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
Catherine Gerhart, Chair UW University of Washington Everett Allgood, Secretary NYU New York University
Lourdes Alonso Viana BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Rachel Decker AALL Chapman University Tamara Fultz ARLIS/NA The Metropolitan Museum of Art Lucas Mak PCC Michigan State University Libraries Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa John F. Myers CC:DA Union College Karen A. Peters MLA Library of Congress Jacqueline Parascandola RBMS University of Pennsylvania Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Adam L. Schiff SAC University of Washington Libraries Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Sara Amato Eastern Academic Scholars' Trust (EAST) Allison Bailund San Diego State University Ivan Basar Library and Archives Canada Ardie Bausenbach Library of Congress Renate Behrens Deutsche Nationalbibliothek/RSC Chair-Elect Gaëlle Béquet ISSN International Centre Nicole Berroyer Connetquot Public Library Barbara Block GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Jacqueline Brellenthin Library of Congress Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library, Ontario Doug Brigham Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries May Chan University of Toronto Chew Chiat Naun Harvard University Charlene Chou New York University Kalan Knudson Davis University of Minnesota Bonnie Dede University of Michigan Corine Deliot British Library Andrew Dunnett Library and Archives Canada Mark Ehlert University of St. Thomas Kevin Ford Library of Congress Johanna Freis Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Paul Frank Library of Congress Kathy Glennan University of Maryland/RSC Chair Juha Hakala National Library of Finland Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Stephen Hearn University of Minnesota Sarah Hovde University of Maryland Louise Howlett British Library Mary Huismann St. Olaf College Damian Iseminger Library of Congress/RSC Technical Working Group Chair Kate James Independent contractor Melanie Janßen GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Kyla Jemison University of Toronto William Jones New York University Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Caroline Kent British Library Gerlind Ladisch Southwestern Regional Library Network, Konstanz Nancy Lorimer Stanford University Jeff Lyon Brigham Young University Robert Maxwell Brigham Young University Hayley Moreno OCLC Diane Napert Yale University Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Iris O'Brien British Library Kate Peck University of California, Berkeley George Prager New York University Kevin Randall Northwestern University Veronica Ranieri Library of Congess Melissa Rucker University of the Incarnate Word Ricardo Santos Biblioteca Nacional de España Tina Shrader National Library of Medicine Joel Smalley Arizona State University Anna Striker California Digital Library Elisa Sze University of Toronto Manon Theroux Library of Congress Meta van der Waal-Gentenaar Koninklijke Bibliotheek Arouce Wasty Library and Archives Canada Cynthia Whitacre OCLC Deanna White ISSN International Centre Matthew Wise New York University Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Erica Zhang University of California, Los Angeles [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. 18 voting members were present.
Approval of minutes from MAC's June 2021 meetings
The minutes of the MAC Annual meeting, held online on June 28-30, 2021, were approved without correction.
Business Meeting/Library of Congress report/ Other
No fast-track proposals were presented for consideration since MAC’s June 2021 meeting.
MARC Update No. 33 was published in November 2021 so users may now implement changes documented in that release.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) has heard questions from some members regarding whether the MARC Advisory Committee will meet in person at ALA Annual in Washington, DC this year. That discussion will be held via the MAC email listserv during the next several weeks.
PROPOSAL 2022-01: Revising Field 340 to Reduce Redundancies Related to Newer 34X Fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-01.html
Source: OCLC, in consultation with Music Library Association (MLA) and Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes revising the definition of Bibliographic field 340 (Physical Medium) subfield $f, currently defined for "Production Rate/Ratio," to be specifically for microform "Reduction Ratio Value." It further proposes a new corresponding subfield $q for "Reduction Ratio Designator." The object is to reduce redundancies and confusion about more recently defined 34X fields and their subfields that are now specifically suitable for several historical uses of field 340 subfield $f.
Related Documents: 2016-DP10, 2016-DP22, 2020-DP03, 2020-DP04, 2020-DP14, 2021-DP04; 2021-DP08; 94-17, 2003-05, 2011-08, 2014-03, 2017-05, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2021-07, 2021-10; 2021-14; 2021-16
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Spain, Australia, Germany, CC:DA, NLM and the PCC support this paper.
OCLC and Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) are in support but think the format of the ratio needs to be discussed. If both ways of expressing the ratio are valid in the field, then it would be good to have examples of both forms.
CCM and MLA support the proposal but would like to change the word "prefer" in Section 3.2, second paragraph, to "use". CCM points out that normally the formats do not indicate former practices. However, Britain thinks that "prefer" is needed to cover legacy data.
Britain supports the proposal as well but has some formatting/wording suggestions that might make it clearer.
MAC Discussion:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the proposal. In response to the pre-meeting discussion, including some of the wording changes suggtested by BL, Jay observed that OCLC data demonstrates that both forms of recording reduction ratio are very widespread. This may make it difficult to designate one form or the other as preferable.
Adam Schiff (SAC) wondered if Jay Weitz (OCLC) wanted to include the suggestion stemming from RDA, of using the denominator "1" to clarify ratio designations.
Thurstan Young (BL) questioned whether the field definition should allow for both approaches or only the RDA-recommended approach.
John Myers (CC:DA), Everett Allgood (NYU) and others reminded those present that the MARC formats remain an international communications and exchange standard. It is not the role of MAC – nor of an international standard – to designate one or more individual content standards or community of practice as preferential or recommended.
Kate James (Independent contractor) said that the two methods of practice are mathematically equivalent and long pre-date RDA; it really doesn’t make sense to tie this mathematical representation in MARC Bibliographic 340 $f to RDA.
Sally McCallum (LC) observed that MARC does identify the content standard applied within a bibliographic description in 040 subfield $e, etc. However, this is not to demonstrate a stated preference – only a more granular recording at the record description level of the content standard applied. Additionally, this MARC community practice of explicitly recording a content standard in 040 subfield $e is quite recent and only applies to bibliographic descriptions created or revised after the MARC format was revised to accommodate it; earlier legacy bibliographic descriptions depend on a much less granular, explicit mechanism to record the descriptive content standard applied. Finally, as bibliographic records are then edited and revised over time, practices become "fuzzy" with the result that numerous legacy bibliographic records incorporate descriptive practices from more than one content standard.
Thurstan Young (BL) expressed support for the term "prefer"over the word "use" in the redefinition of 340 $f (Reduction ratio value) in order to help reflect some older legacy practices.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) emphasized that the number of legacy bibliographic records affected by this change (i.e., OCLC bibliographic records containing 340 subfield $f) is tiny. Fewer than 40,000 (ca. 32,000 bibliographic records) would be in scope.
Sally McCallum (LC) commented that MAC sometimes chooses to describe and delineate past legacy practices in the "History" section of MARC field documentation.
Thurstan Young (BL) added that the only other suggestion from the U.K. community was in regard to 340 subfield $q (i.e., to remove the phrase "expressed in general terms" from the draft definition).
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following editorial amendments:
PROPOSAL 2022-02: Defining a Field to Express Record Equivalent Relationships in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-02.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange; Library and Archives Canada; OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes defining new field 788 (Equivalent Description in Another Language) to record equivalent relationships for descriptions in different languages of cataloging for a single manifestation, which contains expressions in more than one language for the same or different works.
Related Documents: 2021-DP09
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Spain, Australia, Germany, CC:DA, CCM, NLM, MLA and the PCC support this paper.
Britain supports the proposal in general but has some wording changes it would like in a couple places that would clarify the definition.
OCLC supports the proposal but would like the full array of linking subfields included, especially the $e for language of cataloging. In addition, they’d like to remove the final sentence of the first paragraph of the definition so that this field could be used even when the language of cataloging is not English or French.
Everett Allgood (NYU) supports the proposal but feels this field could be more broadly used if the final clause of the first sentence were removed. Otherwise MAC will need to keep broadening it as more use cases are discovered and presented. He also points out that the second sentence should indicate the 040 $b encodes the language of cataloging for the cataloging agency, not the language of content of the bibliographic resource described.
MAC Discussion:
Hong Cui (LAC) introduced the proposal.
Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed with the pre-meeting comments of Everett Allgood (NYU) and others that this proposal could easily be broadened now to accommodate additional use cases; he also agreed that the second sentence of the proposed 788 Field Definition and Scope section appears inaccurate and is confusing: a value recorded in the 008/35-37 may not match the language of equivalent description mentioned in the draft definition's second paragraph.
Hong Cui (LAC) recognized the use cases of the more broad parallel records (compared to equivalent records), and parallel records for unilingual resources. In the past OCLC practice of using local field 936 subfield $a to record parallel records, OCLC identified more duplicates than parallel records, and it has been the concern for LAC to expand the scope to parallel records at this stage. LAC creates both English and French equivalent records for bilingual/multilingual publications, and needs the new field both for the purposes of linking and display of holdings, but not for the purpose of deduping. Hong agreed to remove the second sentence in the first paragraph in the Field Definition and Scope. LAC can develop a cataloging guidance document to provide details. LAC accepted BL's suggestion to use "described" rather than "cataloged" in the first sentence.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) commented that the ISSN International Centre might be supportive of broadening the scope of this paper to include parallel record descriptions in multiple languages; she suggested to use "equivalent description in another language of cataloging" to help interpret the purpose and reduce the confusion. She believesd this may indeed be helpful within a shared, cooperative, expanding bibliographic record environment . She was also supportive of removing the second sentence from the draft definition.
Adam Schiff (SAC) offered the following revised 788 Field Definition and Scope:
"Information concerning a manifestation that is separately described in different languages of cataloging."
Regarding the BL suggested change to the introductory phrase, Jay Wietz (OCLC) commented that the display constants are covered in the Introduction to the MARC Bibliographic Format, and can be placed in the Input Convention of that field, rather than in the Definition and Scope.
Everett Allgood (NYU) expressed support for Adam's proposed edits of the 788 Field Definition and Scope.
Hong Cui (LAC) clarified that CCM would prefer to retain the second clause of the proposed Field Definition and Scope (i.e., "... when the manifestation embodies more than one language expression of one or more works"). She added that this explicit description was important for capturing the nature of the CCM use case, and preferred to solve the immediate need for the proposed use case, then work incrementally to expand the scope to other use cases.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed a preference for MAC focusing on the original CCM use case as presented, and against broadening the scope of this paper as Everett Allgood (NYU), Adam Schiff (SAC), and others were advocating.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) commented that he didn't see how broadening the 788 proposal definition as suggested would prevent CCM from accomplishing the identified use case.
Hong Cui (LAC) expressed concern about Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) and Everett Allgood's (NYU) preferred approach. If MAC broadened the use of the 788 field as suggested, it would be difficult for CCM/LAC to accomplish the more-specific use case which they have identified. If MAC did choose to broaden the use of field 788, then CCM suggested that a second indicator value be also defined to clearly distinguish the two (or more) use cases under discussion:
Andrew Dunnett (LAC) provided additional clarification of CCM's identified use case, noting that it was not to simply support the creation of equivalent descriptions, but expressions which are published simultaneously in the same manifestation.
Adam Schiff (SAC) and others agreed that there is nothing within the proposed revisions and edits for the 788 Field Definition and Scope which would prevent CCM/LAC from describing their stated need. If CCM needed a second indicator value to help articulate their local application, then he would support that.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) commented that if MAC were to define a second indicator value to cover the CCM/LAC use case, then an indicator value should remain available for cataloguers who do not wish to flag one of the specific use cases identified by LAC.
Adam Schiff (SAC) moved that the Field Definition and Scope be revised as proposed, and that the second paragraph in Proposal 2022-02's Field Definition and Scope be moved to the Input Conventions.
Hong Cui (LAC) agreed on a vote in line with this approach, but added that the changes could be further worked on after the meeting.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following editorial amendments to the 788 Field Definition and Scope:
There was also agreement to define second indicator values which explicitly distinguish separate use cases. Should LAC/CCM determine that they need an additional indicator value or a revision of the indicator value(s) which MAC approved, then they may return with a follow-up paper.
PROPOSAL 2022-03: Recording Non-Cartographic Scale Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-03.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper proposes to revise the label and broaden the Field Definition and Scope in field 507 (Scale Note for Graphic Material) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to better align with the RDA definition when recording non-cartographic scale content.
Related Documents: 2021-DP11, 2021-13
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Spain, Australia, Germany, CC:DA, NLM, MLA, OCLC and CCM support this paper.
Britain supports the proposal in general, but suggests a slight change in the first sentence of the definition for clarity. It also requests a correction in the last sentence of the definition that currently references "Mathematical Data Area", but should reference "Cartographic Mathematical Data" in line with the 255 field label.
PCC also supports this proposal but would prefer the subject to be at the beginning of the final sentence of the definition so it would read: "For cartographic materials, use field 255 (Cartographic Mathematical Data Area) to record the scale information."
MAC Discussion:
Hong Cui (LAC) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
Thurstan Young (BL) queried whether those changes to the proposed wording of the 507 Field Definition and Scope set out in the pre-meeting comments were acceptable.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested an additional change, substituting the term "resource" for “item” in the first sentence of the revised 507 definition.
Hong Cui (LAC) accepted the proposed editorial revisions.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with editorial revision to the 507 Field Definition and Scope, as follows:
"Scale of a visual material resource, for example a still image or three-dimensional form, given as a textual note. For cartographic materials, use field 255 (Cartographic Mathematical Data) to record the scale information."
PROPOSAL 2022-04: Recording Representative Expressions in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-04.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This proposal discusses the potential for encoding representative expressions in the MARC 21 Formats using a new Field 387 with exceptions for music specific elements.
Related Documents: 2021-DP12
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Spain, Australia, Britain, CCM, MLA and OCLC support this paper.
Germany supports the proposal but believes there will need to be guidance provided in order for the new field to be used.
CC:DA supports the proposal but thinks the key of representative expression should be integrated into the new 387, leaving only the 382 on its own to carry medium of performance of representative expression.
Everett Allgood (NYU) supports the proposal but also suggested editorial revisions to help with clarity.
NLM does not support this proposal. They continue to have misgivings about how a cataloger will figure out when to record representative expressions. They also wonder if some way of knowing who made the decision is needed in either a subfield or a note.
MAC Discussion:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
Karen Peters (MLA) responded to the pre-meeting comment from CC:DA by noting that the music community already records what it regards as a key of work in field 384 and that the key of representative expression was a different way of expressing the same concept. Therefore, integrating this information into the new 387 field would make no sense. Adding an indicator value to field 384 as a means of explicitly identifying the key of representative expression (as opposed to other expressions) was a preferable approach.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded to the pre-meeting comments from NLM by noting that the proposal acknowledges the potential for debate as to what represents the canonical expression of a particular work. However, the recording of such elements is not mandatory within RDA; they are available to the community if they wish to make use of them. As regards recording who has made the decision that something is a representative expression, this is an issue of data provenance. The wider concept of data provenance is dealt with by proposal 2022-05 which is up next for discussion at the Midwinter meetings of MAC. There may be an argument for recording the author or date associated with an assignment of representative expression information in the future.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded to the pre-meeting comments from Everett Allgood (NYU), by noting that the inclusion of "characteristic" in the proposed definition for field 387 reflects the values which would be recorded in this field: e.g., a language, a date, a duration, etc. Retention of the term "characteristic" therefore seems key in terms of how this field is interpreted. However, in light of this, it could be useful to amend the proposed field label for field 387 from “Representative Expressions” to “Representative Expression Characteristics”. Doing so would also be consistent with the field labels for many 34X fields such as the 344-348.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) asked about the first example given in the paper which identifies a date of representative expression for a work as occurring after the death of the author who was responsible for creating it.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded by explaining that the work in question (“Il gattopardo” by Tomasi di Lampedusa) was published posthumously after the author's death. At the time of its first publication in 1958, many editorial amendments were made to the original manuscript of the novel and these were only discovered in 1969. At that point, the edits were removed and a new version was issued, which better reflected the author's actual intent. This second version has been the basis of all subsequent re-publications and translations of Il gattorpardo. Hence, 1969 can be regarded as the date of representative expression.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) queried the presence of subfields $0 and $1 in the proposed 387 field.
Thurstan Young (BL) explained that some of the values associated with representative expressions could be taken from controlled vocabularies (e.g., content type, sound content, language, etc.). As a result, URIs for terms belonging to those vocabularies could be recorded as part of the 387 string.
Adam Schiff (SAC) commented that some of the characteristics for describing expressions (as opposed to Representative Expressions) are defined in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, but not yet in the Authority format. He wondered whether expression level coverage in the Authority format was something which the MARC/RDA Working Group might make the subject of a follow up proposal. He also wondered what the MRWG's plans were regarding the Representative Expression elements which were left out of the proposal: "extent of representative expression" and "medium of performance of choreographic content of representative expression".
Thurstan Young (BL) responded by explaining that the remit of the MRWG was to look at new elements in the Official RDA Toolkit, as opposed to pre-existing ones in the Original RDA Toolkit. This was an issue addressed during MAC's review of the preceding discussion paper. As for the elements "extent of representative expression" and "medium of performance of choreographic content of representative expression", their omission was also explained in the preceding discussion paper. The concept of extent is still the focus of significant work by the RSC, and until this is completed, it seems premature to encode the element "extent of representative expression". The element "medium of performance of choreographic content" is not currently encoded anywhere in the MARC formats. Unless and until encoding is provided for it, making provision for the element "medium of performance of choreographic content of representative expression" also seems premature. Field 387 would still have the capacity to accommodate both of these elements if the need arises in future.
Adam Schiff (SAC) queried the inclusion of the term "scale" in the third example set out by the paper. The proposed definition of 387 $k (Scale of representative expression) makes no reference to recording this term, only a ratio.
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) responded that it is standard practice for the cartographic community to record the term "scale" before a ratio. The example in the proposal reflects that.
Kevin Ford (LC) observed that a number of the proposal’s suggestions are likely to result in a great deal of "background noise" within the MARC formats and within bibliographic descriptions encoded via MARC. Looking towards a future MARC-to-BIBFRAME transition, much of the "background noise" which MAC is loading into the MARC formats to describe Representative Expressions will likely be lost as a result.
Damien Iseminger (LC/RSC Technical Working Group Chair) commented that MARC is a communications standard which is content standard agnostic. However, if a user community such as RDA and the MARC/RDA Working Group have identified a descriptive need that the standard needs to better accommodate, it is MAC's responsibility to address such an identified need. The MARC formats are already littered with lots of lost relics, past practices, and background noise(s). Just because a national library decides not to apply a particular element or elements does not mean that it or they should not be covered in the MARC formats.
Deborah Fritz (The MARC of Quality) commented that this ability to record Representative Expressions is critical from the perspective of describing Aggregating Works.
Bob Maxwell (BYU) added that, like Deborah Fritz (The MARC of Quality), he too spent a great deal of time working with Aggregates and specifically with monographic series. When describing these bibliographic resources, it was indeed important to have the ability to identify and clearly describe Representative Expressions.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) asked whether there would be circumstances in which multiple Representative Expression attributes might need to be recorded and whether it would be necessary to repeat field 387 in order to append separate URIs for the controlled terms associated with these attributes.
Thurstan Young (BL) confirmed that this would be the case.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted that, at present, field 384 (Key) in the Authority format is not repeatable.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that there might be a need to repeat field 384 in order to distinguish between the Original key and the Key of representative expression.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that perhaps MAC might consider making field 384 in the Authority format repeatable as an editorial change or Fast-Track proposal.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with one amendment: the 387 field label will be changed to “Representative Expression Characteristics”.
The suggested change of making field 384 in the Authority format repeatable will be the possible subject of a fast-track proposal.
PROPOSAL 2022-05: Recording Data Provenance in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-05.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This proposal discusses the potential for encoding data provenance in the MARC 21 Formats using subfield $7 and other subfield values where $7 is no longer available.
Related Documents: 2021-DP06; 2021-DP10
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
MLA, CC:DA, Germany and CCM support this paper.
Australia, Britain, OCLC, Spain and Everett Allgood (NYU) support the paper if subfield $5 is not used; OCLC would also prefer that the use of $z is avoided.
No comments received from PCC.
NLM does not support this paper. They still do not think the case for this has been made, although they appreciates the desire of the German community to pursue a granular data provenance solution for their own needs. If the paper does go forward, NLM would also prefer that $5 not be used.
Everett Allgood (NYU) suggests amending the final sentence of the data provenance definition for clarity, replacing the word "if" with "when".
MAC Discussion:
Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the proposal on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed appreciation for the help and support provided by Thurstan and others within the MARC/RDA Working Group for addressing the German data provenance use cases.
Thurstan Young (BL) addressed concerns expressed in the pre-meeting comments with regard to usage of $5 in cases where $7 is no longer available to record data provenance information at the field/subfield level in MARC 21. Subfield $5 is already used widely in the formats for a quite specific, uniform purpose. It is currently defined among the Control Subfields in MARC documentation Appendix A as "Institution to which Field Applies". Thurstan explained that subfields other than $5 are available in all the places where $7 is unavailable, so MAC could avoid using it if necessary: subfield $l (el) is available in the 760-787 field range of the Bibliographic format; $z is available in field 533 and the 800-830 fields of the Bibliographic format; $e is available in field 856 of the Authority and Bibliographic formats.
For concerns regarding how the data provenance solution set out by the proposal is applied, Thurstan Young (BL) noted that it would be preferable to use templates and macros to prepopulate or generate data provenance information automatically rather than hand keying it. This is on the basis that manually entering values for data provenance plus coded values for the category and related subfield of data provenance information may be fraught with problems.
Thurstan Young (BL) addressed a question from CCM regarding an example of data provenance information which is categorized as a "source consulted". He commented that if the community chose to implement data provenance in the context of the Nomen entity then there would be case for treating a transliteration standard such as “DIN 31635:2011” as a scheme of Nomen rather than a source consulted. Source consulted on the other hand is a Work entity element. He noted that several other Nomen elements with data provenance characteristics were already recorded in the Authority format: "undifferentiated name indicator" and "status of identification".
Thurstan Young (BL) responded to the suggestion made by Everett Allgood (NYU) that the final sentence of the definition for data provenance put forward by the proposal could be slightly amended for clarity: he accepted that the word "if" could be replaced by "when" as follows:
"A MARC Data Provenance Category code precedes a MARC Data Provenance Relationship code when both are recorded."
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted a comment in the pre-meeting feedback from Germany regarding the possible future need to record instances of meta-meta-metadata. He expressed a view that this issue should be left for now and that, if a real issue arose in the coming years, then it could be re-looked at then.
Everett Allgood (NYU) questioned whether MAC might possibly consider a cleaner application model for data provenance by redefining subfield $7 where it has already been used in the MARC formats. Information which has previously been coded in these instances of $7 could be moved elsewhere and make any subsequent data migrations more manageable as a result.
John Myers (CC:DA) responded that MAC had only recently implemented subfield $7 in field 856 to carry access data. Its almost immediate widespread usage makes the suggestion by Everett Allgood (NYU) and others to apply data provenance uniformly throughout MARC in subfield $7 difficult to envisage.
Thurstan Young (BL) added that Jay Weitz (OCLC) had compiled some statistics on 856 $7 usage in WorldCat. There are already around four million instances of $7 in that context which seems to go against the idea of easily repurposing the $7 for different means. In addition, section 2.2.3 of the proposal makes the point that using different subfields for the same purpose is already a feature of MARC 21: e.g., $e and $j can both be used to carry a relator term.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) requested that, rather than using $z to record data provenance information in fields 800-830, $y be used instead. This would present fewer problems for OCLC in terms of WorldCat's controlled heading process. Subfield $y could also be used in the case of field 533.
Thurstan Young (BL) agreed with Jay Weitz's (OCLC) suggestion that MAC should substitute subfield $z with $y in the 800-830 fields. To avoid using $z at all to record data provenance information, $y could also be used in field 533. This would keep the variability of subfields used in lieu of $7 to an absolute minimum.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following amendments:
PROPOSAL 2022-06: Designating Further Open Access and License Information for Remote Online Resources in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-06.html
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats, in consultation with OCLC
Summary: This paper continues Proposal 2019-01, which aimed at the definition of new subfields for open and restricted access and license information on the record level, in fields 506 and 540 of MARC Bibliographic, and in fields 506 and 845 of MARC Holdings. This paper proposes the definition of new subfields for most of this information in the context of a URL, through changes to field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) in the MARC 21 formats.
Related Documents: 2019-01, 2020-03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Australia, CC:DA CCM, Germany, MLA, NLM, OCLC and Spain support this paper.
Britain supports the proposal but has two amendments to suggest as regards the relationship from new subfields in field 856 to existing subfields in fields 506 and 540.
MAC Discussion:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the proposal.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that where 856 subfields $l and $r are defined to carry information governing access, use and reproduction, it would be helpful to designate their respective relationships to the 506 and 540 fields.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) agreed with this U.K. suggestion to record such statements and relationships explicitly, and would like to work with others to help refine the wording for these sections. Reinhold stipulated that in some cases, the decision regarding whether catalogers should use 5XX fields or 856 subfields is determined by the resource in hand, or the resource being described. He added that too liberal a phraseology should be avoided in terms of providing a reference from the new 856 subfields to their 506 and 540 counterparts. If only one resource is represented by a record containing an 856, then fields 506 and 540 should still be used. However, if several versions of a resource are represented by a record, then this would be a situation in which the new 856 subfields are used.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) expressed support for Reinhold Heuvelmann's (DNB) response to the U.K. suggestion. The solution described appears to allow for continued use of fields 506 and 540 as well as the new 856 subfields.
Thurstan Young (BL) acknowledged that Reinhold Heuvelmann's (DNB) point is fair, and that MAC will indeed need to be quite careful with the wording for each of the subfield definitions.
John Myers (CC:DA) cautioned that MAC would need to know specifics about the subfield wording decided upon in order to understand what it was approving.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) noted that if this proposal were approved, and another of the 2022 Discussion Papers moved forward (i.e., 2022-DP02, etc.), then MAC would have effectively re-used almost all the recently freed-up 856 subfields (i.e., 9 or 10 of the 11 alphabetic subfields will have been re-defined).
Thurstan Young (BL) agreed and added that MAC may not be able to agree to a final wording for 856 subfields $l and $r at the meeting; he asked whether it would be acceptable to move forward under the condition that these definitions would be worked out editorially by the MARC Steering Group (i.e., NDMSO, the British Library, German National Library, and Library and Archives Canada.).
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with editorial revisions intended to clarify when to use the 506/540 fields and when to encode this data in the newly-defined 856 subfields $l, $n, $r, $t.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP01: Modernization of Field 856 Second Indicator and Subfield $3 in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp01.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This paper continues the modernization of the existing field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) in all MARC formats by clarifying the use of existing Second Indicator (Relationship) values, defining new Second Indicator values for subsets of resources, and updating the definition of subfield $3 (Materials specified).
Related Documents: Proposal 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2000-07; 2019-01; 2020-03; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; 2018-DP11; 2020-DP01; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised August 1999; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised March 2003
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Although there was general support across the board for this discussion paper, there are many comments and concerns:
MAC Discussion:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper. He commented that the term "subset" was borrowed from an old CONSER MARC Proposal. If other terminology was considered to be clearer, then that could be used instead. Jay will seek guidance on specific wording of "subset" vs. "part" outside the meeting. As regards the indicator values, he agreed that the specific guidance could be recorded in MARC 21, or may more properly belong in the MARC 21 documentation that presents "Guidelines for the Use of Field 856" (revised in 1999, 2003, and currently under revision), which was cited in the Discussion Paper. He acknowledged that the word "tangible" should be clarified.
Thurstan Young (BL) thanked Jay Weitz (OCLC) for citing the 856 guidelines document and its relationship with the MARC documentation; the U.K.’s larger point concerns where exactly MAC should provide best practice guidelines. In the past (for example in defining 347 $3 as part of the Holdings format) MAC preferred that such guidance should be located within external "community of practice" documents.
Liz Plantz (NLM) wondered about the legacy usage (and specifically about NLM's usage) of subfield $3 to record "Materials specified" information, and whether that practice will continue to be allowed if OCLC’s proposed changes to the 856 are accepted.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) confirmed that there was no intention of discontinuing current practice in regard to $3, and subfield $x, subfield $y as queried by Australia in the pre-meeting comments.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard Univesity) noted the frustration expressed by his reference colleagues that there are URL links in bibliographic records that lead to nothing more than Tables of Contents or other “parts” of the bibliographic resource described.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) commented that this was one of the issues which OCLC was hoping to address through its paper.
John Myers (CC:DA) noted the distinction which MARC 21 already made between tangible and non-tangible electronic resources with regard to the form of item code recorded in fixed field positions in the 006/06 and 008/23.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) noted that the distinctions the discussion paper makes between tangible and electronic resources could also be clarified.
Thurstan Young (BL) requested that any follow up to the discussion paper include an analysis of the legacy impacts which making changes to the 856 second indicator and $3 might have.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) confirmed that a follow up paper from OCLC would address these issues.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP02: Enrichment of Web Archive Information in Field 856 in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp02.html
Source: ISSN International Centre, Paris, and Finnish National Library
Summary: This paper considers options for adding new subfields to the existing field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) in order to establish a subfield for persistent identifiers (PIDs): ARK, DOI, Handle and URN; also to allow separation of current and past (i.e., functional and dead) URL addresses including valid and confirmed Web archive addresses for the latter. The paper also provides a place for indicating date ranges for relevant archived content. Finally, this paper explains the need for specifying file formats for archived content more precisely. This can be accomplished by making 856 $q repeatable. In this document, the term Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) has been replaced by more precise terms PID, URN, and URL.
Related Documents: 2020-DP01; 2020-03; 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2019-01; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; 2018-DP11;Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised August 1999;Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised March 2002
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
MAC Discussion:
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland) introduced the discussion paper. In responding to some of the pre-meeting comments, Juha observed that determining whether or not a URL is actionable and resolves properly should always be done by programmatic means rather than by hand; a batch program can be used in order to determine whether an electronic link represents a PID or URL and the data can then be distinguished accordingly; since all the identifiers addressed by the paper fall within the scope of electronic location and access, field 856 should be used to code both archival and other URLs unless there is a good reason not to.
Adam Schiff (SAC) expressed concerns regarding the redefinition of subfield $q and how someone or some system is expected to know where the electronic format types recorded in it originate from and what they mean. He noted this in relation to MIME types and PRONOM PUIDs.
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland) commented that, while MIME types were sufficient for everyday usage, they were sometimes not enough. Hence, the paper makes reference to recording PRONOM-PUIDs in $q as well as MIME types. He added that PRONOM PUIDs and their meanings are well known within the systems community; they are recognizably different from MIME types.
Kevin Ford (LC) expressed additional concern regarding the use of subfield $q: the variability here may be difficult for a machine to interpret; the intent is that 856 fields are to be processed by machines and to be machine-actionable.
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland) agreed that the current paper did not address this issue well. Best practise guidance could be to provide both a MIME type and PRONOM PUID when coding the 856. That way a system could ignore the latter if it was not set up to recognize it.
Adam Schiff (SAC) asked whether URIs may be available for the MIME and PRONOM format types.
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland) confirmed that URIs were available for the PRONOM codes.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed concern with the dead weight of legacy information which has already been loaded into the 856 field during the last several decades. He was supportive of defining a new field and set of subfields to more clearly address the requirement set out by the paper.
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland) responded that the current 856 was far too simple to record the information which it was now necessary to articulate. He added that, should MAC give the green light for submitting a follow up proposal, then a new field option could be discussed by the paper’s authors.
Thurstan Young (BL) recognized that the U.K.'s preference to use field 856 in order to record web archive links was a minority opinion in the pre-meeting feedback. However, it corresponded with Juha's own view that the 856's scope is able to encompass such links. He added that accomplishing the goals which the discussion paper sets out would be complex. MAC should take into account the added configuration costs associated with developing a new field rather than further developing the 856. There would also be a cost associated with transferring data from field 856 to a new field if it were found to be web archival in nature.
Adam Schiff (SAC) commented that it would be helpful to know MAC's view on whether to pursue a new field or to redefine the current 856 as part of a follow up proposal. Whichever approach was preferred, then it may still be necessary to make amendments to field 856 in order to bring it into alignment with a new field.
Adam Schiff (SAC) and Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) called for a straw-poll vote on whether MAC would prefer to record web archive information using field 856 or a new MARC field:
The paper will return as a proposal, taking into consideration the results of the straw poll favoring a new MARC field.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP03: Recording Concrete Action Interval Dates in Field 583 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp03.html
Source: OCLC Shared Print Metadata Advisory Group
Summary: This paper explores options within field 583 (Action Note) of the Bibliographic and Holdings formats to allow the recording of concrete end dates, in alignment with the convention in subfield $c (Time/date of action). Additionally, the paper proposes refining and possibly relocating the date formatting instructions presently located under 583 subfield $c.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was no clear choice on which option is preferred in this paper.
There seem to be two strands of opinion reflected in the feedback:
MAC Discussion:
Sara Amato (Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST)) introduced the discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that, besides the options for where start and end dates are recorded in field 583, the paper also raises the question of how this is done. There may be an ongoing use case for recording date information in 583 $c as it currently allows. This should be explored before any decision is made to align the field's guidance on recording date information with that in other fields.
John Myers (CC:DA) interpreted Question 6.1. of the discussion paper as a desire by the authors to align with ISO 8601; this is desirable as it represents a practice consistent with other application(s) of data information elsewhere in the MARC 21 formats.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) commented that the German cataloging community did not need the changes set out by the paper within its usage context, but that it welcomed any MARC changes needed by other user communities.
John Myers (CC:DA) called for a straw poll for all panelists to indicate whether MAC had a preference for a simple or clean solution to the recording of interval dates in field 583:
Kevin Ford (LC) commented that one of the date format standards not represented in the solutions set out by 2022-DP03 is the Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF); this option is particularly attractive because it includes the ability to record intervals and it has been applied elsewhere within MARC 21.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) noted that the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) had endorsed usage of EDTF within the MARC 21 046 (Special Coded Dates) field; however, there may be a MAC concern regarding a proliferation of date standards applied within MARC 21 descriptions.
John Myers (CC:DA) agreed that the proliferation of date formats and standards in MARC descriptions was a concern; there was a possible need for MAC to monitor this carefully.
Sally McCallum (LC) responded that when field 583 was initially defined (Oct. 2005) ISO 8601 was pretty much the only available date standard; however, she added that EDTF was actually a part of ISO 8601 – in fact, a specific profile of ISO 8601. Therefore, using EDTF may not be problematic at all in terms of proliferating standards.
Thurstan Young (BL) aksed whether a change in the wording of 583 subfield $c (i.e., to specifically reference EDTF in place of ISO 8601) would affect legacy data currently encoded in that fields or throw it out of alignment.
Kevin Ford (LC) responded that if the 583 subfield $c definition were redefined to specifically reference EDTF, it would not in any way invalidate legacy data.
John Myers (CC:DA) suggested a straw poll vote in order to further narrow down the options presented by the paper after having previously eliminated option 1 (i.e., to expand the use of 583 $d.). This could determine whether a new 583 subfield or redefinition of 583 $c is preferred to record a time/date of action in EDTF format:
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) noted the closeness of the voting on the second poll and asked whether the paper's authors had enough information to make further progress.
Sara Amato (EAST) responded that the authors could return to the shared print community and further discuss what was feasible, given the fact that field 583 $d already has a lot of mixed data in it. Having to move that data would be onerous on a lot of fronts. However, the first straw poll indicated a clear preference on the part of MAC for having a single data type in a subfield and this was useful to know.
John Myers (CC:DA) commented that at this point the authors may be in a position to explore an EDTF based solution in field 583 $c as one option in a follow up paper. A second option could consider coding an end date in a new subfield.
The paper may return as a proposal or follow-up dicussion paper. The authors will explore implementing the EDTF standard within subfield 583 $c to represent date/time intervals; coding end dates in a new subfield may form the basis of a second option.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP04: Adding Subfields $i and $4 to Field 373 of the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp04.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfields $i (Relationship information) and $4 (Relationship) to field 373 (Associated Group) of the MARC 21 Authority Format.
Related Documents: 2017-02; 2017-03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There is general support for this discussion paper to come back as a proposal by all parties.
All parties agreed that the precedent has been set elsewhere to make the subfields repeatable. However, it was also noted that repeating the field when multiple $i and $4 subfields are needed is a cleaner way to go and user communities might consider this in their guidelines.
OCLC points out a typo in the examples 4.11 and 4.12. There should not be a $b in these examples because it is not approved for the 373.
CCM thinks that all the fields in the 3XX block of the Authority format should be reviewed systematically, and these subfields added if appropriate.
Everett Allgood (NYU) notes that the addition of $w (Control number) was not mentioned for inclusion in field 373. Likewise $w does not currently form part of fields 370 or 386. He wonders where it would be useful to record a control number in these fields, since NACO catalogers already do so in 4XX and 5XX fields belonging to the Authority format.
MAC Discussion:
Adam Schiff (SAC) introduced the discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) expressed concern regarding the practice of recording personal information within the MARC 21 Authority Format.
John Myers (CC:DA) acknowledged this but observed that the concern represents "a ship which sailed a long time ago".
With the overwhelming support, Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that perhaps MAC might consider Discussion Paper 2022-DP04 as a Fast-Track proposal.
MAC agreed to process Discussion Paper 2022-DP04 as a Fast-Track proposal in a straw poll of all panelists with 22 for and 2 against.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP05: Accommodating Subject Relationships to Works and Expressions in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: https://loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp05.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper considers ways in which subject relationships to works and expressions can be accommodated in the MARC 21 Authority Format. It explores the possibility of adding a second indicator value 7 and subfield $2 for source of term in 5XX see also from reference fields, as well as options for using a new 3XX subject attribute field or the existing 381 field.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was support from groups that sent comments including MLA, CCDA, Spain, NLM, CCM, OCLC, and Britain. Germany had mixed support for the paper and no comments were received from Australia or PCC.
The preferred option was mixed with CCM, OCLC, and Britain preferring option 1 and NLM preferring option 2. MLA and CC:DA did not come to a consensus, some liking 1 and others option 2. Spain thought a combination of option 1 and 2 would be preferable.
Everyone preferring option 1 agreed that all the values in the 7XX should be defined.
Everyone but Spain was comfortable adding subject to both work and expression authority records. Spain commented multiple times that genre and subject are only work entity attributes.
There was disagreement about whether subject strings which did not have authority records could reside in the 5XX. Britain pointed to a stipulation from the format indicating that only authorized headings could go in the 5XX block.
There was general consensus that using the 380 field for genre of expressions was acceptable; the exception is Spain, who says genre is only for works.
Library of Congress comments:
LC conducted an internal, detailed study 3 years ago that explored the idea of migrating the Title records in the Authority file to the Bibliographic file. The study group included a variety of stakeholders representing standard specialists, policy specialists, catalogers, and administrators. The general consensus was that it was a compelling, logical idea but would require additional effort to implement. Part of the report was an analysis of what changes would need to be made to the MARC Bibliographic format to accommodate this change – in all very few changes are needed, which was one of the primary reasons the idea was viewed as compelling. One reason so few additions are needed in the Bibliographic format is because there is already overlap between the Bibliographic format and Authority format when describing Titles. Because the community has tried to wedge Work/Expression elements into the Authority format to accommodate RDA, a number of MAC papers over the last 6+ years have requested changes to both formats, increasing MAC and LC maintenance overhead for MARC and further increasing the incoherence of the formats.
More recently, LC's initial work with BIBFRAME Hubs has demonstrated not only the feasibility of these types of entities in the Work/Expression description environment, but also that they have a rather natural implementation. LC has commissioned XSLT code to convert MARC Authority records to MARC Bibliographic records to better understand the conversion challenges, if any. Experimentation with the actual XSLT will begin next month. Additionally, the MARC-to-BIBFRAME conversion was modified to produce Hubs from these MARC Bibliographic Title records. Virtually no changes had to be made to the BIBFRAME model or vocabulary to accommodate a full conversion of a MARC Bibliographic Title (formerly a MARC Authority Title) to a BIBFRAME Hub/Work using this workflow. BIBFRAME contains no, or very few, elements related to traditional library authority records; it is almost exclusively bibliographic in nature. The fact that so little needed to change in BIBFRAME further cemented the notion to LC that the more natural 'format' for these entities is a bibliographic one, not an authority one.
This DP would make additional changes to the Authority format to support what is basically bibliographic description. LC does not support this effort and would not implement this for a variety of reasons beyond the conceptual issue which has been the focus here. LC believes it is time to step back and evaluate what these entities are and how they function.
(Posted on the MARC listserv, available at: https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind2201&L=MARC&P=18314)
MAC Discussion:
Adam Schiff (SAC) introduced the discussion paper.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) read comments submitted to her just prior to the meeting by Sally McCallum (LC) on behalf of the Library of Congress.
John Myers (CC:DA) addressed the problematic nature of the Library of Congress's comments delivered only to the MAC Chair, but not to the entire MARC listserv prior to the meeting; the description of BIBFRAME in LC's comments appears to articulate a disconnect between BIBFRAME, BIBFRAME Hubs and the FRBR-LRM Group 1 entities.
Sally McCallum (LC) responded that she believes John Myers (CC:DA) may be misunderstanding the Library of Congress's position: moving Title entities from the Authority files into the Bibliographic files is actually in closer alignment with the original FRBR entity model.
Thurstan Young (BL) wondered if the authors of this paper had a preference with regard to developing subject access within the 5XX block or the 3XX block of MARC 21 fields.
Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that his preference was to develop the 5XX block for authorized/controlled entities; one concern expressed centers on some subdivided subject strings which may not be fully authorized in LCSH. Another question centers on how to deal with other, non-LCSH vocabularies (e.g., FAST, Wikidata, etc.).
Thurstan Young (BL) and John Myers (CC:DA) acknowledged the need to be able to record and reference controlled terms, subdivided strings, those which may not be fully defined or supported within LCSH and, in addition, those subject terms which are not currently defined or controlled as part of any string encoding scheme; consequently, MAC likely needs to support both the 5XX and the 3XX options.
Thurstan Young (BL) made an additional comment regarding the categorization of subject as an element. The National Library of Spain was right to point out in its pre-meeting feedback that subject is an attribute of the Work and not the Expression entity in an RDA context. He also noted the U.K.'s preference not to develop the 381 field (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) for carrying subject relationships.
Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed with Thurstan's comment regarding field 381; in his view developing field 381 would be the least preferable option. However, he also noted that certain audio related elements belong to the expression entity and that any changes made to field 380 (Form of work) should reflect this.
Kevin Ford (LC) referenced the points made in LC's pre-meeting comments and added that the issues raised by the discussion paper might disappear if title authorities were migrated to the Bibliographic format at a future point in time. He added that such a move would not represent a rejection of RDA or FRBR but rather a better accommodation of title authorities than the Authority format provides.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) offered a summary of the differing approaches to Discussion Paper 2022-DP-05:
John Myers (CC:DA) welcomed the comments from Sally McCallum (LC) and Kevin Ford (LC), clarifying LC's standpoint on RDA and FRBR. He added that MAC may require an entity agnostic container for bibliographic data and this is something which BIBFRAME is seeking to accomplish.
Adam Schiff (SAC) commented that the MARC format is used all over the world and agencies other than LC may wish to record work information related to subjects in the MARC Authority format. As far as he is aware the PCC still plans to create Work and Expression records in the MARC Authority format not BIBFRAME or using some other mechanism.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) commented that the ISSN International Register serves as an authority file for bibliographic descriptions with serial titles. Its combination of bibliographic descriptions with subject data seems to serve the international community very well.
John Myers (CC:DA) noted that serial descriptions are subject to a Work/Expression /Manifestation (WEM) lock in RDA which does not apply to monograph descriptions.
Everett Allgood (NYU) agreed, noting that it was not uncommon for bibliographic descriptions to contain Work, Expression and Manifestation entity attributes; additionally, such resources are often represented by both bibliographic entity descriptions and authority entity descriptions.
Karen Peters (MLA) commented that the music cataloging community has a great deal of data encoded within the Authority format. The hope has always been to leverage that data in bibliographic records which embody those authorities. Abandoning authorities and moving that data into the bibliographic format is a disturbing idea, although there may be some merit in it. The community may want to hear a lot more about this before it can move forward.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair), Adam Schiff (SAC) and Sally McCallum (LC) agreed that the Library of Congress and Adam should work together on this discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) wondered whether, since this paper was inspired by changes made to RDA, it could be something which the MARC/RDA Working Group seeks to take forward.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair), Adam Schiff (SAC), Sally McCallum (LC) and Thurstan Young (BL) will discuss next steps following the MAC meeting.
The paper's status is to be determined.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 05/17/2022 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |