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
Ben Abrahamse (sub., days 2&3) PCC MIT Libraries Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Rachel Decker AALL Chapman University Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington John A. Maier ARLIS/NA Pratt Institute Libraries Lucas Mak PCC Michigan State University Libraries Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa María Jesús Morillo Calero BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España John F. Myers CC:DA Union College Karen A. Peters MLA Library of Congress Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Adam L. Schiff SAC University of Washington Libraries Brittney Washington RBMS University of Texas at Austin Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Laura Akerman Emory University Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Allison Bailund San Diego State University Bryan Baldus OCLC Martin Baumgartner Bavarian State Library, Munich Sita Bhagwandin Koninklijke Bibliotheek Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library, Ontario Anna Cardenas Western University of Health Sciences Duncan Chalmers ProQuest 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 Ann Fath Getty Research Institute Kevin Ford Library of Congress Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Paul Frank Library of Congress Britannia Gammond Northern Lights College 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 Caroline Kent British Library Alex Kyrios OCLC Gerlind Ladisch Southwestern Regional Library Network, Konstanz Jesse Lambertson University of Chicago Jon Lévy JBI Library Xiaoli Ma University of Florida Mathias Manecke German National Library, Leipzig Heidi Margold Illinois Heartland Library System Cheryl Manuel Lee County Library System, Florida Kelley McGrath University of Oregon Tracy Meehleib Library of Congress Casey Mullin Western Washington University Laurel Narizny California Institute of Technology Calli Neumann Getty Research Institute Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Iris O'Brien British Library Daniel Paradis Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ) Felicia Piscitelli Texas A&M University George Prager New York University Kevin Randall Northwestern University Pat Riva Concordia University Erin Rose Illinois Heartland Library System Karen Ross Library of Congress Elizabeth Schlueter OCLC Cheri Schuler-Faust Illinois Heartland Library System Tina Shrader National Library of Medicine James Soe Nyun University of California, San Diego Eryn Stark Library of Congress Peter Stephen Library and Archives Canada Jessie Tam Maryland Courts 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 [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. 19 voting members were present.
Approval of minutes from MAC June/July 2021 meetings
The minutes of the MAC Annual meeting, held online on June 30 - July 2, 2020, were approved without correction.
Business Meeting/Library of Congress report/ Other
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) reported on the approval by the MARC Steering Group and MAC Chair of three Fast-Track Proposals since the 2020 MAC Annual online meeting: 1) 2020-FT01, from the PCC URIs in MARC Pilot Project: Making Field 043 (Geographic Area Code) Repeatable in the MARC 21 Formats; 2) 2020-FT02, from the PCC URIs in MARC Pilot Project: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Field 375 (Gender) of the MARC 21 Authority Format; 3) 2020-FT03, from the Music Library Association: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Field 384 (Key) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that the Library of Congress will soon make a file of bibliographic records converted from BIBFRAME to MARC available for libraries to study and experiment within their ILS and Discovery systems. Library of Congress catalogers continue dual entry of bibliographic descriptions in both BIBFRAME and MARC, but the ultimate goal at LC is to cease dual entry in favor of entering resource descriptions in BIBFRAME only, and convert them to MARC for distribution, in addition to offering distribution in BIBFRAME.
Regardless of any decision ALA may make regarding the 2021 Annual Conference, the MARC Advisory Committee 2021 Annual meeting will take place virtually.
PROPOSAL 2021-01: Enhanced Edition Information for Dewey Decimal Numbers in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: //www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-01.html
Source: Dewey Editorial Team, OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes guidance in various fields for the editions of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) scheme in MARC 21 Authority, Bibliographic, Classification, and Community Information formats. These changes will bring MARC up to date for the current Dewey publishing environment, and allow catalogers to more meaningfully describe the classification of a work given the continuously updated nature of 21st-century Dewey.
Related Documents: 2020-DP08; 2011-12; 2011-11; 2008-01; 2007-DP06; 97-5
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, MLA, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal, though Britain would prefer the approach taken in the original discussion paper, which distinguished between print and electronic editions by using subfields $e and $2, respectively. Britain also noted that, if the definition and scope of fields 082 and 083 subfield $2 are changed, the definition and scope of first indicator value "7" will also need to be amended accordingly. And Canada added that the definition of first indicator value "1" in field 852 will also need to be updated along the same lines.
Britain requested that, if a language code is recorded in subfield $2, then the amended definition of $2 should note the source of the code. And they also identified an incorrect example in section 3.3.2, Example 3, in which, according to the proposed definition of 082 subfield $2, the print-on-demand edition should not include the number "16."
NLM reminded us that there is some misinformation about NLM Classification within the Introduction to the Classification format, under "Standards and Other Documents Related To This Format". The phrase about the Superintendent of Documents should be deleted.
MAC Discussion:
Alex Kyrios (OCLC) introduced the proposal and acknowledged the problem with the example in section 3.3.2.
Hong Cui (LAC) expressed concern regarding user error, and the need to make efforts to prevent them. She also reminded MAC of the need to make any necessary parallel changes in the scope note for the 852 (Location) field of the MARC Bibliographic and Holdings formats.
Thurstan Young (BL) reiterated the need to modify 082 and 083 first indicator 7 in line with the change to $2. Likewise, there was a need to specify the preferred source of any language code used in $2.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with noted amendments by Thurstan Young (BL) and Hong Cui (LAC).
PROPOSAL 2021-02: Chronology-Only Data in Holdings Fields 853-855 and 863-865
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-02.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: For chronology-only publication patterns, the current MARC Holdings standard requires that first-level caption and chronology data be stored in the first-level enumeration fields, requiring the presence of subfield $a in fields 853, 854, 855, 863, 864, and/or 865. This paper recommends that the requirement be changed to require the presence of either subfield $a or subfield $i in Holdings fields 853, 854, 855, 863, 864, and/or 865), with the chronology subfields ($i-$m) preferred whenever possible.
Related Documents: 82-20; 87-7; 89-8/3; 89-8/4; 89-8/5; 89-8/6; 89-8/7; 89-10; 92-8; 92-22; 2000-1; 2000-01R; 2006-05; 2006-08; 2007-06; 2001-DP08; 2001-DP09; 2001-DP10; 2001-DP11; 2020-DP09
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal, with Australia noting that it allowed libraries to have the option of adopting this new approach or retaining their current practice for consistency. However, Britain voiced concern about having varying holdings practices from multiple sources in a shared environment, such as a union catalog. Evertt Allgood (NYU) suggested some clearer examples for inclusion in sections 1.2.1, 1.3.1, and 4. And PCC noted that displays would need to be manipulated in order to conform with the ANSI/NISO Z39.71 standard.
MAC Discussion:
Elizabeth Schlueter (OCLC) introduced the proposal.
No discussion noted.
MAC Action: Proposal approved as submitted.
PROPOSAL 2021-03: Changes to Fields 008/21 and 006/04 for Type of Continuing Resource in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-03.html
Source: ISSN Review Group, ISSN International Centre, Paris
Summary: The current options for type of continuing resource in 008/21 and 006/04 do not provide enough granularity for useful faceting or statistical reporting in the ISSN Portal and likely in library OPACs. Additionally, more granularity is needed for research and scholarship concerning global production of continuing resources. The ISSN Network would like to add additional codes to 008/21 and 006/04 to provide facets for searching in the ISSN Portal and for gathering statistics on types of continuing resources to which ISSN are assigned rather than depending on the non-standard solution it now uses.
Related Documents: 2020-DP10; 2001-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Spain, MLA, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal. Britain, Canada, NLM, and Everett Allgood (NYU) suggested several editorial revisions to the new and existing definitions (Approved rewordings in the "MAC Action" section, below). NLM and OCLC inquired about the need for and methods by which any existing codes would be retrospectively updated. Germany, on the other hand, wondered whether field 008 byte 21 is the correct place for such specific information, rather than bytes 24 and 25.
MAC Discussion:
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) introduced the proposal and she and Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) noted that the ISSN Centers are interested in standardizing their ability to encode periodicals at a more granular level of detail than was previously possible. Regina responded favorably to the suggested editorial revisions/suggestions.
Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) reminded MAC that each national ISSN center retains responsibility for its own records (i.e., continuing resource publications published therein). There are no intentions to change existing ISSN records, though the new codes may be incorporated for retrospective original cataloging.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with the following editorial amendments to portions of the proposed value definitions:
PROPOSAL 2021-04: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Field 022 in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-04.html
Source: ISSN Review Group, ISSN International Centre, Paris
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) to field 022 (International Standard Serial Number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format and Authority Format, in order to provide a place in the ISSN field for the ISSN URI.
Related Documents: 2020-DP11; 2020-FT03; 2020-FT02; 2017-08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal, and welcomed the encoding of URIs for ISSNs and ISSN-Ls in separate fields. Everett Allgood (NYU) offered some clarification to wording in the Discussion section. And Britain requested that, if the proposed definition of 022 subfield $0 is not the standard one, Appendix A of the Bibliographic and Authority formats should note this non-standard usage. And Britain would also like to see an example of a 022 subfield $1 application.
Also, NLM and OCLC reminded us that prescribing the placement of subfields $0 and $1 to directly follow the subfield to which they apply is contrary to best practice. And, therefore, examples 1, 2, and 3 may need some minor changes.
MAC Discussion:
Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) introduced the proposal.
The subfield order described in the paper was brought up as a concern by several, because it does not follow current MARC best practices as outlined by the URIs in MARC Working Group recommendations. In response, Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) stated that NDMSO had not been overly concerned whether the subfield $0 or $1 directly followed the subfield $a or not.
Adam Schiff (SAC) mentioned that within Linked Data platforms, there is no mechanism for ordering or sequencing subfields.
The ISSN Center plans to submit a MARC paper soon proposing a new MARC field for the ISSN-L (i.e., the Linking ISSN), removing it from its current position in 022 subfield $l.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) expressed strong support for the stated proposal to distinguish between the ISSN proper (022 subfield $a) and Linking ISSN (022 subfield $l) in separate MARC fields.
Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) volunteered to add another example to the paper using an 022 ISSN field with subfield $1, if that would be helpful.
Thurstan Young (BL) welcomed the offer of adding an example using subfield $1; this would help justify the addition of $1 to the 022 field.
MAC Action: Proposal approved as submitted.
PROPOSAL 2021-05: Renaming Field 348 and Defining New Subfields for Form of Musical Notation in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-05.html
Source: Music Library Association
Summary: This paper proposes changing the name of field 348 from "Format of Notated Music” to “Notated Music Characteristics” and defining new subfields to record form of musical notation terms and codes. It also proposes replacing existing field 348 examples demonstrating the use of subfield $b (Format of notated music code), which employ placeholders rather than codes, with specific examples that clarify its use. Finally, it proposes adding instructions to field 546 (Language Note) indicating a preference for recording form of musical notation terms in field 348.
Related Documents: 2020-DP12
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal. Britain and NLM added that, rather than using a placeholder in the examples of sections 3.4 and 4, perhaps a source code for form of musical notation modeled on the RDA Registry could be used, such as rdafmn. Additionally, OCLC suggested that a set of existing controlled musical notation terms could be used in field 348 subfield $c, possibly with their corresponding source code in subfield $d.
MAC Discussion:
Karen Peters (MLA) introduced the proposal and noted that concern has been expressed about the potential for catalogers to confuse two similar MARC source codes when recording values in the revised 348 field. These are “rdafmn” (RDA Form of Musical Notation) and “rdafnm” (RDA Format of Notated Music). The codes are based on the abbreviated syntax for expressing Uniform Resource Identifiers within the RDA Registry. MLA states that they are pursuing the possibility of having one of these RDA related codes changed or updated by NDMSO. Those changes may be pursued separately.
MAC Action: Proposal approved as submitted, subject to subsequent editorial cleanup and revision, particularly in regard to the examples in the paper.
PROPOSAL 2021-06: Accommodating Work and Expression Dates, and Related Elements, in Bibliographic and Authority Field 046
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-06.html
Source: Core SAC Subcommittee on Faceted Vocabularies
Summary: This paper proposes a method for distinguishing work and expression dates recorded in MARC Bibliographic field 046 (Special Coded Dates), along with new subfields for materials specified and explanatory notes. It also proposes new subfields for materials specified and explanatory notes in the MARC Authority field 046.
Related Documents: 2020-DP13
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Germany, Spain, and MLA supported the proposal. Australia, Britain, Canada, MLA, NLM, OCLC, and PCC preferred Option 1. Germany and John Myers (CC:DA) preferred Option 2.1, since it allowed more granularity. And Canada also saw Option 2.1 as a possible solution. But Myers noted that it would be the more complex solution. Britain, Canada, Germany, NLM, and Myers noted that Option 2.2 would be completely unacceptable.
Britain asked why the indicators listed for entity values include "manifestation," and, if it is intentional, wonder whether the item entity should be similarly identified. Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that the 046 field is also used for the publication dates of manifestations. So, as long as the proposal was adding indicators for works and expressions, it could also be useful to have an indicator specifying that the dates in subfields $b, $c, $d, and $e are related to the manifestation.
Canada and NLM did not support the definition of subfields $x (Non-public note) or $z (Public note) in either the Bibliographic or Authority formats, since they believed that data in the 046 field is not intended for display to the end user. Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that it is, in fact, currently being displayed in some discovery systems, including Ex Libris' Primo.
MAC Discussion:
Casey Mullin (Western Washington University) introduced the proposal on behalf of SAC.
A clear preference was demonstrated for Option 1 for clarity and simplicity, though some did see the value of the additional granularity afforded by Option 2.1.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) wondered whether MAC may be interested in pursuing the best of Option 1 and Option 2.1 by applying an indicator value to point to the additional new 046 subfields (i.e., $h, $i, $0 and $1) in the same way indicator 7 is used for pointing to source information in subfield $2 of the 6XX block of fields.
Casey Mullin (Western Washington University) and Adam Schiff (SAC) both expressed the view that if there is a later need for this indicator and subfields approach, that might be the subject of a later MARC Discussion Paper.
Concern was expressed by some regarding the Note subfields $x and $z. Some thought MAC should wait to add these until a demonstrated need was identified. But Adam Schiff and SAC felt this need existed now, saying that if you needed to expand upon what you were describing, you could put that in a note, e.g., if you need to indicate that the work you're recording is the aggregate work vs. an individual work. Subfields $x and $z could also provide a mechanism to distinguish at the manifestation level a particular printing, state, edition, etc.
Thurstan Young (BL) also asked whether SAC had considered the new RDA Representative Expression elements yet, since they seemed to be of relevance in the context of those changes being proposed. Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that they had not, and that if a need was seen for a represenatative expression value, that could be explored at a later date. It could possibly be addressed by defining a second indicator that has more detailed information about particular types of works or expressions.
Casey Mullin (Western Washington University) and Adam Schiff (SAC) emphasized that the most pressing need was to provide a MARC means of recording a date for work and expressions, and Option 1 does that without complication.
MAC Action: Proposal approved (with one vote opposed): apply Option 1, along with subfields $3, $x, and $z (as written).
PROPOSAL 2021-07: Defining a New Subfield for Sound Content in Field 344 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-07.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding a new repeatable subfield to Field 344 (Sound Characteristics) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to record the sound content of resources, in addition to expanding the field definition and scope to denote "silent" as a sound characteristic.
Related Documents: 2020-DP14 2020-DP03 2017-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, NLM, and PCC supported the proposal. However, John Myers (CC:DA) continued to oppose the proposal's mixing of content and carrier information in the same field. Britain and MLA noted that the definition of 344 subfield $i will need to be expanded to include other sound-carrying resources. And MLA pointed out that, if the definition is left to stand as proposed, the third example in section 4 would need to be removed. Britain also added a word of caution, when applying 344 subfield $i and 500 subfield $a in combination, in order to avoid conflicting information.
OCLC reminded us that recently implemented changes to field 345 (Moving Image Characteristics) might make it a more fitting home for sound content elements related to projected graphic resources, moving image resources, and their electronic equivalents.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) introduced the proposal.
Discussion was initiated by Jay Weitz (OCLC) who expressed the view that coding values for sound content belonged more appropriately in the 345 field (Moving Image Characteristics) rather than the 344 field when these included "silent" as well as "sound".
Karen Peters (MLA) agreed with OCLC's position preferring the 345 field, and with John Myers' stated concerns about mixing content and carrier. If there were some way to limit the use of this to silent films and to record it in the 345 field, that would be preferable. Unfortunately, as several noted, this is not the way the MARC formats work, or were intended to work. Once MAC approves this subfield within the format, governing how specific communities use it may become all but impossible.
John Myers (CC:DA) questioned whether, since both MLA and OCLC were not entirely supportive of this MARC direction and yet their communities would be the ones most disproportionately affected, would it still make sense for MAC to proceed?
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress) noted that MARC development remains separate from how specific user communities (such as MLA) choose to implement or apply usage of the format(s).
Cate Gerhart (OLAC) spoke in favor of this perspective. As an OLAC cataloger working with video and sound recordings, she and other OLAC catalogers will develop techniques and "best practices".
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress) proposed the following revised definition for subfield $i (Sound content): "Indication of the presence or absence of sound in a resource. Usually used for projected graphic resources, moving image resources, and their electronic equivalents."
John Myers (CC:DA) suggested NDMSO go back for additional work with MLA and OLAC to develop a clearer set of examples.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) expressed strong concern that this initiative was straying widely from the original intent of MARC field 344.
Adam Schiff (SAC) and John Myers (CC:DA) suggested additional discussion to consider moving the recording of sound content to the 340 (Physical Medium) field instead. A straw poll vote of participants fell evenly split between preference for the 340 and 344 fields.
Thurstan Young (BL) and Everett Allgood (NYU) reviewed the discussion's progress to this point and questioned whether MAC was moving forward with the proposal. Alternatively, it might consider sending the paper back for additional work/revision.
Adam Schiff (SAC) moved that the proposal be accepted with the revised subfield $i definition suggested by Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress), along with a revised or new, clearer example to replace the third example in Section 4.
MAC Action: Proposal approved (8 for; 5 against), with the amendment that the third example in Section 4 be replaced, and that subfield $i (Sound content) be defined as follows: "Indication of the presence or absence of sound in a resource. Usually used for projected graphic resources, moving image resources, and their electronic equivalents."
PROPOSAL 2021-08: Defining a New Field for Encoded Supplementary Content Characteristics in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-08.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes the creation of a new MARC field 353 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to store coded supplementary content information.
Related Documents: 2020-DP15, 2020-DP02, 2017-08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, NLM, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal. Britain and OCLC expressed a concern about the examples, in which the text in 353 subfield $b is often identical to subfield $a, rather than containing a code placeholder, such as "supplementary content code." MLA requested that instructions be included in the Field Definition and Scope, to make it clear that this information should only be encoded if it is considered a significant part of the item or accompanying material. And OCLC requested that the definition clearly states that such information may continue to be recorded in note fields, such as 500, 504, and 525. However, NLM and PCC worried that such duplication across 008, 353, and 5XX fields would be a burden on catalogers.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) introduced the proposal and responded to the pre-meeting comments, noting that indeed the replication of input effort across fields 008, 353, and 5XX was surely a legitimate concern.
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress) again noted that such concerns were best left to various MARC user communities, and not to the MARC development process.
Thurstan Young (BL) moved that the paper be accepted with the clear stipulation that NDMSO agrees to the MLA request stating that field 353 (Supplementary Content Characteristics) be applied only when the supplementary content represents a significant part of the resource described. Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) and NDMSO agreed.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with the understanding that MLA's amendment to the 353 Field Definition and Scope (stated above) be applied.
PROPOSAL 2021-09: Recording the Mode of Issuance for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-09.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding the RDA element "mode of issuance" in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2020-DP16; 2020-07; 2020-DP07; 2015-07
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, OCLC, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal. NLM continued to have concerns about changes to Mode of Issuance "over time," as when a cataloger, upon receiving a unit, does not realize that it is the start of a multiple unit, i.e., the mode of issuance is wrongly determined to be "single unit" and needs to be changed. Allgood responded to this concern in his rewording of section 2.6.
OCLC hoped that we remembered and tried to avoid the difficulties that we faced with the 336, 337, and 338 fields, in trying to reconcile the difference between RDA terminology in subfield $a and MARC codes in subfield $b.
MAC Discussion:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group and responded to pre-meeting comments, acknowledging that there were times when deciding whether a resource being described was a single-part or a continuing resource could be difficult. However, as noted by the paper, various evidence from the resource can be used to determine an appropriate value to record. Catalogers already make such decisions when coding the LDR 07 (Bibliographic level) and LDR 19 (Multipart resource record level). The decisions they make on this have a significant impact on other aspects of the same description. As with coding the LDR, it may be preferable to create a new description where the value for mode of issuance is perceived to change rather than deleting and replacing aspects of the existing one.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) responded that while a new bibliographic description may be an easier short-term resolution, the results within a larger bibliographic database are far less clean. Regina made specific note of duplicate bibliographic record descriptions, duplicate ISSN assignments, as well as the resulting workflow confusion when a cataloger encounters both a single-part and continuing resource description for a bibliographic resource. She noted that choices around the mode of issuance would have many repercussions for creating new bibliographic descriptions and assigning ISSNs; the ISSN Network and PCC would have to be mindful of these in their implementation of the new RDA.
MAC Action: Proposal approved as submitted.
PROPOSAL 2021-10: Recording the Type of Binding for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-10.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper proposes RDA's controlled list of values for 'type of binding' and how to code this data in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: 2020-DP17
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, and John Myers (CC:DA) supported the proposal, though Canada, NLM, and Everett Allgood (NYU) suggested naming the subfield $l "Type of original binding," as well as rewording the definition to match. Allgood, Sherman Clarke (VRA), John Maier (ARLIS/NA), and Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested adding examples with terms from non-RDA vocabularies, such as the Art & Architecture Thesaurus. However, the RDA Steering Committee responded that the 340 subfield $l, as scoped, was meant to be used exclusively for the RDA-defined element "Type of binding"; but that, if so desired, the community may choose to introduce another MARC subfield for terms unrelated to RDA.
OCLC continued to worry about the threat to "binding neutrality" in cooperative databases. They felt that it needs to be made clear that, in many circumstances, separate records are not required for different types of binding.
Germany wondered, since this proposal separates the "type of binding" qualifier out of the identifier fields, 020, 024 and 027, whether something similar could be done for the "online resources" qualifiers found there, such as "pdf" and "epub." (This issue was resolved by pointing to field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) subfield $b (Encoding format).)
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 that the RDA element "type of binding" was tightly defined in terms of its scope and semantics, i.e. :
“A method used to bind a published or unpublished manifestation”.
This definition requires that the value recorded for type of binding is singular in nature, that it is related to a binding method and a manifestation level description. Vocabularies used by the art and rare books cataloging communities often do not correspond to these criteria; their terminologies are frequently plural in nature; they often relate to base materials, applied materials and color content rather than binding method; they often relate to item rather than manifestation level description. Therefore, if 340 $l were to be opened up for usage in the context of binding vocabularies outside RDA Type of Binding, then the subfield's label and definition would need to be broadened out accordingly.
A straw poll of participants was conducted to determine whether there might be MAC agreement that 340 subfield $l should be used to encode the RDA element "Type of binding" alone. This was requested by the MARC/RDA Working Group for guidance prior to a formal vote on the change. Participants expressed overwhelming opposition to defining a MARC subfield in this way (4 in favor; 21 against), with a vast majority preferring that subfield $l should also be used for non-RDA vocabularies.
Discussion continued with three broad areas of comment:
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked whether RDA may limit their restrictive use of the 340 subfield by applying subfield $2 [RDA vocabulary code]. Thurstan Young (BL) responded that this may be possible. A similar approach has already been taken to coding other RDA vocabularies in the 34X block of fields.
Thurstan Young (BL) had also hoped for additional guidance and feedback on the use case presented in the proposal. It would be helpful if the rare books and art cataloging communities could assist in rescoping the subfield label and definition for 340 $l. Also, it would be useful if those communities could set out the practical benefits for using 340 $l to encode their vocabularies rather than the existing coding provided by 6XX fields.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) noted that once this subfield was available in the MARC format, catalogers would use it however they choose; regardless of how MAC or the MARC/RDA Working Group intend, or prefer them to use it. Several members voiced support and agreement.
As Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress/RSC Technical Working Group Chair ) and others have reminded us throughout these MAC meetings, it is not for MAC or the MARC standard to restrict which vocabularies are encoded. However, he also noted that the definition of 340 $l as proposed did not match the scope of non-RDA vocabulary encoding schemes. The label and definition would have to change to allow for broader application.
Kate James (Independent contractor) suggested adding scope note guidance regarding how a resource was originally bound or issued versus what may be done to the item subsequently. This distinction though, should not be included within the field/subfield label.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that the subfield name was possibly problematic and may need to be reconsidered. Adam suggested the MARC/RDA Working Group consider "Method of Binding" rather than "Type of Binding".
Given the unresolved nature of the discussion, Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) suggested that the proposal be withdrawn for additional work.
MAC Action: Thurstan Young (BL) and the MARC/RDA Working Group agreed to withdraw the proposal for additional consideration and work on a follow-up paper, in consultation with MAC representatives to VRA, ARLIS/NA, PCC and SAC.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP01: 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-dp01.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: 2008-DP03;2008-06; 2008-07; 2009-06/2
Summary of pre-meeting comments
General Comments:
Britain and PCC noted that the sequence of the subfields in example 3 is incorrect. Although subfields $x, $y, and $z might precede subfield $v in the 490 field, subfield $v should always precede any subfield containing an ISSN in the 830 field.
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Has the case for defining a new separate subfield $y in field 490 for the transcription of Incorrect ISSNs been adequately stated?
See Question 6.3.
6.2. Has the case for defining a new separate subfield $z in field 490 for the transcription of Canceled ISSNs been adequately stated?
See Question 6.3.
6.3. Does the proposed solution meet the needs discussed?
Australia, Canada, Spain, MLA, NLM, PCC, Everett Allgood (NYU), and John Myers (CC:DA) said yes. Germany understood the need, but was hesitant. Spain expressed confusion. Britain noted that the statement about RDA instruction 2.15.1.6 is no longer relevant since the new RDA Toolkit was released.
6.4. Are there other potential issues that have been overlooked but need to be considered?
Britain noted that the proposed solution does not take into account the additional effort required by catalogers, in distinguishing whether an ISSN is correct, incorrect, or canceled (i.e., validation), nor the requirements of backwards compatibility with legacy data.
MAC Discussion:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) voiced concern regarding whether the changes discussed may represent additional work for catalogers, and how or if this change may affect legacy records. It was his understanding that access to the ISSN Portal was required in order to determine whether an ISSN was valid, canceled or incorrect. He added that, to allow for the continuation of legacy practices, 490 field second indicator 2 should be defined to carry a value which flags whether the ISSN present in the 490 is valid, invalid, canceled or whether no information is provided.
Everett Allgood (NYU) and Ben Abrahamse (PCC) disagreed, explaining that in many/most cases Monograph catalogers will have no knowledge whether an ISSN may be incorrect or canceled; nor would they be expected to seek out such information. Instead, providing this granularity would allow continuing resource catalogers to encode the information when it is known, or readily at hand. As for legacy records, these would continue to function fine as before, and would only need to be changed if a subsequent cataloger had the information at their disposal.
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress) wondered if the change discussed might result in the 490 field performing double-duty in the future, i.e., as both a means of transcription and validation (for whether an ISSN is valid, incorrect, or canceled).
Everett Allgood (NYU) emphasized that MAC would only be providing the necessary granularity of encoding this "incorrect" or "canceled" status when it was known. No one was expecting Monograph catalogers to go in search of this information.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) and Jay Weitz (OCLC) believed that it may be possible that the new 490 subfield values discussed were things which OCLC could automate. Hence, the subfield code value might be changed programmatically by OCLC based on the ISSN content of the subfield without the need for cataloger input.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP02: Designating an Introductory Statement in Field 672 of the MARC 21 Authority format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp02.html
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper explores options for defining 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
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
5.1. Is the need for the separation of an introductory phrase with relationship information sufficiently demonstrated?
Britain, Canada, Spain, NLM, OCLC, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) said yes. But Britain added that a proposal might benefit from more specific reasoning than merely "indexing reasons."
5.2. If yes to question 5.1: Should the need be accommodated by the definition of a new subfield in field 672?
Britain, Canada, OCLC, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) said yes.
5.3. Or should the need be accommodated by a different format solution?
Britain, Spain, and PCC suggested that other solutions might involve subfields $e or $4.
5.4. If yes to question 5.2: Which of the subfield codes should be chosen: "$i" (Option 1), or "$p" (Option 2), or a different one?Although there was some ambivalence, Britain, Canada, NLM, OCLC, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) seemed to prefer subfield $i (Option 1). And Canada expressed preference for a subfield label of "Explanatory text."
5.5. Is there anything else that should be taken into account?
OCLC wondered whether the same subfield should be added to other Authority fields, such as 673 (Title Not Related to the Entity). And John Myers (CC:DA) asked whether there might also be a need for parallel subfields for coded values and URIs.
MAC Discussion:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the discussion paper.
Some constituents questioned whether the information discussed might be better represented in 672 subfields $e and/or $4, but with further discussion a clear preference for Option 1 (subfield $i) was expressed.
Reinhlod Heuvelmann (DNB) explained that the German cataloging community (which sponsored this paper) is not interested in over-engineering the 672 field; therefore a simple textual subfield will likely fulfill their current needs.
Adam Schiff (SAC) expressed an interest in the ability to encode URIs representing the relationships discussed, so he expressed support for also including subfield $4 (Relationship).
Should MAC decide to pursue the change discussed, Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted the importance of making it clear that the 672 subfield $4 must not contain current MARC relator codes as used in subfield $4 because the relationship(s) expressed here represent the reciprocal (i.e., editor of, author of, illustrator of, etc.) and not the currently expressed object relationships (i.e., editor, author, illustrator, etc.) encoded in MARC subfield $4. This clarification will need to be expressed within the MARC documentation.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP03: Coordinates for Geographic Positioning of Structures in Images in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp03.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange
Summary: This paper discusses use cases for geographic positioning based on geographic coordinates of structures such as monuments, buildings and sites that are depicted in images and how to code this data in the MARC Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: None.
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Is the use case for recording geographic coordinates in bibliographic records for specific features represented in images clear?
Australia, Germany, Spain, OCLC, PCC, VRA, and John Myers (CC:DA) said yes. However, Andrew Battista, Librarian for Geospatial Information Systems at New York University, noted that the syntax of these coordinates in MARC records is not interoperable with most search engines, and would always require some kind of sophisticated transformation.
6.2. The discussion paper proposes expanding the use of coordinates to non-cartographic images, are there other content types that might benefit from the same treatment (e.g., a book describing a building)?
Spain, OCLC, PCC, and VRA said yes. John Myers (CC:DA) expressed concerns about the specificity and meaning of such coordinates. NLM would like to see more actual use cases, as they expect that there may be difficulty in determining when to record this information. Britain wondered whether the convention of recording a center-point would be applied only to non-cartographic materials, or whether the current practice for maps of using bounding coordinates would change. They also requested more information about tools for obtaining such decimal-format coordinates.
6.3. Is there a need to provide a solution applicable to authority records as well as bibliographic records?
Britain, Germany, Spain, NLM, OCLC, PCC, and VRA said yes. However, although many expressed a preference for such coordinates to be included only in authority records, they also recognized that not every place can or will be described by an authority record.
6.4. Is field 034 a suitable field in which to code this data, in both the Bibliographic and the Authority formats, or is a new field preferred? If so, in which block of the format should this field be?
Britain, Spain, OCLC, VRA, and John Myers (CC:DA) said yes.
6.5. Does the proposed text for the 034 Field Definition and Scope clearly explain the proposed usage?
Britain, Spain, and OCLC said yes. But VRA wondered whether the current text in field 034, which is quite detailed about cartographic materials, would need to be as detailed for other visual materials.
6.6. Are there any other possible solutions that might be explored to accommodate this use case? For example, if field 034 is not suitable for this purpose, might adding one or more subfields to appropriate subject fields be a better fit?
Britain and John Myers (CC:DA) expressed an interest in duplicating the coded information of field 034 in the more eye-readable 255 field. Sherman Clarke (VRA) cautioned against using additional subfields in the 6XX range.
MAC Discussion:
Pat Riva (Concordia University) introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM).
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that, from the British perspective, the current 034 definition already covered the use case identified in the paper, so no further changes were necessary to this field. Hence, the definition does not specify that the resource it describes must be cartographic; it only indicates that cartographic information is being recorded about the resource. The same can be said of the field label "Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data".
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) commented that the cartographic community would prefer to see the continued twinning of the two fields 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) and 255 (Cartographic Mathematical Data). Also, the cartographic community believes MARC needs to continue to support both center-point coordinates as well as bounding box coordinates; not all geographic entities or images may be expressed adequately via a center point set of coordinates (e.g., states, countries, etc.).
Adam Schiff (SAC) commented that in the Authority format, use of the 034 field is not exclusively cartographic; it is often also used to encode coordinate boundaries for political and geographic entities (countries, states, cities, etc.).
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) responded to some of the comments presented. She noted that the use of a center point is already allowed for in the scope of 034 subfield $g. Therefore, a decision on whether to use this or a bounding box for recording coordinates was an application profile decision. CCM’s preference would be for a solution which is applicable to field 034 both in the Authority and Bibliographic formats. CCM also supported the ongoing coordination of data recorded fields 034 and 255.
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) noted that the cartographic community recognizes the need for center point coordinates in the case of a monument or a building. However, such an approach may not be appropriate when recording the coordinates for large geographical areas.
Daniel Paradis (BAnQ) commented that if MAC agreed to move forward with using the 034 field for non-cartographic materials (without the map cataloging practice of a paired 255 field), then the MARC documentation would need to be updated, clearly stating these two practices. Hence, encoding the 034 field without a 255 would generally be used to represent images, while paired 034/255 field combinations would generally be used when representing cartographic materials.
Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed with Thurstan Young’s (BL) observation that the MARC community often relies on 255 field content for discovery system displays. Adam also suggested that, since the changes discussed appeared to require minor MARC changes, perhaps this paper may be considered as a fast-track change when it returned.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) and Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) discussed the possiblity of converting the paper into a fast-track proposal. Pat will re-write the paper as a proposal with references to the feedback received. Once the proposal is received, the MARC Steering Group will consider whether it meets the criteria for a fast-track proposal. If it does not, the paper will return as a proposal at MAC Annual.
The paper will return as a proposal, possibly a fast-track proposal depending on the scope of the revised paper.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP04: 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-dp04.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes the addition of a new subfield to field 344 (Sound Characteristics) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to record the sound capture and storage of the original recording.
Related Documents: 2020-DP14, 2011-08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
6.1. Do you agree there is a use for a subfield to record original sound capture and storage?
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, OCLC, and PCC said yes.
6.2. Does the proposed solution meet the needs discussed?
Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Spain, MLA, OCLC, and PCC said yes, since it follows a pattern seen in several earlier successful proposals. However, Germany wondered whether the difference in wording between field 007 byte 13 (Capture and storage technique) and 344 subfield $j (Original capture and sound technique) might cause confusion. MLA reported that there was some concern expressed about the perceived redundancy of this information. However, once all of the pertinent information in field 007 has been re-coded elsewhere and discovery systems have been modified, this concern will disappear.
6.3. Are there any alternative format solutions to what is being proposed?
Britain, Spain, and OCLC said no.
6.4. Are there any potential consequences this paper does not address?
Germany and OCLC noted that, if Discussion Paper No. 2021-DP05 is eventually successful at splitting "digital storage" into two values, the impact on this discussion paper will also need to be considered. And John Myers (CC:DA) pointed out that, if 344 subfield $i is approved in Proposal No. 2021-07, sufficient guidance will need to be supplied, so as to preclude the recording of subfields $i and $j in the same instance of the field, thus avoiding the cross-mixing of corresponding subfield $0 entries.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congess) introduced the discussion paper.
Karen Peters (MLA) voiced the confusion among music catalogers as to the distinction made between "capture" and "storage" in Discussion Papers DP04 and DP05. She voiced support for adding the word "Original" to the 007/13 label (Capture and storage technique) to more closely align with the current 007/13 definition and with the proposed $j subfield.
Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) said she believed that confusion about capture and storage may be clarified by the MAC discussion of the following paper (i.e., Discussion Paper DP05).
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP05: Terms and Definitions in Field 007/13 for Sound Recordings in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp05.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 definitions of the terms used in MARC 007/13 (Capture and storage technique) for Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. An additional term in 007/13 is also proposed.
Related Documents: 2021-DP04
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
4.1. Do you agree that the current definitions and valid values in this field should be updated?
Australia, Britain, Germany, MLA, OCLC, PCC, and John Myers (CC:DA) said yes. Many noted that there is much confusion around these recording techniques and terms. And MLA added that such updated definitions could also be applied to the terms proposed for use in Discussion Paper No. 2021-DP04.
4.2. Which of the options do you prefer?
MLA and PCC preferred Option 2. But OCLC argued that only the first bullet of Option 2 should be considered to clarify the current definitions; a new value for Direct Stream Digital should not be added, since the average cataloger or user is not familiar with the distinction between Pulse-Code Modulation (PCM) and Direct Stream Digital (DSD) (i.e., pulse-density modulation). OCLC added that, as part of the clarification and expansion of the existing definitions, value "d" could be more accurately named "Digital Capture and Storage".
4.3. Is the creation of the new code "s" in Option 2 necessary?
OCLC said no. But MLA and PCC believed that it could signify a Super-Audio CD in a precise, machine-actionable way.
4.4. Are there any potential consequences this paper does not address?
Germany and OCLC noted that, if this discussion paper is eventually successful at splitting "digital storage" into two values, the impact on Discussion Paper No. 2021-DP04 will also need to be considered.
MAC Discussion:
Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) introduced the discussion paper.
Several members of MAC noted existing and ongoing confusion among music catalogers regarding capture/storage recording techniques.
Thurstan Young (BL) wondered if the proposed definition for value "s – Direct stream digital" might be broadened and clarified.
John Myers (CC:DA) emphasized the need to clarify these terms and definitions, most especially for general catalogers, as well as for music catalogers.
Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress) noted that some of the terms within the MARC documentation were actually trademarked terms; he wondered if, instead of these trademark terms, MARC documentation should instead describe the underlying techniques used in capturing and/or storing sound recordings.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) cautioned MAC in specifically enumerating individual trademark and copyright terms within the MARC documentation, because of the widely-recognized propensity for technology to advance. In time, these techniques would change or disappear altogether. Also, once MAC goes down the road of enumerating some specific techniques, others would need to be enumerated.
Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed with Jay Weitz's (OCLC) point about aiming instead for a broader, more general approach rather than making some definitions overly restrictive. If necessary, in order to enumerate or describe new or additional capture and storage techniques, MAC should consider defining new codes.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2021-DP06: Recording Data Provenance in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2021/2021-dp06.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding data provenance in the MARC 21 Formats.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:
5.1. Is the case for expanding MARC 21’s accommodation of data provenance to better support established and emerging applications sufficiently articulated?
Germany and Spain said yes. OCLC hesitantly said yes. NLM said no, remarking that the amount of work and expense necessary to implement would not be justified.
5.2. Have the overall challenges and mitigating strategies for expanding accommodation been sufficiently articulated?
Germany, Spain, and OCLC said yes.
5.3. Of the three options listed, are there any advantages or disadvantages which have not been addressed?
OCLC believed that they have been sufficiently described.
5.4. Of the three options, which is considered preferable and why?
See Question 5.5.
5.5. If option two, which of its subcategories is considered preferable and why?
Spain and John Myers (CC:DA) supported Option 1 (selective changes). However, Germany opposed it, preferring instead Option 2 (generalized changes). Canada and OCLC were opposed to Option 2.1 (non-standard subfield delimiters); however, Germany suggested perhaps using a new subfield $_ (underscore) with a sub-label, e.g., $_a, $_b, $_0, and $_1. Option 2.2 (substructure to designate data provenance information in one subfield) was not preferred by anyone (but consider the aforementioned German suggestion). Australia, Canada, OCLC, and John Myers (CC:DA) favored Option 2.3 (additional subfields in field 883 (or perhaps a new 888 field)). Germany noted that they have already implemented something similar to this approach.
Canada, Germany, and Spain opposed Option 3 (new mirror formats), believing that a solution does not need to be applied across all five MARC 21 formats. However, Britain did not believe that the MARC 21 format can support the degree of reification proposed in this discussion paper, even if there are recognizable benefits.
5.6. If option two or three, is a field or subfield level approach preferable and why?
Spain noted that RDA elements generally correspond to MARC subfields. However, OCLC believed that both approaches are unavoidable.
5.7. If option two or three, is an approach which specifies the recording method preferable and why?
Spain noted that the "recording method" is an essential element in the new RDA. However, OCLC suggested that the recording method will usually be apparent, and does not necessarily need to be recorded for human readability or machine actionability.
5.8. If another option is preferred, then what would this be?
None were suggested.
5.9. Is the suggested approach to distinguish between vocabulary encoding schemes and string encoding schemes an acceptable solution?
See Question 5.10.
5.10. If another approach to distinguishing between vocabulary and string encoding schemes is preferred, then what would this be?
Spain said yes. But OCLC was completely opposed to making subfield $2 repeatable. However, they suggested that, if necessary to explicitly distinguish between VES and SES, perhaps subfield $2 could be reserved for identifying a VES and a separate subfield could be reserved for identifying an SES.
5.11. Is there anything else which should be taken into account?
Britain noted that solutions in support of recording data provenance using MARCXML should not be pursued without making parallel changes to the MARC 21 formats.
MAC Discussion:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
MAC members expressed a range of opinions regarding the options presented in the paper. Thurstan Young (BL) emphasized that the MARC/RDA Working Group needed guidance in order to proceed.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted that the German cataloging community already had experience of using the 883 (Metadata Provenance) field and that it is being more widely adopted. However, he expressed reservations regarding the viability of this technique, especially with its heavy reliance on subfield $8 for field linking. This approach was by no means ideal. In combination with other usages of subfield $8 (e.g., Dewey numbers and their parts in fields 082 / 083 / 085) or in combination with multiscript cataloging following Model A (vernacular and transliteration, with field 880 and subfields $6), field 883 is almost impossible to use.
John Myers (CC:DA) acknowledged the difficulty of pairing fields with subfield $8. However, he noted that OCLC had developed some automated techniques for facilitating this MARC practice, particularly with paired vernacular script fields.
Hong Cui (LAC) mentioned the use of subfield $8 field pairs in the MARC Holdings format for Continuing Resources. Hong, Everett Allgood (MAC) and others noted that, while MARC accommodates these Holdings field pairings using $8, few ILS and Library Discovery Systems handle this functionality well; others do not handle MARC Holdings functionality at all. That being the case with downstream library systems, Reinhold Heuvelamann's (DNB) reservations regarding the subfield $8 technique appeared well-founded.
Thurstan Young (BL) requested that Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) provide some further explanation of his suggested "underscore" subfield value solution. He added that adopting this approach would require updates and revision of the MARC Background and Principles document, since this character is neither lowercase alphabetic nor numeric in scope. Reinhold agreed but added that an extension to ISO 2709 would not be required in order to accommodate the change.
John Myers (CC:DA) asked Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) for clarification regarding the "underscore" subfield value technique and expressed concern that such a development might break the existing MARC 21 formats. Reinhold responded that MAC might apply an underscore ("$_") followed by an existing subfield value, thereby doubling the current number of available MARC subfields. Applying uppercase alphabetic characters as sub-labels ("$_A", "$_B", etc.) could extend the range of possible values even further.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that the option of creating mirror/parallel MARC formats appeared to meet with general aversion. However, he queried whether there might be any modifications or revisions to this approach which could make it more appealing. None were forthcoming from other MAC members.
Discussion followed regarding the distinction to be drawn between vocabulary encoding schemes (i.e., authorized labels/entity identifiers) and string encoding schemes (i.e., labels or entities constructed according to shared instructions (e.g., NACO), but not yet authorized).
John Myers (CC:DA) described the current OCLC landscape wherein access points in a bibliographic record may be "controlled" and were therefore easily recognizable as part of a Vocabulary Encoding Scheme. The authority file which provided that control ran behind the scenes in the context of the WorldCat database. However, since effective linkage occurred between the two, he queried whether making distinctions between a VES and SES was a solution searching for a problem.
Mathew Wise (NYU, Chair) noted that, in the case of subject authorities, only part of an established string may have an authority associated with it. This was the case when such a string contained free floating subdivisions. He queried whether a portion of such a string could be considered part of a vocabulary encoding scheme or whether only a whole string could be regarded as such.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland/RSC Chair) responded that as long as the string is "controlled" it is considered part of a vocabulary encoding scheme; if any part or portion of the string contains elements that may be "free-floating" or require outside authentication, then the entire label is considered in the context of a string encoding scheme.
A series of straw-poll votes among all the attendees of the meeting (with a total of 39) followed to provide the MARC/RDA Working Group with additional clarification and guidance:
The paper will return as a proposal or follow up discussion paper.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 04/28/2021 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |