The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Bill Leonard 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
Benjamin Abrahamse PCC MIT Libraries Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Rachel Decker AALL Chapman University Andrew Dunnett LAC Library and Archives Canada Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota John A. Maier ARLIS/NA Pratt Institute Libraries Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa John Myers CC:DA Union College Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress James Soe Nyun MLA University of California, San Diego Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
John Attig Penn State, retired Ian Bigelow University of Alberta Diane Boehr National Library of Medicine Chew Chiat Naun Harvard University Hanley Cocks University of California, San Diego Kalan Knudson Davis University of Minnesota Gordon Dunsire RDA Steering Committee Michael van Dyk Library and Archives Canada Kevin Ford Library of Congress Steven Holloway James Madison University Kate James Library of Congress Ed Jones National University Nancy Lorimer Stanford University Kelley McGrath University of Oregon Hayley Moreno OCLC Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Marcel Plourde Université Laval, Canada Adam Schiff University of Washington Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Janis Young Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Introductions, etc.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) opened the meeting by asking Committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves. A Committee roster was passed around the table and all were asked to "check in" and to annotate their entries with any corrections.
The minutes of the meeting at ALA Annual in New Orleans, LA, June 23-24, 2018, were approved, without correction.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) reported on the approval by the MARC Steering Group and MAC Chair of Fast-Track Proposal 2018-FT03, from Library and Archives Canada: Validating subfield $2 (Number source) in the MARC Authority 055 field (Library and Archives Canada Call Number).
PROPOSAL 2019-01: Designating Open Access and License Information for Remote Online Resources in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-01.html
Source: OCLC and the German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes improved ways of indicating open and restricted access, as well as license information, for remote online resources through coordinated changes to the MARC 21 fields 506 (Restrictions on Access Note), 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note), and 856 (Electronic Location and Access).
Related Documents: 2002-10; 2006-03;2018-04; 2018-DP06; 2018-DP10; 2018-DP11
MAC Discussion: The proposal was introduced by Jay Weitz (OCLC).
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) began the discussion by reporting that he had met with Mark Matienzo (Stanford University) before the MAC meeting, to discuss the MARC listserv comments by the RightsStatements.org Technical Working Group. The group is supportive of this paper but encouraged acknowledging additional detail regarding licensing information. There was agreement on the need for Best Practice Recommendations for implementing the 506, 540, and 856 field changes.
Thurstan Young (BL) encouraged MAC to retain a reference to the Budapest Open Access Initiative within the definition of 856 subfield $7 indicator position/0 value 1. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) also wanted to retain the reference, but believed it should be more illustrative than prescriptive. Regina Reynolds (LC) urged MAC to include Open Access definitions and examples to prevent catalogers from dithering. However, John Myers (CC:DA) argued that the BOAI definition of open access was too prescriptive and that it should not become enshrined in MARC documentation. The BOAI definition notes that authors should be acknowledged and cited for their work and he felt that it would be too constraining on MARC users to do this. Sally McCallum (LC) agreed and commented that the proposed definition should be limited to its first sentence: i.e. "The remote electronic resource is freely and openly accessible online to everyone, without restriction, login, or payment." The second sentence, including its reference to the BOAI definition, should be dropped.
There was an extended discussion regarding the repeatability of subfields $u and $7 in field 856. Thurstan Young (BL) argued that making $7 repeatable to align with $u would run the risk of creating incorrect or ambiguous subfield pairings if the 856 subfield sort order at input were changed in the course of its reuse by a third party. Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) pointed out that the definition of $u includes the following : “Field 856 is repeated if more than one URL needs to be recorded.” Therefore, there is no option to code multiple $u and $7 subfields in the same iteration of an 856 where $u contains a URL. Sally McCallum (LC) commented that the proposed definition for $7 should be changed to reflect the fact that it must apply to all $u subfields in the same field. As a result of this, $7 should be made non-repeatable in field 856.
Jodi Williamschen (LC) pointed out that, counter to one of the requested changes via email regarding using a fill character rather than the proposed value "x" in 856 subfield $7, MARC cannot use the fill character within variable field strings because of potential encoding confusion. This is because there are two keyboard combinations that yield the same character presentation.
MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously, with several editorial revisions, including some agreed to on the basis of MARC listserv discussions before the MAC meeting. Amendments agreed to are listed as follows:
PROPOSAL 2019-02: Defining Source for Names and Titles in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-02.html
Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)
Summary: This paper proposes defining $2 for source vocabulary in the 100, 110, 111, and 130 Main Entry fields, the 240 Uniform Title field, the 700, 710, 711, 730, and 758 Added Entry fields, and the 800, 810, 811, and 830 Series Added Entry fields in the Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2018-DP07
MAC Discussion: Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) introduced the proposal and began by addressing some of the concerns expressed in the summary of pre-meeting comments: The NLM and UK community expressed a concern that this proposal may lead to a situation in which multiple sources of names are used within bibliographic records. Chew Chiat Naun responsed with the comment that this is an existing problem; the inclusion of subfield $2 in 1XX fields would not make the problem worse. Indeed, in some ways it may help with the necessary maintenance of authorities downstream. He added that 1XX subfield $2 would help identify and distinguish source of name provenance from what is currently simply an uncontrolled, undifferentiated mass of access points.
Regarding the assignment of a subfield $2 source for name-title data split between two MARC tags (i.e., 1XX/240 pairs), concern was expressed from several constituencies. Thurstan Young (BL) asked which of the two fields the subfield $2 would correspond with, and how would the linked nature of source information for these two fields be clearly conveyed for catalogers, systems, etc. Chiew Chiat Naun (Harvard) responded that in such situations, subfield $2 must correspond with all controllable subfields and content within the two tags; specifics of how subfield $2 is applied to multiple linked MARC tags will be determined by the best practices document issued by the PCC Task Group on Linked Data Best Practices.
John Attig (Penn State, retired) queried what the application of $2 would be in cases where a single MARC tag contained a heading composed of different elements. Chiew Chiat Naun (Harvard) responded that, as in the case of 1XX/240 tag combinations, the $2 will have to apply to all the separate parts making up the tag. He added that this was another area which could be handled by best practices.
Several contributors noted the availability of numerous controlled vocabularies and name sources in the current cataloging environment; confusion and uncertainty could arise from failing to source these vocabularies properly.
However, Stephen Hearn (SAC) observed that if adding subfield $2 helps to delineate an already crowded field of uncontrolled and undifferentiated access points, then it would represent a strong benefit for MARC and its user communities.
Thurstan Young (BL) suggested that using a look up table as a means of parsing URIs in $0 or $1 would offer a means of determining a heading's source without the need for defining $2. Chiew Chiat Naun (Harvard) responded that look up tables required maintenance which could be resource intensive and beyond the means of smaller organizations.
MAC Action: Proposal approved with the amendment to revise the subfield $2 definition for fields 800, 810 and 811 as follows: remove the reference to name headings; only name-title access points apply for these 8XX fields.
PROPOSAL 2019-03: Defining Subfields $0 and $1 to Capture URIs in Field 024 of the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-03.html
Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC
Summary: This is a proposal to capture machine actionable and parseable URIs in the 024 field of the MARC 21 Authority Format by adding:
The proposed changes facilitate conversion from MARC to RDF by differentiating MARC subfields for standard numbers or codes that are not machine actionable URIs, already accommodated in 024 $a, from machine dereferenceable HTTP URIs.
Related Documents: 2018-DP08, 2017-08, 2017-DP01
MAC Discussion: The proposal was introduced by Nancy Lorimer (Stanford University).
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted that the German Library community is already using field 024 in the German Integrated Authority File, both for identifiers (e.g., ORCID and ISNI) and URIs. Therefore, if the proposal is approved, German libraries will need to change several conversion routines, as well as a few instances of data.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that MAC may need to consider revising the subfield definition for $0 in the Control Subfields -- Appendix A portion of the MARC documentation. This is because the proposed application of $0 in field 024 is at variance with its use in the rest of the Authority format.
MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously, with the amendment to revise the Appendix A -- Control Subfields definition of $0 in the Authority format to reflect the changes approved for field 024 in this paper.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2019-DP01: Coding Externally Hosted Online Publications in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-dp01.html
Source: British Library
Summary: This discussion paper recommends the addition of a code to Holdings Format 008/06 (Receipt or acquisition status) which represents online publications made accessible via a third party platform.
Related Documents: 2015-05
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the discussion paper and responded to comments raised prior to the meeting that 008/07 (Method of Acquisition) may be a more appropriate way of flagging externally hosted online content than 008/06 (Receipt or Acquisition Status). He explained that, whereas 008/07 denotes the transactional arrangement under which access to a resource is provided, it is the 008/06 which reflects how that access actually manifests itself. Existing codes in the 008/06 distinguish between material which is on order and that which is received. However, externally hosted online content is never received: an institution is only given the means to use the content via a third party platform rather than direct ownership of it. This is a type of access which 008/06 coding does not currently allow for and which the discussion paper aims to address.
John Myers (CC:DA) cautioned that proceeding with making a change to the 008/06 byte may be problematic, because of how libraries and data encoding agencies have used it when cataloging e-resources in the past. He acknowledged that there was a case for extending the 008/06, but recommended that any follow up proposal consider the legacy issues involved. Thurstan Young (BL) agreed to look at legacy issues and also the other matter which John Myers raised: that of whether one code or more was necessary to address the needs of flagging externally hosted online content. It could be that a number of codes are desirable as a means of denoting such content when access is pending, currently provided, and no longer provided.
Thurstan Young (BL) added that the follow-up proposal would also address the DNB’s request that bibliographic examples be provided in order to provide context for the holdings examples already included in the discussion paper. Lastly, he noted that the definition of 008/06 would require amendment if new coding were introduced to cover externally hosted online content. At present the 008/06 is limited to covering multipart and serial resources. However, externally hosted online content could also include monograph material.
The discussion paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2019-DP02: Subfield Coding in Field 041 for Intertitles and Transcripts in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-dp02.html
Source: OLAC Catalogers Network
Summary: This paper proposes adding two new subfields in field 041 (Language Code) for the language of film intertitles and the language of accompanying transcripts for audiovisual materials.
Related Documents: 2018-02
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) introduced the discussion paper and responded to comments raised before the meeting by saying that OLAC were only interested in addressing the needs of silent film intertitles and not the textual language content present in other types of film; these could be addressed by another paper. She added that a follow-up proposal would include examples of audio resources with transcripts. The proposal would also address the concerns raised by MLA regarding how 041 subfield $e would be affected by the scope of new subfield $t; at present the latter makes no reference to accompanying librettos. Lastly, the reference to printed text in the context of $t will be reconsidered; this currently makes no provision for texts belonging to online resources.
The discussion paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2019-DP03: Defining a Field for a Subject Added Entry of Unknown Entity Type in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-dp03.html
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper explores options on how a subject added entry can be accommodated in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format when the type of entity is unknown. The existing field 653 (Index Term – Uncontrolled) is analyzed, and a new field with one of the field numbers "620", "652" or "670" is discussed.
Related Documents: 2007-DP01/sec 2.11; 2007-06/8
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the paper and prefaced the discussion by noting that, in addition to those subfields mentioned in the paper, DNB would also like to define subfields $e, $g, $3, $4, $6, and $8 as a means of coding subject added entries of unknown entity type in the MARC Bibliographic format if a new field is defined for this purpose. Discussion then moved on to consider whether the added entries described by the paper were "uncontrolled" (and therefore analogous to what might be found in field 653) or better described as their type of entity being"unspecified". Benjamin Abrahamse (PCC) and John Myers (CC:DA) both favored the latter term. Thurstan Young (BL) responded by noting that the DNB's requirement centered upon the coding of thesaural terms, this meant that they must be controlled rather than uncontrolled. Therefore field 653 would be inappropriate as a means of coding the data. Janis Young (LC) agreed and added that, whichever new field is defined to carry the Bavarian Library Network’s Gnomon Thesaurus data, this should ideally occur outside the existing 600-655 MARC tag sequence so as not to break up existing subject displays. There was broad agreement with developing a new field. Kate James (LC) suggested that it might also be necessary to define a 1XX and 7XX field for unknown entity types which aligns with an equivalent 6XX tag; consideration should also be given to defining equivalent fields in the Authority format. MAC agreed that a new field for coding subject added entries of unknown entity type should be defined in one of the 66X / 67X / 68X tag blocks; though Matthew Wise (Chair) noted that field 687 should be avoided because of any association which might be inferred with the 787 field (Other Relationship Entry), which is an "uncontrolled" field, unlike the one which is required for the Gnomon Thesaurus.
The discussion paper will return as a proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 03/29/2019 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |