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 Tamara Fultz ARLIS/NA The Metropolitan Museum of Art TJ Kao PCC University of California, Davis Yoko Kudo OLAC University of California, Riverside Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa John F. Myers CC:DA Union College Kate Peck AALL UC Berekeley, School of Law 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
Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Allison Bailund San Diego State University Corinna Baksik Harvard University Bryan Baldus OCLC Ardie Bausenbach Library of Congress Renate Behrens Deutsche Nationalbibliothek/RSC Chair Rebecca Belford Oberlin College and Conservatory Sarah Osborne Bender National Gallery of Art Gaëlle Béquet ISSN International Centre David Bigwood Lunar and Planetary Institute Barbara Block GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Juliya Borie University of Tronoto Jacqueline Brellenthin Library of Congress Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library, Ontario Anna Cardenas Western University of Health Sciences Cecilia Caride Yale University 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 Ethan D'Ver The Juilliard School Kevin Ford Library of Congress Paul Frank Library of Congress Sasha Frizzell Binghamton University Rachel Gay Ithaca College Library Kathy Glennan University of Maryland/RSC Past Chair Juha Hakala National Library of Finland Dietrich Hakelberg University of Erfurt, Gotha Research Library, Germany Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Matthew Haugen Columbia University Kirk Hess OCLC John Hostage Harvard University Meda Hotea ETH Zürich, Switzerland 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 OCLC Melanie Janßen GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Caroline Kent British Library Shawn King University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School Rachel Lara University of Texas at Dallas Christina Martinsson Biblioteksentralen SA, Oslo, Norway Ilene McKenna Library and Archives Canada Elizabeth Miraglia University of California, San Diego Chloe Misorski Cleveland Museum of Art Andrew More Library and Archives Canada Hayley Moreno OCLC Diane Napert Yale University Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Iris O'Brien British Library Laura Ramsey OCLC Kevin Randall Northwestern University Hope Reilly Library of Congress Pat Riva Concordia University Michaela Scheibe Berlin State Library (SBB), Germany Trina Soderquist Library of Congress Elisa Sze University of Toronto Jessie Tam Thurgood Marshall State Law Library Vitus Tang Stanford University Hermine Vermeij UCLA Kellee Warren University of Illinois Chicago Arlene Whetter Library and Archives Canada Becca Wiederhold Brigham Young University Deanna White ISSN International Centre Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Preliminaries
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) began with an explication of the online meeting protocols and voting procedures.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) performed a roll call and asked committee members to introduce themselves. 18 voting members were present.
Approval of minutes from MAC's June 2022 meetings
The minutes of the MAC Annual meeting, held online on June 28-29, 2022, were approved without correction.
Business Meeting/Library of Congress report/ Other
No fast-track proposals were presented for consideration since MAC’s June 2022 meeting.
Regarding the Annual 2023 MAC meetings in June, to take place after the ALA Annual Conference: during discussion, a clear preference was demonstrated for scheduling two 3-hour sessions rather than the usual three 2-hour sessions. The meetings will continue to be virtual.
NOTE:
Full pre-meeting feedback commentary of the MARC proposals and discussion papers can be accessed on the MARC Listserv at: https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind2301&L=MARC
PROPOSAL 2023-01: Defining a New Field to Record Electronic Archive Location and Access in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-01.html
Source: ISSN International Centre, Paris, and the National Library of Finland
Summary: This proposal describes defining a new field 857 (Electronic Archive Location and Access) to enable libraries to specify a persistent identifier or location of the resource in a digital archive repository or Web archive, and record the name, date ranges, and completeness of relevant archived content.
Related Documents: 2022-08; 2022-DP06; 2022-DP02; 2020-DP01; 2022-06; 2022-07; 2018-DP11; 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2019-01; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; 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:
There was support for this proposal from LC, CC:DA, Spain, Germany, Music, and PCC. There was also support from a number of groups but that support came with reservations and suggestions. The AALL law librarians have some problems with how $f is defined. OCLC had concerns over the definition of $d. NLM is unsure of how $g and $u differ, and has problems with how the word "archive" is used. In addition, they are unsure how this new field would be used if the single record approach to handling bibliographic titles is used. Britain was appreciative of the work that was put into this paper and has a couple questions. They wonder if the omission of the word "complete" in the 2nd indicator definition was deliberate and if so, why. They also wonder if a place to record non-actionable persistent identifiers is needed. Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) tried to clarify some of the wording in the $d and $f and has tried his hand at new versions. Canada's concerns are covered in the discussion.
MAC Discussion:
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland (NLF)) introduced the proposal. He explained and apologized for some errors and inconsistencies with the proposal as it was originally issued. These have now been corrected.
Addressing his pre-meeting comments, Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) explained that, as a continuing resources cataloger, he was always conscious of describing specifically what parts or portions of a serial run he has access to when creating or enhancing entity descriptions. Describing archival collections and content shares many similarities with continuing resources cataloging because there are often numerous parts of a collection accessioned over long periods of time. Capturing this attribute of the electronic archive seems important. Regarding subfield $d, he was trying to clarify the difference between: 1) archived content; and 2) what is going on behind the scenes. Regarding subfield $f he was trying to clarify that there may be two separate attributes to be captured here: 1) How frequently is the content archived; and 2) when archived over time, the subfield should also record the last/latest known date of archiving.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) also spoke in favor of trying to capture these continuing resource/over time attributes.
Deanna White (ISSN) spoke about these subfields and why the paper's authors tried to stay away from the term "published"; presumably, this field/subfield may also be of interest to people working with unpublished materials.
Adam Schiff (SAC) noted that for some years now, the RDA cataloging/library community has considered all online resources to be "published".
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) suggested that the subfield $d label be amended from: "Archived content date range" to "Date range of archived material". Sally McCallum (LC) and Juha Hakala (NLF) agreed to this suggestion.
Sally McCallum (LC) noted that, if necessary, serial specific issues could be addressed by an added sentence in the definition of subfield $d.
Kevin Ford (LC) mentioned concern with the formulation of the multiple date ranges and intervals encoded in the examples because they do not follow the EDTF standard, though they could. Juha Hakala (NLF) and others responded that this can be corrected in the final documentation.
Hong Cui (Library and Archives Canada) raised some of the concerns with inconsistent language and phraseology expressed within Pat Riva's (Concordia University/CCM) pre-meeting comments: i.e., the terms "archived electronic resource" and "networked electronic resource" are both used in the second indicator value definitions, but may cause confusion; the term "related electronic resource" seems preferable to "networked electronic resource" in the definition of 2nd indicator value 2 (Related Resource); 857 $h seems to confine usage to a circumstance in which an archive has ceased to exist, whereas a link might cease to function but the archive remains intact; more examples of archived monographs and grey literature would be useful.
Adam Schiff (SAC) wondered why 2nd indicator value 2 " Related resource" is necessary; in such cases he queried whether there would be a separate bibliographic description for the "Related resource".
Juha Hakala (NLF) set out the reasoning for how the 857 2nd Indicator 2 had been defined: it could be useful as a reference to the historic version of an archival resource if it has been migrated to a more modern format; archives are rarely deleted, but the authors wanted the scope of the 857 to allow for this possibility.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) addressed e-resources that are networked versus those that are archived; where possible, the authors were attempting to parallel the indicator definition structures between the 857 field and the existing MARC 856 field.
Juha Hakala (NLF) said that, regarding the continuing resource examples, the authors did consciously choose those because they are more difficult and complicated; just like continuing resources, a static publication can be harvested multiple times. The 857 documentation does not need to make this explicit, but an example of a static resource could be added for completeness.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) aksed whether, when recording archive completeness in 857 $f, it was necessary to mention the latest date of archiving. Juha Hakala (NLF) responded that it was not on the basis that a web archive may be harvested every five minutes. Under these circumstances, providing a date of harvesting would not be useful. But recording date information would be useful when the ownership of a website changes.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) asked Juha Hakala (NLF) how he would like for MAC to proceed. Juha asked whether MAC might consider moving this Proposal to a vote and then allow some of the details and wordsmithing to be worked through following the meeting.
Liz Plantz (NLM) raised concerns with approving a proposal wherein some of the ISSN and National Library of Finland comments and responses had not been seen by MAC.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) noted that most of the comments were minor, whereas the overall response to this paper from MAC had been positive.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that, besides changing the label for 857 $d, the label for $f could be amended from "Archiving completeness” to "Archiving completeness or archiving frequency".
Sally McCallum (LC) responded that NDMSO preferred to avoid lengthy subfield labels in MARC documentation. If a phrase such as "either/or" is necessary, then this should belong in the subfield definition. Deanna White (ISSN) also expressed a preference for not amending the label of 857 $d.
Thurstan Young (BL) requested that a vote be called to approve the proposal with the only change being that to the label of 857 subfield $d.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following amendments: 1) change the name of $d to "Date range of archived material"; 2) update the date examples to follow EDTF; 3) clarify $f to indicate that completeness can be indicated by either the frequency of archiving or the number of times archived as of a date that should be specified; 4) add a monograph example.
PROPOSAL 2023-02: Adding Subfield $3 to Field 041 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-02.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA) and Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $3 (Materials specified) to field 041 (Language Code) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, as well as changes to the MARC 008/35-37 (Language) and 041 field documentation to support this addition.
Related Documents: 2022-DP07
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There is general support for this proposal from OCLC, Britain, Spain, MLA, Germany, LC, and NLM. NLM wonders if the handling of multiple works with the same language might need some community best practices. SAC supports this proposal and comments on the NLM question, concurring that, yes, community guidance will be needed. Canada supports the proposal but they remain unconvinced about its usefulness and find the examples simple enough to be handled in one 041. They also point out that this is a field only seen by catalogers. PCC had partial support but not all. Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) points out that historically relying on field placement or sequencing is problematic within MARC.
MAC Discussion:
Karen Peters (MLA) introduced the proposal.
Kate James (OCLC) suggested that some of the examples in this paper did not appear to reflect correct usage of field 546 (Language Note) and offered to send specific comments and revised examples to NDMSO for when they prepare the documentation.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) and Kate James (OCLC) then had a discussion regarding whether a note about language of the original and language of the content belongs in a 500 (General Note) or in a 546; there were also references that this decision should ideally follow established OLAC Best Practices and workflows.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, subject to corrections in some of the examples.
PROPOSAL 2023-03: Adding Subfields $0, $1, $2, and $5 to Fields 720 and 653 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-03.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number), $1 (Real World Object URI), $2 (Source of standard number or URI), and $5 (Institution to which field applies) to two fields for uncontrolled data in the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: 720 (Added Entry – Uncontrolled Name) and 653 (Index Term – Uncontrolled).
Related Documents: 2022-DP08; 2019-DP03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
This proposal has support from NLM, LC, Germany, and Canada. Spain supports the proposal but thinks that the $2 needs to be repeatable. Britain did not indicate its support and had a number of issues with the paper as regards the use or otherwise of subfield $2 (Source). OCLC supports the proposal but points out that the current OCLC validation that occurs in its systems for RDA and AACR2 records would not allow 720s in these records.
MAC Discussion:
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) introduced the proposal.
Lourdes Alonso Viana (BNE) spoke in favor of making subfield $2 repeatable within fields 653 and 720.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) responded that this opening comment draws us quite deeply into the subfield $2 discussion. Historically, subfield $2 has been used within controlled fields in order to reference the text string entity contained rather than the identifier itself. It was worth remembering that both the 653 and 720 MARC fields are uncontrolled. Speaking to Best Practices, he was hesitant to advocate making subfield $2 repeatable in this context, thereby initiating an entirely new definition and usage for this widely-employed MARC 21 subfield.
Thurstan Young (BL) stated that earlier MAC discussion addressing subfield $2 focused on including a MARC organization code in subfield $2. But the proposal includes the addition of $5 (Institution to which field applies) to fields 653 and 720 amongst its list of changes. Perhaps the inclusion of subfield $5 here offers MAC an alternative approach to using $2.
Kevin Ford (LC) expressed concern with having subfield $2 redefined for two uncontrolled MARC 21 fields as opposed to how subfield $2 is used throughout most of the MARC 21 formats. Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed: yes, as indicated by Kevin in many of these cases (illustrated in the examples), one would stay away from providing a subfield $2 source. On the other hand, one could understand why other communities of practice would want to include it.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested that MAC might also consider using subfield $7 for recording some provenance information; subfield $7 was already defined in the 653 field but it was not yet defined for the 720 field.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented on the risk of redundancy as regards using $2. Example 19 in the proposal demonstrates that a MARC code used as a parenthetical prefix in $0 should suffice to identify the source vocabulary of the identifier; no subfield $2 would be needed in this case. Best practice for URIs is that a URI should identify itself, so again the subfield $2 would become redundant where only a URI is recorded in a subfield string. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) agreed–this is a very specific dynamic but Thurstan’s point can be generalized in application.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) note that the examples in this paper are illustrative rather than proscriptive. They do not always represent what may turn out to be preferred practices. Also, the hybrid record problem that OCLC raised is more and more a reality that many libraries encounter daily. Bibliographic Resource Descriptions are created and then modified and then remodified by OCLC and others via batch manipulation. The resulting bibliographic descriptions can be difficult to decipher, to untangle or even to interpret. Moving forward, MAC might approve this paper with subfield $2 defined as presented, and then wait for Best Practices to develop. Or MAC could strike subfield $2 from the proposal altogether and wait until some community of practice brings forward a strong use case for how $2 will be defined in an amendment.
Kevin Ford (LC) asked: what if you had an uncontrolled term and you wanted to record a source vocabulary even though you recognize that the subfield $2 source is not controlled in the same way that the MARC community is accustomed to perceiving a controlled source list?
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) explained that subfield $2 is generally associated with the characteristics of controlled values.
Adam Schiff (SAC) moved to approve the paper, removing subfield $2 and adding subfield $7 to the 720 field.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following amendments: 1) remove subfield $2 from fields 720 and 652; 2) add subfield $7 (Data provenance) to field 720.
PROPOSAL 2023-04: Defining a Field for Ownership and Custodial History in Structured Form in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-04.html
Source: D-A-CH Working Group on Provenance, Task Group on MARC, in cooperation with the German National Library and the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes how copy-specific ownership and custodial history information and material evidence represented by authority data and controlled terms can be accommodated in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Holdings, and Authority formats, by the definition of a new field 361.
Related Documents: 2010-09, 2022-DP09
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was support from Germany , LC, CC:DA, Canada, OCLC and Music. There was support with reservations from PCC, Spain, and NLM. Spain and Britain both express concerns about indicator 2 and the lack of examples and some possible problems with overlap between indicator 1 and 2. They also listed a number of other issues which will need to be addressed during the discussion. Adam Schiff (SAC) and John Myers (CC:DA) both have concerns about the $0 and $1 being repeated in the same field pointing to two different entities. Adam Schiff (SAC) also pointed out that the dates did not follow the EDTF format, which would make them more exchangeable and widely usable. John Myers (CC:DA) suggested that the name of the 1st indicator would be better named “temporary possession” instead of “temporal possession”. NLM was concerned about how this field would work in MARC Holdings records where multiple copies are/might be held. They are also concerned about guidance for catalogers on how to use the field in MARC Authority records. Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) points out that in the “parts" section the proposal specifies serials, but it seems to be talking more broadly about resources issued in more than one part, not just serials.
MAC Discussion:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the proposal and apologized to the British Library from the authors of the proposal for using examples of some of their bibliographic record descriptions without acknowledgement or notification. In some cases, they now realize that at least some of these examples may represent past/legacy cataloging/descriptive practices.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) acknowledged some of the pre-meeting comments and editorial suggestions, and stated the intention to make some of these changes during the documentaiton process, e.g., including replacing the term "temporal possession" to the suggested "temporary possession", changing some of the subfields used, as suggested, etc.
Lourdes Alonso Viana (BNE) reiterated Spanish Library concerns with the use of subfield $i in this paper to record a date in structured form; normally $i is used to record relationship information in the Authority format.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) explained that there was a need to record dates both in a structured and unstructured form as part of the new 361 field. A decision on whether to use EDTF or ISO 8601 has not yet been made.
Adam Schiff (SAC) expressed concern with references in 361 subfield $f (Ownership and custodial history evidence term) to an obsolete version of the RBMS vocabularies. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) appreciated this point being made and noted that this reference could be removed from the definition of $f.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) made comments suggesting a sequencing mechanism for this data, according to the history of the item, when needed. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that the German community may indeed be interested in exploring this, perhaps by using subfield $8 and its field link type "x" for "General sequencing".
Lourdes Alonso Viana (BNE) stated appreciation for the German community's responses, but raised another concern regarding Note information in the proposed field (i.e., subfield $x and $z). The BNE would prefer to see this Note information recorded in the 561 field (Ownership and Custodial History). Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that the Ownership & Custodial notes addressed by the proposal are highly contextual to other data encoded in a specific 361 field, so it would be preferable to keep this data together.
Thurstan Young (BL) asked to revisit questions regarding the indicator values, particularly the local nature of indicator 1 and the perceived need for an indicator 2. There seems to be a great deal of overlap between the proposed values in indicators 1 and 2. This raises the question of whether indicator values are the best way to capture this data. Perhaps it would make more sense to record this information within subfields which can then utilize URIs and provide more extensibility if necessary. If the 361 indicators were freed up by using subfields instead, then they could be used to flag private and non-private information in a way which aligns with the 561 field. The label for indicator 2 is "Type of accession" even though it references the RDA element "accrual method" and all the indicator values correspond to the controlled terms associated with this element. There are also no examples in the proposal which model the application of field 361 using indicator 2.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that the K10plus database is not a local one. K10plus, comprising ten states of Germany plus some other libraries, is more of a regional or even seminational repository. The two indicators do address different concepts: i.e., indicator 1 covers the acceptance of something into a collection, whereas indicator 2 covers the act of contribution to a collection. "Type of accession" is used as the label for indicator 2 rather than "accrual method", since this term is considered more user friendly. The inclusion of indicator 2 was a late addition to the proposal and therefore no examples were provided.
John Myers (CC:DA) spoke more about Thurstan's stated preference to replace some indicator values with subfields in order to carry URIs. Myers found this potentially problematic, especially within a MARC field wherein multiple subfields $0 and $1 already appear to be proliferating.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that subfield $7 may provide a means of distinguishing the necessary provenance sequencing for this field. The need for both of the proposed indicator values still did not appear to be clear cut.
Michaele Scheibe (Berlin State Library, Germany) noted the value of being able to distinguish between donation and purchase using indicator 2. However, there was a potential overlap between indicator 1 and 2 values in some regards: for example, it was difficult to explain the difference between "temporary possession" on the one hand and "loan" on the other.
Adam Schiff (SAC) said that, in addition to the possibility of subfield $7 as a provenance subfield for sequencing the multiple $0 and $1 in this 361 field, MAC might also consider the option of repeating the field in order to clarify the appropriate subfield $0 and $1. This practice is applied elsewhere within the MARC formats.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that this approach would break the German community's conception of how the 361 field should be used to describe custodial relationships. It would necessitate the use of $8 in order to link separate iterations of the field.
John Myers (CC:DA) mentioned the 541 subfield $c (Method of acquisition) as a possible way to clarify the indicator 2 values question that some MAC members had expressed concern with.
Adam Schiff (SAC) suggested that MAC was not ready to vote on a proposal, given the remaining issues which were outstanding.
Reinhold Heuvelamann (DNB) expressed a preference to take a vote, but offered to make written amendments via the MARC listserv to the proposal which could be considered by MAC the following day.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) agreed to this approach, and MAC was adjourned.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) resumed the MAC discussion with a description of the revisions and changes made to Proposal 2023-04 overnight, including additional examples, etc. He pointed to his email to the MARC listserv, archived at https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind2302&L=MARC&P=722 , of which a pdf version was shared on the meeting screen.
Coding changes included the following:
Thurstan Young (BL) expressed his gratitude to Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) and the D-A-CH colleagues for these revisions and quick turnaround; this revised proposal represented a major improvement. He asked for further clarification regarding the private/not private indicator value. Given that change to indicator 1, it was questionable whether both a public note ($x) and private note ($z) were still required in the field.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that there could be use cases which involved the presence of such notes. For example, the field as a whole may be flagged as public, but the note portion of the field could still be coded private.
John Myers (CC:DA), Jay Weitz (OCLC), and others agreed there are multiple use cases for both Note subfields. Field 583 (Action Note) is an example where both a privacy indicator and public/non-public note subfields are present.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) asked whether the removal of the 2nd indicator means that this MARC field might lose an important means of acquisition information. Michaela Scheibe (Berlin State Library, Germany) and Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that they and their colleagues were confident they could still capture the necessary means of acquisition relationship(s) from one custodian/owner to another, e.g., using German composed terms in subfield $o for a "Type of ownership and custodial history information".
Adam Schiff (SAC) asked how $5 (Institution to which field applies) would be applied in conjunction with $o. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that the German community was interested in pursuing a possible sequencing mechanism for this data within MARC. When known, this information is important to record and capture.
Kate James (OCLC) noted that because the field is repeatable and the note subfields are available along with the ability to capture time spans, that might be a mechanism for capturing the current status of acquisition. If necessary, some future MARC user community may propose defining indicator 2 in order to cover additional aspects of acquisition.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that in example 4.4.3 of the proposal the access point in the first 361 field subfield $a appears to be a structured name access point. He queried whether this was intentional, since it was not typically the form of name one would expect to see in a Note field. By conflating all of the data one might find in an access point into a single subfield, this also rendered the resulting data less machine actionable.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that these types of access points are indeed recorded elsewhere in MARC, including in Bibliographic fields 760-787, Authority 3XX fields, etc. If structured data was required, then one could follow any links provided. John Myers (CC:DA) and Adam Schiff (SAC) agreed.
Thurstan Young (BL) expressed concerns regarding redundancy with 361 subfields $s, $y and $5. That is, these subfields appear to contain information encoded elsewhere.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that the redundancy concern was recognized and noted. One reason the German community was interested in defining this field for MARC Bibliographic, Holdings and Authority descriptions is because this would allow additional flexibility – especially for libraries that may not have access to full MARC Holdings capabilities, etc.
Kevin Ford (LC) asked whether the proposal's authors envisioned the 361 field being used to encode an event as opposed to a relationship.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that this was a conceptual question to which there was no easy answer. However, it was possible that it could be used in these ways (for example, as part of a BIBFRAME conversion).
Adam Schiff (SAC) asked whether concerns regarding the usage of multiple $0 and $1 subfields in field 361 had been adequately addressed.
Kevin Ford (LC) responded that he was very concerned with multiple subfield $0s potentially referring to two separate entities within the same 361 field.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that an application of subfield $7 in field 361 may help to clarify multiple subfield $0 URIs, and which subfields correspond to one another.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) added that the purpose of the 361 was to relate an Item, a Provenance mark, and a Former Owner all as part of the same field – these were the significant Entities that were necessary to capture in one statement. In application, he agreed with Thurstan Young (BL) that subfield $7 may be required to clarify repeated subfields $0 and $1 within the 361 field.
John Myers (CC:DA) moved to approve the proposal based on the changes listed by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) at the resumption of MAC discussions.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following amendments:
DISCUSSION PAPER 2023-DP01: Defining a New Subfield in Field 264 to Record an unsubfielded Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-dp01.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding a new non-repeatable subfield to field 264 (Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to record an unsubfielded imprint or provision statement.
Related Documents: 2022-DP10
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was little support for this paper although most comments agree that BIBFRAME needs to solve the issues it addresses; if a solution is found, then it should avoid using the existing 264 or 260 fields. Generally people think that this change would adversely affect the exchange of records with no redeeming value other than a solution to the round-tripping from BIBFRAME to MARC. There are also strong feelings that this change would be confusing for everyone, catalogers as well as library patrons.
MAC Discussion:
Kevin Ford (LC) introduced the discussion paper and explained that the paper aimed at introducing a new subfield to field 264 (Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice). This would record a transcription-like statement covering all of those values hitherto recorded in subfields $a - $c (i.e., a place, name and date).
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) asked for clarification regarding Kevin Ford's (LC) description of cataloging practices for the 260/264 fields as "transcription-like".
Kate James (OCLC) observed that perhaps the new Official RDA Toolkit and its four methods of recording data may offer a path forwards regarding these legacy tensions within descriptive cataloging between transcription and structured data. It allows for the transcription of data as it appears on the resource and a structured description which can be used to create access points.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) advocated for catalogers and the library community to do a better job of providing controlled name identifiers for publishers. Regina also expressed concern with Serial bibliographic entity descriptions and their "place" within BIBFRAME; serial descriptions exist and are maintained through time and sometimes across different content standards and cataloging practices. This longitudinal model does not translate well into the current BIBFRAME environment.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that amongst the core concerns expressed by MAC was that if subfield $s (Publication statement) is introduced in field 264 for the round-tripping of BIBFRAME data back into MARC, then current library Discovery System abilities for indexing and filtering 264 subfields $a, $b and $c would be sidelined when this data was passed on to third parties. 264 subfields $a, $b and $c can already be used to construct a publication statement super element as conceived by the Official RDA Toolkit: i.e., a string encoding scheme which sequences subelements to produce a structured string. If an unstructured, transcribed string is required, then a manifestation statement can be recorded using field 881 instead. The BIBFRAME use case appears to be for a structured string, but one which involves less subfield coding than the current 264.
Kevin Ford (LC) noted that the focus with BIBFRAME is not so much on the future bibliographic entities that the colleagues are describing, but on current bibliographic records, and, of course, legacy bibliographic records.
Adam Schiff (SAC) asked Kevin Ford (LC) for clarification as to whether BIBFRAME contains a provision to record place, name and date of publication as three distinct elements. If so, then they could be mapped back to MARC as three separate 264 subfields.
Kevin Ford (LC) explained that such an approach could be taken, but that it would not necessarily reflect current practice or how records are updated as part of legacy bibliographic file maintenance. The transcription practices in these descriptions is not the problem; the punctuation is the problem, since it has been applied inconsistently over time.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) commented that legacy data was the beach where many grand data intentions had gone to die on. In his view the idea that more than 50 years of legacy MARC data was going to transfer uniformly and behave as well and look as pristine as more recently-input MARC bibliographic records was utopian. That is, "let’s not allow the Perfect to be the enemy of the Good".
Thurstan Young (BL) continued Everett Allgood's (NYU, Secretary) point by asking whether data cleansing was now part of the BIBFRAME process. If this was the case, then it begged the question whether the Library of Congress had considered cleansing their data within the MARC environment and then moving it into BIBFRAME.
Kevin Ford (LC) responded by acknowledging that an attempt was made at data cleansing in the first instance, but after all the punctuation was stripped out of a MARC record it could not be put back in again retrospectively.
John Myers (CC:DA) said that this discussion demonstrates that there are tensions between the desire to transcribe data in order to capture Manifestation/Instance information and to simultaneously normalize the entities described in order to provide access for these entities. The 26X block of MARC fields encoding publication/production statements has a long and important history as a transcribed area of MARC descriptions. As such, catalogers view, interpret and make decisions based on 260/264 information in specific ways. They want both a visually identifiable string of data as well as categorization of data which breaks down into place, name and date.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) wondered if there may be somewhere else this post-BIBFRAME crosswalk could map into – i.e., somewhere other than the 26X block of MARC fields; Everett Allgood (NYU) agreed, noting that if the post-BIBFRAME cross-walked data was stored somewhere other than in the 26X block, catalogers would know not to rely upon and interpret it in the same manner.
Kevin Ford (LC) responded that, even if a new field were created to encode BIBFRAME crosswalked data, it would not entirely solve the problem. There are instances in which multiple places or names appear in a string and these are difficult to process. Adam Schiff (SAC) provided one such example by way of illustration: "Published by McGraw-Hill on behalf of the Society of Archivists". Kevin added that in these circumstances it was important to transcribe the statement as found on the resource as part of the bibliographic description.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) offered an overview of the discussion thus far. She wondered if what MAC was addressing here may represent a larger discussion than simply the MARC format(s), and whether this was therefore not the proper forum to reconcile such concerns. The issue being considered dealt both with cataloging content standards and data encoding mechanisms; transcription within the 26X area is important because it provides the means to record specific relationships between agents and the resources they produce; it performs a role similar to that played by the statement of responsibility in field 245 .The issues raised may cause the community to consider the value of always providing access points to record publishers in future. The problems associated with conflating transcribed statements with access points is not new. It was what led to the abolition of field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) so that field 490 (Series Statement) and 830 (Series Added Entry - Uniform Title) would keep transcription and access points separate in the case of series.
Kevin Ford (LC) said that he had the information he needed to take this discussion paper back for additional work. The paper may return as a proposal or another discussion paper at an undetermined future date.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2023-DP02: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Field 658 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-dp02.html
Source: Den norske katalogkomité (The Norwegian Cataloguing Committee)
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) to field 658 (Index Term-Curriculum Objective) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2017-8; 2019-03; 2020-FT02; 2020-FT03; 2021-04
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was support from OCLC, Canada, CC:DA, NLM, LC, Germany, SAC, PCC, Music, and Spain. Many of these groups also suggested that the changes recommended by the paper be fast tracked. Britain also supports it, but points out that the subfield $2 (Source) should follow the $a-$d rather than the $0/$1 in field 658 where the $0/$1 contain URIs; this is because $2 identifies the source of textual values in the field, whereas URIs should be self-identifying. EverettAllgood (NYU, Secretary) requested a clarification of why all the $1 subfields are the same in example 3 even though the terms in the $a are different. John Myers (CC:DA) would like to have a discussion about whether LC or MAC should undertake adding these two subfields (i.e., subfield $0 and $1) to all appropriate fields instead of doing it piecemeal.
MAC Discussion:
Christina Martinsson (Biblioteksentralen, Norway) introduced the discussion paper and, in response to Everett Allgood's (NYU, Secretary) question about the repetition of the $1 entries in example 3, explained that the text strings in $a reflect different language renderings of the same registry entry – hence the same $1. Because Norway has multiple official languages, it is important for them to encode each when necessary.
Adam Schiff (SAC) moved that MAC approve the paper on-the-spot as a 'Fast-Track" proposal.
John Myers (CC:DA) seconded Adam Schiff's (SAC) motion, but reminded MAC that "Fast-Track" determinations are made by the MARC Steering Group and not necessarily "at the table" in MAC meetings.
In a straw poll, MAC unanimously agreed that Discussion Paper 2023-DP02 should be processed as Fast-Track proposal.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2023-DP03: Renaming and Redefining Field 368 Subfield $d in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-dp03.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper proposes a renaming and redefinition of subfield $d (Title of person) in field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) of the MARC 21 Authority Format to allow recording of titles associated with persons other than those covered by the current subfield definition.
Related Documents: 2011-DP02, 2011-07, 2012-04
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Supported by Canada, CC:DA, NLM, LC, Germany, Britain, PCC, MLA and Spain. Britain wonders where the terms Mr., Ms. and Mrs. would be recorded if they can no longer be encoded using subfield $d in the 368 field. OCLC would also like to change the word "simply" to "only" in the definition, last sentence of subfield $d. PCC thinks that the best time to implement the change to 368 subfield $d would be when LC/NAF moves to linked data.
MAC Discussion:
Adam Schiff (SAC) introduced the discussion paper and responded to Britain's pre-meeting comments by pointing out that terms such as "Mr.", "Ms." and "Mrs." are currently encoded within the access point, typically within subfield $c (Other designation).
Adam Schiff (SAC) expressed a preference not to substitute "simply" with "only" in the last sentence of the subfield $d definition as suggested by OCLC.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that there was nothing simple about recording details of gender or marital status. This was why OCLC would prefer the wording change.
In a straw poll, MAC unanimously agreed that Discussion Paper 2023-DP03 should be processed as Fast-Track proposal, with the wording amendment proposed by OCLC.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2023-DP04: Attributes of Family in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2023/2023-dp04.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper proposes new and revised fields and subfields for accommodating address of family, field of activity of family, and occupation of family, and considers two options for recording other attributes of families in the MARC 21 Authority Format.
Related Documents: 2009-01/1
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
This paper has support from OCLC, Canada, CCDA, NLM, LC, Germany, PCC, Music, Spain and Britain. Unfortunately, there is no consensus between whether option 1 or 2 is preferred with four preferring option 1 (Canada, Germany, Spain, and Britain), four preferring option 2 (NLM, LC, PCC, Music), one having no agreement in their group (OCLC), and one adding a third option (CCDA). AALL had no comments. Everyone was in favor of changing the field 371 (Address) and the field 374 (Occupation), except Canada; Canada was content with the 371 change but did not agree with the 374 change. Replacing "person", "corporate body" and "family" with "agent" in the terminology associated with these fields and 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body), 372 (Field of Activity) and 376 (Family information) was generally acceptable, except by CC:DA and Britain who did not think the change was a good idea. Britain and CC:DA thought the conciseness was good, but felt that the word “agent” would be less clear since the meaning of the word can vary, whereas the meaning of "person", "family" and "corporate body" is more specific.
Britain expressed concerns regarding the risks associated with recording personal information in a cataloging context. Recording details such as a family's address could be regarded as an invasion of privacy or breach of confidentiality. They appreciated that guidance around best practice in this area should be hosted separately from the MARC formats, but still felt that the issue should be highlighted as a matter of cataloging ethics.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (Columbia University) introduced the discussion paper.
Kate James (OCLC) stated that one reason the Profession/Occupation attribute was not defined for the Family entity within RDA is because it seems difficult (perhaps impossible) to make a declarative, accurate occupation/field of activity statement applying to every member of a family, past, present and future.
Adam Schiff (SAC) and Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) responded by disagreeing and spoke in favor of including the Occupation/Field of Activity attribute for Family entity descriptions. An occupation/field of activity could be used as a means of disambiguating families with the same name.
John Myers (CC:DA) asked whether, besides the changes envisaged in the two options put forward by the paper, a third option might encompass field 373 (Associated Group).
Matthew Haugen (Columbia University) responded that field 373 was already unrestricted in terms of entity type. Its scope includes affiliations for groups (which could include families).
Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that field 373 was generally used to record information about corporate bodies rather than other entities.
Two straw polls were held:
Straw Poll #1 revealed:
Straw Poll #2 revealed:
Adam Schiff (SAC) asked whether the discussion paper might be considered as a Fast-Track proposal, given MAC's preference for option 1 as opposed to option 2.
Thurstan Young (BL) expressed concerns with regard to the ethics of recording personal information as a part of cataloging policy. Further developing fields 371, 372, 374 and 376 created an added risk of breaching privacy.
Adam Schiff (SAC) responded that if RDA allowed for the recording of personal details, then the cataloging community should be free to do so.
Sally McCallum (LC) and John Zagas (LC) expressed the view that this paper should not be Fast-Tracked. This was particularly the case given the privacy concerns raised by the British community. Instead, further development of the recommendations in a proposal would be preferable.
The paper will return as a proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 05/18/2023 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |