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
Sherman Clarke (sub., day 2) VRA Alfred University and Avery Index Nick Curotto ARLIS/NA Virginia Museum of Fine Arts Ethan D'Ver MLA The Juilliard School Peter Fletcher SAC University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) TJ Kao PCC University of California, Davis Yoko Kudo OLAC University of California, Riverside Xiaoli Ma VRA University of Florida Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa Hayley Moreno OCLC OCLC John F. Myers CC:DA Union College Jackie Parascandola RBMS University of Texas at Austin Kate Peck AALL UC Berekeley, School of Law Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Ricardo Santos Muñoz BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Allison Bailund San Diego State University Bryan Baldus OCLC Ardie Bausenbach Library of Congress Renate Behrens Deutsche Nationalbibliothek/RSC Chair Rebecca Belford Oberlin College and Conservatory Erin Blake Folger Shakespeare Library Kaylin Blount University of Pennsylvania Jacqueline Brellenthin Library of Congress Su Burton University of Washington Christopher Carr Concordia University/CCM Julie Cavender Auto-Graphics, Inc. Charlene Chou New York University/PCC/RSC Bonnie Dede University of Michigan Corine Deliot British Library Andrea Diedrich GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Andrew Dunnett Library and Archives Canada Kevin Ford Library of Congress David Floyd Binghamton University Paul Frank Library of Congress Sasha Frizzell Binghamton University Julie Gagnon Université de Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada Britannia Gammond Northern Lights College Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Matthew Haugen Columbia University/PCC SCS Michael Hertig Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire de Lausanne (BCU), Switzerland Cheryl Hollingsworth University of Dallas Sarah Hovde University of Maryland Louise Howlett British Library Mary Huismann St. Olaf College Kate James OCLC Melanie Janßen GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Ivan Kaproth-Joslin Eastman School of Music Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Tim Keller Oberlin College Caroline Kent British Library Alex Kyrios OCLC Deborah J. Leslie Folger Shakespeare Library Caroline Marsh University of Washington Iris O'Brien British Library Nathalie Parent Université de Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada Linda Pitts University of Washington Lauren Rickel University of Washington Pat Riva Concordia University/CCM Elizabeth Robinson Library of Congress Karen Ross Library of Congress Adam Schiff University of Washington Trina Soderquist Library of Congress Lynn Gullickson Spencer University of Missouri-Kansas City Manon Theroux Library of Congress Hermine Vermeij UCLA Rebecca Wiederhold Brigham Young University Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Jenny Wright Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. Erica Zhang UCLA Helena Zinkham Library of Congress/RBMS [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Preliminaries
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) began with an explication of the online meeting protocols and voting procedures.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) performed a roll call and asked committee members to introduce themselves. 17 voting members were present.
Approval of minutes from MAC's June 2023 meetings
The minutes of the MAC Annual meeting, held online on June 28-29, 2023, were approved without correction.
Fast-track proposals
One fast-track proposals were approved since the Midwinter meeting:
Business Meeting/Library of Congress report/ Other
Sally McCallum (LC) announced that the Library of Congress published a new version 2.5 of the BIBFRAME to MARC and MARC to BIBFRAME conversions one week prior to the MAC Midwinter meeting.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) announced that the 2024 MAC Annual Meeting will be held virtually on June 25-26.
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=ind2401&L=MARC
PROPOSAL 2024-01: Recording Numeric Designation of Musical Expressions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-01.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper proposes revising the name and definition of Field 383 (Numeric Designation of Musical Work) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats to allow for recording numeric designations of musical expressions, as well as defining an indicator to designate the type of entity to which the numeric designation relates.
Related Documents: 2023-DP07
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Australia, Spain, PCC, Canada, Germany, CCDA. No comment: NLM, RBMS, and ARLIS. In addition to a minor typo in the first example in section 3.3, there were some concerns raised by four constituencies: OLAC, OCLC, LC, and Britain. They are concerned that putting a work element in an expression description is not ideal since there are ways to do this already using the 5xx or 7xx, thus eliminating the need to put work identifiers in an expression 383. There was general agreement that adding the 383 to an authority record for expressions is okay, although Britain points out that these identifiers are defined in RDA as work level elements and would like to address the language the paper uses since it is in conflict with RDA. LC points out that the word "work" is used throughout the MARC format in ways that are outside the RDA definition.
MAC Discussion:
Ethan D'Ver (MLA) introduced the proposal and mentioned that MLA would retract example 4.3, echoing MLA's pre-meeting comments that the example is problematic because it incorrectly implies that numeric designations of a specific expression could apply to a generic expression authority record which may be used to represent other expressions.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) proposed to consider the paper in parts. First, she asked whether MAC was agreed that Expression attributes for music need to be recorded within the 383 field (Numerical designation of Musical Work).
Thurstan Young (BL) said that some change(s) proposed to Official RDA were not accepted to become part of the standard.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) said that these Expression attributes are in accord with LRM (i.e., clearly numbered musical expressions).
Charlene Chou (New York University/PCC/RSC) said that the RDA Steering Committee does support this because MLA has demonstrated use cases needed to describe Musical expressions.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chari) summarized by saying that it appears that MAC agrees with the need to record Expression attributes within a MARC 21 field "intended" and named for Work attributes.
John Myers (CC:DA) said that if MARC is more granular than RDA in this respect, examples of application in MARC documentation would be useful.
Cate Gerhard (University of Washington, Chair) led the group to discuss the MARC 21 logistics, etc. around defining indicator values for the 383 field.
Ethan D'Ver (MLA) emphasized the need to encode Work or Expression explicitly for clarity. In response to the comment that the entity described is clear from the 075 (Type of Entity) field within Name Authority Records, we have not yet seen too many 075 fields being encoded in LC/NAF.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) plans to implement the 075 field for NACO entity descriptions once Official RDA is implemented.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved. MLA retracted Example 4.3.
PROPOSAL 2024-02: Refinement of Accessibility Field 341 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-02.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes adjustment to the Field Definition and Scope, and new and revised subfields in field 341 (Accessibility Content) to allow for recording accessibility features in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
Related Documents: 2023-DP05; 2018-03; 2017-11; 2017-DP03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: OLAC, OCLC, Australia, CCDA, Germany, Spain, PCC, NLM, Canada, RBMS, and MLA. There was support from others but with some concerns. LC supports but would like to put off adding the $0/$1 until it is more clear that it is needed and how effective its addition would be. Britain supports the proposal but feels that each term should be in separate fields and would like to see actual values in the $0 and $1. NLM thinks that the last sentence of the definition beginning "Multiple values…" should not have been deleted. PCC thinks there should be some rewording to avoid misapplication of this field. The suggested change in 3.2 would be "Information about modes of access to the content of a resource, including its primary mode of access, alternative mode(s) of access, and accessibility features".
MAC Discussion:
The proposal was introduced by Christopher Carr (Concordia University/CCM).
Thurstan Young (BL) offered background information on why Britain believes that repeating the field is necessary when using multiple terms. This parallels Best Practices articulated throughout PCC documentation. This is in cases where we need to identify specific or individual vocabularies, etc. for multiple recorded terms.
Pat Riva (Concordia/CCM) said that the primary interest is in broadening accessibility. CCM added the subfields $0 and $1 in response to the earlier MAC Discussion Paper. CCM does not believe there is currently a burning need to record URIs, IRIs, etc. because there are not many available yet. That portion of the proposal can wait as MAC deliberates the $0/$1 conundrum further.
John Myers (CC:DA) said that if there are currently source vocabularies for these accessibility terms, eventually there will also be URIs and IRIs. MAC should consider defining subfields $0 and $1 now.
Sally McCallum (LC) confirmed that examples to $0 and $1 can be added at a later date as editorial changes, in terms filling IRIs, if ncecessary.
Kevin Ford (LC) wanted to clarify LC's hesitation. Right now, they don’t believe that the usage and need for subfield $0 and $1 are established. They did like seeing subfield $8 used to sequence various terms and field sequences.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) and John Myers (CC:DA) said that they were more inclined to define subfields $0 and $1 now simply because the need for them is so foreseeable.
John Myers (CC:DA) said that it is the best practice to repeat the field if there are multiple terms, whether they are from the same or different vocabulary, that are being connected through IRIs. A language can be taken from elsewhere, or pointing to the best practices, to avoid the ambiguity when pairing multiple terms.
Thurstan Young (BL) said that based on the subfield $0/$1 discussion MAC hosted during its last meeting, it would be useful to know whether the paper's authors consider the URIs used for accessibility terms to represent Authority Identifiers or Real World Objects (RWOs).
John Myers (CC:DA) proposed that MAC approve the proposal with the amendment to add language about the need to repeat the field for pairings of multiple terms with their $0/$1 IRIs.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that other 3XX fields presently contain no such guidance on field repetition ; generally it appears to be a matter of best practice.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the editorial amendment to add clarifying language to address the need to repeat the field with appropriate pairings when encoding multiple terms.
PROPOSAL 2024-03: Adding Subfield $1 to Fields 082 and 083 in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-03.html
Source: Dewey Editorial Team, OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $1 (Real World Object URI) to fields 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification Number) and 083 (Additional Dewey Decimal Classification Number) in MARC 21 Authority, Bibliographic, and Community Information Formats.
Related Documents: 2023-DP09; 2021-04; 2020-FT03; 2020-FT02
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: CCDA, Germany, Australia, PCC, Canada, and OCLC. No comments: Spain and RBMS. NLM had some questions concerning how the URI will relate to different editions of DDC. MLA, OLAC, Britain, and LC have similar concerns but also are confused about why $1 was chosen when $0 was preferred by MAC. MLA wondered if we should just add both and let best practices decide which to use.
MAC Discussion:
Alex Kyrios (OCLC) introduced the proposal and, in response to some of the pre-meeting comments, said that DDC is unlikely to have any further, future editions. This is why he and OCLC believe that date and time designations for these Dewey Classification number assignments is more applicable and appropriate; all changes to DDC occur in the English edition first and other language editions then catch up with it.
Alex Kyrios (OCLC) also said that, given current hindsight, OCLC would like to define both subfield $0 and $1, if possible. The initial choice of $1 over $0 boiled down to the fact that field 001 can identify a DDC number in the classification format; $0 could be used, but this would not be as stable as what is recorded in $1. He queried whether the 082 and 083 MARC 21 fields could be structured consistently with other 0XX Classification scheme field definitions.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) agreed and spoke in support of defining both subfield $0 and $1.
Thurstan Young (BL) appreciated Alex Kyrios's (OCLC) use case presentation describing why both $0 and $1 may be necessary for these MARC 21 fields.
Hong Cui (LAC) asked about the applicability and extensibility of OCLC's current "pilot" loads of WorldCat entities to the WorldCat database. She wondered if there would be the intention to include this Dewey Classification attribute information at some future time.
Alex Kyrios (OCLC) responded that it was still "early days" with OCLC's load of WorldCat entities, but that they were certainly interested in these sorts of possibilities.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) moved that MAC approve the paper with the amendment to include both subfield $0 and subfield $1 for the 082 and 083 fields.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the amendment to add subfield $0 to fields 082 and 083.
PROPOSAL 2024-04: Adding Subfield $5 to Linking Entry Fields 773, 774, and 787 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-04.html
Source: OCLC, in consultation with Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS)
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) in linking entry fields 773 (Host Item Entry), 774 (Constituent Unit Entry), and 787 (Other Relationship Entry) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2024-DP01; 2023-DP08; 2022-FT02; 2010-02
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: CCDA, Germany, Spain, PCC, NLM, Canada, RBMS, LC, OCLC, Britain, OLAC and MLA. Does NOT support: Australia. Most communities saw the need for this addition, but Australia does not see the need for it in their catalogs and thus does not support it.
MAC Discussion:
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) introduced the proposal.
John Myers (CC:DA) noted the little MAC discussion voiced or opposition raised, and, recognizing Australia's position on this paper, moved that MAC approve the paper as written.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved as submitted.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2024-DP01: Adding Subfield $5 to Field 580 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-dp01.html
Source: OCLC, in consultation with Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS)
Summary: This paper presents a case for adding subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) to field 580 (Linking Entry Complexity Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2024-04; 2023-DP08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Spain, OLAC. Support with fast track: CCDA, Germany, PCC, NLM, Canada, RBMS, MLA, LC, OCLC, Britain. No comment: Australia. There was strong suppot for this but two communities wanted additional examples. LC would like an example using the $8 linking and Britain would like an example of locally bound parts with a title change in one bound volume. There was also wide support for the paper to be fast-tracked.
MAC Discussion:
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper and also mentioned that OCLC would like to see the paper fast-tracked, if possible.
During further discussion, some MAC members asked for additional examples illustrating:
Motion was made and seconded to fast-track the paper.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Chair) questioned what the use case was for encoding a local binding practice within a "shared" national Bibliographic description.
Thurstan Young (BL) acknowledged Bibliographic description concern(s), but also noted the purpose of $5 is that it flags locally applicable information.
John Myers (CC:DA) mentioned that, similar to Proposal 2024-04, this represents a local MARC 21 application necessary to support Bibliographic operational functionality within a local ILS/Discovery System; it allows for applications outside the Holdings format.
In a straw poll, MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2024-DP01 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 2024-DP02: Adding Subfield $i to Field 245 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-dp02.html
Source: Rare Book and Manuscripts Section of ACRL (Bibliographic Standards Committee)
Summary: This paper examines the possibility of adding subfield $i (Source of transcribed title) to field 245 (Title Statement) to indicate the source of a transcribed title when that title contains harmful language and the title is from a source not readily apparent to general users. The subfield $i would be a new subfield containing a non-repeatable, brief statement about the origin of the title or where the title appears, especially when the title proper is from a source other than the title page. This subfield would be especially valuable for unpublished and non-book materials. The use of this subfield would be optional and would not need to be applied retrospectively.
Related Documents: [None]
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
NOTE: For a fuller discussion of MAC members' pre-meeting positions concerning this paper, please see the listserv postings at: https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind2401&L=MARC
General summary:
The majority of the comments from communities not supporting this paper had to do with the fact that there are already two ways to do this using the $7, provenance subfield, and 5XX notes. There was concern about the placement of the $i at the end of the 245, namely that it would then display after the user was already confronted with the language. How the definition of harmful language is decided and who decides something is harmful was raised by some. Also, the difficulty of keeping this relegated to harmful language and not ending up with every 245 with a $i in it might be an issue. There would also be difficulty sharing these records in different languages. Other comments include: the feeling this is a local system problem and could be handled through a basic disclaimer in the catalog; that there is a lack of the writers not looking deeply at all possibilities; and that the paper does not address all the other places titles appear.
MAC Discussion:
Jackie Parascandola (RBMS) introduced the discussion paper.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) suggested that a discussion should begin by talking about some of the other proposed solutions for this problem, including using subfield $7 or perhaps through the use of 5XX notes.
Jackie Parascandola (RBMS) said they did not consider subfield $7 as an option because it does not currently display within any OPACs or Library Discovery Systems.
John Myers (CC:DA) said subfield $7 is typically coded data or information rather than eye-readable text.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) said library systems must be configured in order to display or index specific fields or subfields, as necessary. She also observed that library users routinely encounter objectionable language throughout library descriptive data whether in series statements, historical names, legacy data, etc.
Helena Zinkham (LC/RBMS) responded to some of the stated concerns. The perspective of the Rare Books community is that this discussion paper provides MAC with a place to begin this conversation. Regarding the suggestion to use subfield $7, this is envisioned as a general use field describing provenance information; their concern is that placing harmful language warning/disclaimer information there might dilute the intended impact amid so much other provenance data. Bibliographic record descriptions are turning up in some Open Web search results, outside of the context of a library OPAC which may or may not contain general warning statements ; the subfield $i usage was modeled on the 246 field, but snagged upon the non-filing indicators – hence the recommendation to place the subfield $i at the end of the 245 field. Additional feedback and suggestions would be welcome.
Thurstan Young (BL) spoke in strong favor of the RBMS use case, but encouraged the authors to revisit and reconsider using subfield $7, which may contain either coded category/subfield relationship data and data provenance information or just data provenance information. Coded data provenance information provides better machine actionability because there are so many subcategories of data provenance and so many subfields within a string to which it could relate, but a code could be suppressed for public display if that is preferred. If a category code/subfield relationship code is nevertheless felt unnecessary/too complex for inclusion, then the definition of $7 does not require it. Subfield $7 is currently available to carry data provenance within 61 MARC 21 fields in the Bibliographic format and would support RBMS's use case not only in the 245 field, but in many other locations besides where title information can be recorded.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) raised additional thoughts MLA had regarding the paper. MLA is interested in being able to include cataloger-supplied text about titles that were created and assigned in the past that contain harmful language but that need to be retained in library catalogs today because the titles have been used in bibliographies, citations, etc.
Jackie Parascandola (RBMS) responded to some of the comments concerning using 500 or 5XX notes: the authors were not keen on this approach because many/most OPACs/Discovery Systems do not display these within abbreviated search display results. She welcomed the feedback and encouraged MAC to continue this discussion.
Helena Zinkham (LC/RBMS) said the primary place they encounter harmful language is in the 245 field and other transcribed data areas within the Bibliographic record/entity description; they are not interested in "sanitizing history" or how this library resource is presented. RBMS mainly wants to flag the facts to Library OPAC users, i.e.: "This information remains intact as published (for self-identifying resources)", while alerting users that these entity descriptions contain harmful or objectionable language.
Elizabeth Robinson (LC) said this issue happens repeatedly and is an ongoing concern at numerous reference desks. Libraries need an answer to address this ongoing problem and concern.
Kate Peck (AALL) mentioned that she shared this discussion paper with colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley; there was definitely wide interest in pursuing options to address this issue.
Caroline Kent (British Library) believed that this was a very timely and necessary discussion. We may be in the early days of the process and may need more research involving library personnel with library OPAC users; it will be helpful for MAC to develop a mechanism for addressing this widespread need. MAC is considering this from a catalogers' perspective, but it will be valuable if we can include perspectives from other library user communities and voices as well.
Various committee members spoke in strong favor of starting and continuing this conversation as well as initiating additional research in order to develop a broader, pragmatic, informed solution. Committee members recognized the importance of this topic and of MAC developing an approach to address it.
Helena Zinkham (LC/RBMS) emphasized that the "source" of this discussion paper were library users, reference librarians, and special collections personnel who encounter this need routinely and repeatedly.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) wondered whether MAC really needs to develop another MARC mechanism for encoding this information when there are currently-existing ways to record it.
Liz Plantz (NLM) said that NLM had this conversation as well. While NLM recognizes the need and the use case, it is concerned that this resolution may be "a slippery slope", That is, if MAC were to approve the 245 subfield $i solution, for instance, that it may then be mis-used by some peopole in ways that MAC did not intend.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) asked whether RBMS had received feedback or suggestions from OPAC users describing how they would like to see this addressed. If so, including that information in a follow-up paper would be useful.
Two straw polls (open to all attendees) were held:
Straw Poll #1 result:
Straw Poll #2 result:
The paper will return as another discussion paper looking more broadly at additional options for addressing the problem.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2024-DP03: Addition of Relationship Subfields in Fields 647 and 648 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-dp03.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper discusses the possibility of adding relationship subfields $e (Relator term) and $4 (Relationship) in Fields 647 (Subject Added Entry-Named Event) and 648 (Subject Added Entry-Chronological Term) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2005-06; 2006-02; 2018-DP01
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Britain, OCLC, Canada, OLAC, RBMS, NLM, Spain, Australia, Germany and PCC. LC thinks adding the $e would make these fields mean two related but different things. They acknowledge that other 6XX block fields already have this problem so it is unlikely that it will slow this discussion paper down. There was general agreement that the other index term fields do not need this addition. There was general agreement from PCC, Canada, OCLC, and CC:DA that the $i should not be added, however OCLC pointed out that there was a discussion paper in 2018 to add $i to the 600-630 block that did not come back in the form of a proposal. Germany asks if this could be fast-tracked.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (Columbia University/PCC SCS) introduced the discussion paper.
John Myers (CC:DA) proposed that, based on the broad consensus and the additional support presented by the German National Library, the discussion paper be considered for fast-track approval.
In a straw poll, MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2024-DP03 should be processed as Fast-Track proposal.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) said that any other consideration and treatment of the "aboutness" for bibliographic resource descriptions belongs not with the MARC Advisory Committee, but more logically with another committee or with individual communities of practice. This is particularly when it comes to entity relationships captured within subfield $e.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) agreed with and supported Reinhold Heuvelmann's (DNB) comments. Within the art cataloging community, they are often concerned that "of-ness" and "about-ness" attributes encoded within the MARC 21 6XX block of fields is sometimes too far removed from individual resource communities.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2024-DP04: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Fields 506 and 540 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-dp04.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards, PCC Standing Committee on Applications
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) to fields 506 (Restrictions on Access Note) and 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2020-FT02; 2020-FT03; 2021-04; 2023-FT01; 2017-06; 2017-08
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: OCLC, Britain, OLAC, MLA, Spain, Canada, Australia, and CCDA. PCC did not have agreement and did not indicate what the issues were. Does NOT support: Germany. No comment: RBMS. LC and NLM are concerned about the way in which the $a and the URI match, since some of the URIs link to pages that had only part of what was in the $a. Questions were raised about examples in the paper demonstrating use of subfields $0 and $1 without a corresponding controlled term in subfield $f and whether this was intentional. Germany is not convinced that a case has been made for the need for $0 and $1 instead of using the $u. OCLC, on the other hand, thinks that $0 and $1 are needed for machine actionability. LC mostly supports this paper but feels more clarity is needed to differentiate the $u from $0/1. This will entail editing the definition of the $u so the complications that Germany mentions are not a problem. Britain points out that if a $b is present in the 540, a URI might not be appropriate.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (Columbia University/PCC SCS) introduced the discussion paper and, in response to some the pre-meeting comments, agreed that some of the examples in the paper may need additional work. Addressing concerns about why subfields $0 and $1 are needed in addition to subfields $u, Matthew said the PCC Standing Committee on Standards would take this under advisement and incorporate additional clarification.
Kevin Ford (LC) asked for clarification/confirmation that in this paper the intention is that the subfields $0 and $1 will refer exclusively to the contents of subfield $f in these two fields (506 and 540). If so, this distinction & clarification will need to be clear because often in MARC 21, subfield $0 and $1 refer exclusively to the contents of subfield $a.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed concern with redundancy in that the 506 indicator values and various subfields assert the same "Open access" attribute. He queried whether this was necessary to repeat and wondered whether this felt a bit "over-engineered". The same concern(s) may not be true for the 540 field.
Kate James (OCLC) said subfield $f is repeatable in both 506 and 540. She asked whether the subfields $0 and $1 in these two fields would also be repeatable.
Matthew Haugen (Columbia University/PCC SCS) responded that SCS will address this in the paper that comes back; though the authors may instead recommend repeating the entire field, when necessary.
Thurstan Young (BL) said that all four RDA recording methods are now present for these two MARC 21 fields. He expressed concern that, typically, URIs represent all that precede them rather than only specific subfield contents.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) mentioned that last summer, at MAC Annual, a discussion was held addressing the need to be more mindful and conscientious about defining subfields $0 and $1. The German National Library encourages this. Reinhold expressed confidence that as part of that examination, the use of and continuing viability of subfield $u also needs to be considered.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) agreed with Reinhold Heuvelmann's suggestion(s) and provided additional description and context regarding when/how MAC originally defined and approved subfield $u for many MARC 21 fields.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2024-DP05: Modernization of Field 055 in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2024/2024-dp05.html
Source: Library and Archives Canada; Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes revising the field definition, the second indicator definition and its labels, in field 055 (Classification Numbers Assigned in Canada) of the MARC21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: [None]
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Britain, MLA, RBMS, CCM, NLM, Germany, CCDA, LC and PCC. No comments: OLAC, Spain, and Australia. There were suggestions that this be considered for a Fast-Track proposal. OCLC has a number of questions that do not affect their support for the paper. First they wondered if Canada meant to preclude other non-Canadian organizations from adding and using the 055. They also wondered why the 055 duplicates the 050. Shouldn’t Canada just use the 050 instead of duplicating it in the 055? And lastly, they request that Canada choose either "Canadian organization" or "Canadian agency" instead of using both with no clear difference between them.
MAC Discussion:
Hong Cui (LAC) introduced the discussion paper and, responding to some of the pre-meeting comments, said that the assignment of 055 (Classification Numbers Assigned in Canada) dates prior to the MARC harmonization; if Canada were to do it all over again today, they may well make different decisions. However, LAC does not desire to make the 055 field and this legacy classification data obsolete, so as to not disrupt current practice and impose changes elsewhere in the format.
Thurstan Young (BL) asked for additional clarification regarding the continuing use of asterisks to represent incomplete classification numbers.
Hong Cui (LAC) and Pat Riva (Concordiua University) explained that certain Canadian library agencies continue to use asterisks for specific situations while also using complete numbers.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) and Sherman Clarke (VRA) mentioned that incomplete classification numbers are not an uncommon occurrence within the Library of Congress Classification schedules either. Actually, the use of the asterisk to designate "incompleteness" represents rather an elegant solution that should perhaps be considered for broader application.
John Myers (CC:DA) believed that the expressed concerns had been adequately addressed. He asked whether MAC might consider this paper as a Fast-Track proposal.
Hong Cui (LAC) confirmed that a slight amendment made in the paper to ensure that a Fast-Track Proposal allow for various Canadian library practices including the continued use of asterisked numbers.
Sally McCallum (LC) clarified that converting papers to "Fast Track" means that the paper is re-written and then submitted to the MAC Steering Group for approval; the paper does not come back to the full MAC Committee.
In a straw poll, MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2024-DP05 should be processed as Fast-Track proposal.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 05/17/2024 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |