probably could be described as serials or series, but the resulting bibliographic descriptions may lack the necessary granularity & specificity.
Sally McCallum (LC) wondered if the authors also considered new values for the Maps 008/byte 29 (Form of Item) in the Fixed Fields.
Pat Riva (CCM) expressed hesitation that this Maps 008/29 value would work because of inconsistencies in how that byte has been defined in the MARC 21 formats (i.e., sometimes Form of Item is encoded in 008/23 and sometimes in 008/29). Also, the point raised in other discussions about MAC and Modern MARC moving away from "coded values" or fixed field solutions demonstrates why such a path may not be well-advised at this time.
There was a motion to fast-track this paper, with the proviso that the authors potentially adddress map series and/or map serials in the code definition. A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2025-DP05 should be processed as a Fast-Track proposal.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP06: Addition of Codes "q" (Podcast), "a" (Annual Report), and "z" (Zine) to Field 008/21 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp06.html
Source: ISSN Review Group
Summary: This paper proposes the addition of codes "q" for podcast, "a" for annual report, and "z" for zine to field 008/21 and 006/04 (Continuing Resources/Type of continuing resource) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format as a logical and necessary step in modernizing bibliographic standards. The purpose is to provide increased granularity for contemporary types of resources and an overlooked type; more useful faceting and statistical reporting in the ISSN Portal database and library information systems; plus provide more granularity in other cases where coding for resource type is desired.
Related Documents: 2021-03; 2020-DP10
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Australia, Britain, Canada, CC:DA, AALL, NLM, OCLC, OLAC, PCC, Spain, and VRA. RBMS was unsure about supporting this paper. No comment: ARLIS, Germany, and LC. Australia and Britain both wonder if we should be adding these kinds of codes when we are moving away from using this kind of fixed field data in Modern MARC and BIBFRAME. They’d prefer more text based solutions. Many problems were identified with a new code for zines. CC:DA thinks the use of "z" is problematic since that letter is commonly used in the format to mean "other". A number of respondees thought that "nature of content" or "literary form" might be better places for this to be identified since zines can be serials or monographs and users might well not be choosey about which one they find. Regardless, many thought that putting the word monograph in the definition for a serial code seemed wrong. For the annual report code, the main comments centered on how strict the coding of this field would be. Would the reports really have to be every year? Would a frequency code of annual be required to use this code? How would reports with other frequencies be coded? Perhaps the definition needs to be written in such a way to include reports that function like annual reports even if they aren't necessarily issued annually. For the podcast code. the main problem had to do with the definition. NLM, MLA, and OLAC all find the definition too narrow. Many podcasts are video not just audio. Do the authors really want to exclude videocasts? OLAC also dislikes the use of the phrase "digital native" which they don't believe is appropriate or accurate here. They recommend "born digital" instead. Like zines, some thought that since these could be monograph as well as serial in nature, perhaps a code in "nature of content" might work better. Sherman Clarke noted that VRA would support anything that would help make this often-overlooked material more discoverable.
MAC Discussion:
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) introduced the discussion paper and responded to pre-meeting comments. She recognized the Modern MARC initiative's desire to move away from fixed field coded values in favor of text strings. Nonetheless, the ISSN Centre represents more than 90 member countries. Many member libraries within many of these countries are dependent upon MARC coded values including 008/21 bytes to encode, display, and retrieve bibliographic resources. Getting the ISSN Network caught up and on board with Modern MARC will take time. She added that the ISSN Centre also recognized and appreciated some of the complaints and concerns voiced with the paper's current codes, code terms, and definitions. (As a NOTE: Monographic resources, whether zines or podcasts, etc. are "Out of scope' for the ISSN Centre).
John Myers (CC:DA) suggested that the Book 008/Nature of Contents bytes (008/24-27) might be a good place to record monographic zine or podcast, etc. content.
The paper will return as a proposal, refining the proposed code definitions to address the concerns expressed in the pre-meeting comments.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP07: Adding a Code for 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays to Field 007/04 (Videorecording) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp07.html
Source: University of Toronto; Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes adding an additional code for "4K Ultra HD Blu-ray" to field 007/04 (Videorecording/Videorecording format) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format in order to provide enough granularity for useful faceting and statistical reporting in library systems. It also presents possible changes that would need to be made to the field in support of this addition.
Related Documents: 2008-09; 2002-DP01; 2001-08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support from all MAC members, except for from ARLIS, AALL, and LC, who provided no comments. Britain reminds us again that MAC should be moving away from this kind of coded, fixed field data, but they still support this paper. There was one suggestion to add the date that Blu-ray came into existence to the MARC format, but that seems outside this paper. General agreement that this paper should be considered for fast-track.
MAC Discussion:
Kyla Jemison (University of Toronto) introduced the discussion paper.
John Myers (CC:DA) moved to fast-track the paper.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) was not sure that the addition of a year when Blu-Rays came into existence would be strictly out-of-scope for MAC in this case. The transition from DVD to Blu-Ray formatting will be an important date/year to keep in mind for catalogers and those applying this code. And because the MARC documentation will need to be updated to specifically distinguish Blu-Ray recordings, including the year(s) when this transition took place would seem helpful.
A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2025-DP07 should be processed as a Fast-Track proposal, with the suggestion to add the release date of the standard Blu-ray disc to the revised definition of "s" (Blu-ray disc).
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP08: Adding Type of Cutting to the Definition of Field 344 Subfield $d in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp08.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper discusses the possibility of redefining Field 344 (Sound Characteristics) subfield $d (Groove characteristic) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to include the audio carrier attribute Type of Cutting, which is currently only recordable in Field 007/11 (Sound Recording).
Related Documents: 2011-08; 2021-07; 2021-14
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Canada, CC:DA, Germany, MLA, OCLC, OLAC, RBMS, and Spain. No comment: ARLIS, Australia, AALL, LC, NLM, and PCC. The main obstacle to this paper is whether it really should be its own subfield rather than added to the current one. Both Britain and RBMS would like to see the additional subfield explored in more depth. Canada thinks that an RDA vocabulary would be helpful for these terms.
MAC Discussion:
Ethan D'Ver (MLA) introduced the discussion paper and explained that MLA was motivated to look at 007 byte coded values that may need to be transferred/accommodated in the MARC 21 variable fields due to the Modern MARC initiative (i.e., limiting 007 fields to the first two bytes, 007/00 & 007/01). He also responded to pre-meeting comments and mentioned that MLA found 4 or 5 OCLC bibliographic occurrences with "lateral cutting" in field 344 subfield $d (Groove characteristic).
John Myers (CC:DA) said that MLA's argument and use case demonstrated that a need has been established. There is, of course, a round-tripping concern of this data being transferred from the 007 fixed field elements to variable fields without losing data.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) and otehrs commented that it sounded as though some libraries are currently encoding this descriptive data into the existing MARC 21 subfield $d (Groove characteristic).
A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2025-DP08 should be processed as a Fast-Track proposal, as submitted.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP09: Redefining Subfield $g to Accommodate Time as well as Date in Field 884 of the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp09.html
Source: Library of Congress, Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division (PTCP)
Summary: This paper discusses expanding the scope of subfield $g (Conversion date) in field 884 (Description Conversion Information) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats to include Time information in addition to Date information.
Related Documents: [None]
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Britain, Canada, CC:DA, Germany, LC, MLA, OCLC, and RBMS. No comment: ARLIS, Australia, AALL, NLM, PCC, Spain and VRA. There were a few suggested editorial changes. Germany and OCLC think the phrase "strongly encouraged" is not appropriate in the MARC format. Perhaps the word "preferred" could be used? Germany also wonders if the statement "Time cannot be recorded without a date" is needed here since it is in the ISO standard. They also request that time zone be added so it's more clear where in the world it is at that time. OCLC suggests explicitly recommending the use of the extended ISO 8601 because the simple one is outdated and can cause problems. There was support for fast-tracking this discussion paper from Britain, Canada, LC, MLA, and RBMS so if we can come to an agreement about some wording issues this might be possible.
MAC Discussion:
Paul Frank (Library of Congress) introduced the discussion paper and responded to pre-meeting comments by saying he was appreciative of the suggested updates, revisions, and editorial corrections. These were helpful and have now all been incorporated into the paper.
A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2025-DP09 should be processed as a Fast-Track proposal, incorporating the editorial suggestions in the pre-meeting comments.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP10: Adding Subfield $6 to Fields 060 and 070 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp10.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $6 (Linkage) in field 060 (National Library of Medicine Call Number) and field 070 (National Agricultural Library Call Number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: [None]
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support from all MAC members, except for ARLIS, AALL, LC, PCC, and Spain, who provided no comments. Canada pointed out two typos in the examples.There were no other comments, with many requesting that the paper be fast-tracked.
MAC Discussion:
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper.
A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2025-DP10 should be processed as a Fast-Track proposal, with corrections to the example typos.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP11: Defining New Indicators for Unpublished Series and Collection Series in Field 830 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp11.html
Source: British Library
Summary: This paper examines the case for adding new indicators to the 830 (Series Added Entry-Uniform Title) field in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to support the recording of unpublished and collection series.
Related Documents: 2010-02
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
While there was some support for this change from Australia, AALL, NLM, RBMS, and Spain, there was just as much confusion for a number of members including Canada, CC:DA, Germany, LC, MLA, and OLAC. No comment from ARLIS. Nearly everyone had trouble understanding the difference between "unpublished series" and "collection series". It wasn’t clear in the examples why one was an indicator 2 and the other 3. They looked like similar strings. There was also much confusion about the new definitions. Canada didn’t understand the use case and felt the linking fields are a better fit for this information. Or, just use the $5 in the 830. If moving ahead with this, many felt the 800/810/811 would need to be kept in line with the 830. The major problem most had was the fact that this was local information that was being shoe-horned into shared bibliographic records. Many responders indicated that they used local 9XX fields for this information and LC indicated that they would continue to use the 710 $5 for this information. OCLC pointed out that this would be the first time that a MARC field would define the contents by the fact that it was published versus unpublished. They are not convinced that this is a direction we should be going.
MAC Discussion:
Sam Ziesler (BL) introduced the discussion paper and responded to pre-meeting comments, saying that the feedback was particularly helpful. He said the BL would clarify the field definitions as requested, and also make other recommended changes. He commented that, based on feedback, it sounds as though many/most libraries currently record this information locally. And the BL agrees that if the paper did move forward it would include the entire 8XX block of fields.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested, to help the BL with use cases for other 8XX fields, Claude Monet's "series" of Haystack paintings as a good example of an author-title entry.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) agreed that MAC would need to include the full 8XX block of fields if this moves forward. He has been struggling to understand the BL use case overall. As a PCC CONSER and NACO cataloger, Everett thought of Series Authority Records (SARs) and Serial Bibliographic descriptions for many/most of these 4XX/8XX entries and entities. The BL intent for these cataloger-derived series and collection names was not clear, nor whether there are authority descriptions supporting these series/collection names.
Sam Ziesler (BL) confirmed that there is a local authority file for these entities maintained by SAMI-MARC and that is what they want to link with.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) said that subfield $2 is currently defined and available for the 8XX block of fields, so that would seem to serve the SAMI-MARC use case. His concern with not identifying the local vocabulary referenced via subfield $2 adheres to the core identification and disambiguation principles that authority vocabularies are developed to ensure. That is, if local series authorities are recorded and shared within 8XX fields without designating the local vocabulary they belong to (i.e., subfield $2), then it becomes necessary for other cataloging agencies to reconcile those series text strings within other controlled vocabularies.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) questioned if there was a reason why BL could not use the existing subfield $5 mechanism to identify the library they pertain to.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) agreed with Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair). Use of subfield $5 in the 8XX block is an accepted, widely-used GLAM institution practice currently.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) stated that OCLC's bibliographic format documentation provides guidance on whether to include copy or institution-specific data in $5 in the master record by looking at things such as applicability of data to universal description of the resource, or usefulness of the information, or likelihood that the record will be used in copy cataloging. So there already is guidance to catalogers to use their judgment for whether or not to include local data in the master record.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) expressed concern that if libraries all began entering these "unpublished collections" in 7XX or 8XX fields of shared bibliographic descriptions, there could be literally hundreds of these sorts of "local collection" access points, archival collections, etc. She also questioned the shared value to this sort of local analysis because it has extremely limited appeal or reach.
Sam Ziesler (BL) responded positively to all of these points and feedback, and agreed that the BL would need to address these concerns if they chose to proceed.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) said that Columbia University uses subfield $5, as does the Library of Congress and many other libraries. There is more value from that perspective than there is as the paper is currently written.
Pat Riva (Concordia/CCM) said that libraries already have a mechanism for stripping out unwanted subfield $5 data/information upon import to local discovery systems. Creating another field indicator value mechanism for doing so will be burdensome for developers and will require additional programming. The series and collections terminology presented in this paper is confusing and makes CCM wonder about the distinctions between some local library collections and series versus archival collections, and the structured formats and hierarchies (and archival rules/standards) archivists follow.
John Myers (CC:DA) stated that not all series names must be entered or included within authority vocabularies (LC/NAF, etc.); they simply need to conform with guidelines of the applicable content standard. Not every library is a NACO contributor, or a PCC member.
Kate Peck (AALL) said that the digital and online community often put together resources that were not originally published/issued together as a series or collection but have now been issued together after the fact. These types of resources could serve as an exemplar of these types of series and collections.
A straw poll vote of MAC members and the audience was held asking whether they would like this paper to return as a proposal, with the majority voting NO.
A second straw poll vote was held asking MAC members and the audience whether they believe subfield $5 in the current MARC field 830 works sufficiently to cover the British Library use case presented in the paper? The majority voted YES.
The paper will not return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP12: Additions and Revisions to Accessibility Fields 341 and 532 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp12.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes additional indicators and subfields for fields 341 (Accessibility Content) and 532 (Accessibility Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2024-02; 2023-DP05; 2018-03; 2017-11; 2017-DP03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Australia, Britain, CC:DA, Germany, Law, NLM, OLAC, and RBMS. No comment: ARLIS and PCC. The changes to the 341 were generally understood and approved of. The main problems identified were how multiple 341 fields would be handled in display and how the absence of accessibility content would be handled in a display. The main problem with the 532 was that it wasn’t clear why all the granularity was needed. More explanation of why this information couldn’t all be in one string is needed. All the subfielding seems to be making the field more complex than it needs to be.
MAC Discussion:
Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) introduced the discussion paper and responded to pre-meeting comments. Regarding the 341 field, specifically about how the "absence" of accessibility content might be encoded or displayed, CCM can include more explicit examples when the paper returns as a proposal.. Regarding the 532 field, these changes would bring practice into alignment with the W3C E-Pub Accessibility 1.1 standards practice. This granular accessibility information could make the ONIX to MARC crosswalks easier and help those institutions who accept ONIX feeds.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) highlighted one of MLA's pre-meeting comments regarding modeling the indicator value and subfield data in field 341 (Accessibility Content) and would like this further explored in field 532 (Accessibility Note) in the future proposal.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP13: Adding an Indicator for a Preferred Heading in 4XX Fields in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp13.html
Source: Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Summary: This paper proposes adding an indicator to See From tracing fields (400, 410, 411, 430, and 451) in the MARC21 Authority Format to indicate the preferred heading in an alternate graphic representation when multiple headings use the same alternate script.
Related Documents: 2024-DP11, 2022-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Australia, CC:DA, Germany, AALL, LC, MLA, OCLC, PCC, and RBMS. No comment: ARLIS and OLAC. Most members think this should come back as a proposal with a number of changes. First, and easiest fix, is that the name will be "Preferred variant heading". This was an oversight by the authors, who have indicated that that was the name they meant to use throughout the paper. They got caught up in the weeds and accidentally left the word "variant’"out of the title. Then there are a number of discussion points that need addressing.
Lastly, Adam Schiff (University of Washington) submitted comments that the authors should take into account. One that he mentioned, that is also mentioned earlier, is how to handle instances where you woud like to have a preferred variant for different languages, or different scripts in the same language. Adam is on a PCC group that has been looking at parallel variants in authority records and one of the group's recommendations that was approved will allow a preferred variant for different scripts in the same language.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) introduced the proposal and indicated that the pre-meeting repsonses were very helpful and appreciated. The authors will take them under advisement and also contact the PCC SCS Task Group on Evaluation Guidelines for Non-Latin Script References in Name Authority Records, mentioned and referenced by Adam Schiff (University of Washington).
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said that the report and all documentation is available on the PCC Wiki and will also be disseminated via the PCC website soon. The PCC is now forming a follow-up Task Force to test the various options presented in the Task Force Final Report. Choosing the "preferred 4XX" follows RDA instructions on preferring the most commonly-used form within a particular language or script.
Liz Plantz (NLM) questioned whether the paper displays a bias toward people working within a PCC NACO environment.
Peter Fletcher (SAC) reiterated Adam Schiff's (University of Washington) point about the importance of identifying the most commonly-used form of name within particular scripts or language strings.
Hong Cui (LAC) encouraged the authors to follow up with clarification from the PCC Task Force report in regard to using multiple preferred forms of name for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean names specifically.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP14: Modernization of Field 041 and Field 008/35-37 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp14.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This paper presents two options for revising field 041 (Language Code) and 008/35-37 (Language) that remove the requirement to use fill characters in 008/35-37 when the first 041 field uses non-MARC language codes.
Related Documents: [None]
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Canada, CC:DA, OCLC, OLAC, PCC, RBMS. No comment: ARLIS and AALL. Australia is very much against the solution in this paper. They currently rely on the fill characters to point their systems to the appropriate codes in the 041. This change would undo much of the work that they have undertaken in the past few years to daylight language materials of aboriginal peoples in Australia. Using the general Australian language code would be like lumping all the European languages into one code. They admit that there is some legacy data that still includes the "aus" codes for all their individual languages but they want to see us moving away from that model and being more precise. Britain feels there isn’t enough information about the problem to make an informed decision. There were many typos identified throughout the paper noted by MAC members; these would need tidying up in a future proposal. Spain found some of the questions easier than others to address and wondered if some of the issues could be put into a separate proposal for ease of future discussions. The MAC Chair agreed with Spain: there was too much here to easily work with. Germany wondered why we can’t just move to using the more precise ISO 639 language codes in the 008? Regarding Option 1 or 2: nearly everyone preferred Option 2. Regarding Question 5-6. Most comments indicated that specialists in the field should weigh in and that we/MAC should then correct or revise as directed by those with more expertise. Regarding sign language: there was general agreement from Canada, CC:DA, MLA, NLM, OLAC, PCC, and RBMS that this is a good change. Regarding Question 8: general agreement that getting rid of the "English alphabetical order" rule would be great. RSC commented that it would be very helpful if, during the reworking of these fields, there could be a way to make it more clear the difference between multiple language content within a single expression as opposed to multiple language expressions of the same work in a single manifestation. This would help immensely in RDA mapping.
MAC Discussion:
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper. In response to pre-meeting comments, she clarified that OCLC had no intention to stop or deprecate the use of fill characters in 008/bytes 35-37; OCLC mainly wants the current MARC documentation to describe the current practice(s) more clearly. OCLC has noticed that many bibliographic descriptions currently have codes from the MARC 21 Code List for Languages in the 008 field, and then use the more-granular ISO-639 language codes in the 041 fields. Clearer guidelines will allow libraries that continue to use MARC Language codes in the 008 to do so, whether or not they might also use ISO 639 language codes in the 041 field. Any misrepresentative examples used in the Discussion Paper will be removed (esp., examples for Australian language materials).
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) also stated that many of OCLC's bibliographic match and machine-enhancement programs appear to run more accurately when the 008/35-37 contains a language code rather than fill characters, but OCLC recognizes that not all bibliographic descriptions will contain the 008 Fixed Field language codes.
Julia Hickie (National Library of Australia (NLA)) explained that the 041 field has been a focus for reparative cataloging and description work within bibliographic descriptions for Australian catalogers, especially for NLA's efforts pertaining to the many language codes of aboriginal peoples of Australia. NLA wants MAC to be very careful with any changes or revisions for language coding practices and policies, because NLA does not want to "lose" this valuable work.
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) said maybe OCLC could/should separate this discussion paper, with some parts being considered as Fast-Track proposals (e.g., sign language topic & English language order topic). There are other, more complicated bits of "the multiple languages topic/separate titles topic" OCLC has identified that may need to come back as another discussion paper. OCLC is interested in working with specialist cataloging communities on this, perhaps including OLAC. She said that OCLC’s proposal stemming from this DP will only use Option Two from the 2025-DP14 and will address describing and clarifying best practice(s) or preferred MARC 21 uses of language codes in the 008/35-37 and 041 field.
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) said she was particularly appreciative of the CCM comments. The suggestion(s) regarding using the term "comparable" in the MARC documentation might be helpful.
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) concluded that one thing OCLC has identified as particularly confusing in reference to Question 2 in the DP are those bibliographic resources that contain minimal or limited language content (e.g., music or performance resources, some scores, etc.). How should these bibliographic descriptions be coded, especially in the Fixed Fields 008/35-37? Field 008/35-37 currently says, "When only one language is associated with an item, the code for that language is recorded." This instruction lacks clarity and does not account for the possibility of a resource having only incidental language content where 008/35-37 would be coded "zxx", but an 041 field would be used,
Pat Riva (CCM) responded that instead of adding a number of details and exceptions to that sentence to address the issue, as OCLC did in the DP, that it may be sufficient to only slightly modify the wording of that sentence by indicating that the instruction applies when only one language is associated with an item that is "primarily language material".
The 008/35-37 and 041 field focal point of this DP will return as a proposal. There may be some widely agreed upon aspects that can be potentially treated as Fast-Track proposals when they return. OCLC also suspects there may be one or more related discussion papers coming back on this language codes topic.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 01/15/2026 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |