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
Catherine Gerhart, Chair UW University of Washington Everett Allgood, Secretary NYU New York University
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) Matthew Haugen RBMS Columbia University/PCC SCS 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 Kate Peck AALL UC Berekeley, School of Law Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Ricardo Santos Muñoz BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España Rebecca Wiederhold SAA Brigham Young University John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Allison Bailund San Diego State University Bryan Baldus OCLC Renate Behrens RDA Steering Committee (RSC) Rebecca Belford Oberlin College Erin Blake Folger Shakespeare Library/RBMS Kathy Boyd San Diego State University Krina Doekes Brandt Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jacqueline Brellenthin Library of Congress Cecilia Caride Yale University Andrea Cawelti Harvard University Charlene Chou New York University/RSC Sherman Clarke Alfred University and Avery Index Vickie D'Antonio St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Bonnie Dede University of Michigan Corine Deliot British Library Zoe Dobbs Yale University Andrew Dunnett Library and Archives Canada Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ) Zachary Fannin University of Minnesota Kevin Ford Library of Congress Paul Frank Library of Congress Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Cheryl Hollingsworth University of Dallas Sarah Hovde University of Maryland Kate James OCLC Melanie Janßen GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Kyla Jemison University of Toronto Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Caroline Kent British Library Francis Lapka Independent consultant Deborah J. Leslie Folger Shakespeare Library/RBMS Joanne Macdonald City of Ottawa Dafna Mizrahi Melcer Hebrew University of Jerusalem Liz Miraglia California Digital Library Adrian Nolte Axiell Germany, retired Iris O'Brien British Library Kevin M. Randall Northwestern University Pat Riva Concordia University/CCM Karen Ross Library of Congress Naomi Shiraishi University of California, Berkeley Tracey Snyder Cornell University Trina Soderquist Library of Congress Amy Strickland Library of Congress Amy Tims Indiana University Bloomington Hermine Vermeij UCLA Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Crystal Yragui University of Washington Erica Zhang UCLA Sam Ziesler British Library 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. 16 MAC voting members were present.
In Memoriam
A moment of silence, remembrance, and condolences was held for former MAC colleague Reinhold Heuvelmann (1964-2024).
Approval of minutes from MAC June 2024 meeting
The minutes of the MAC Annual meeting, held online on June 25, 2024, were approved without correction.
Fast-track proposals
One Fast-track proposal was approved since the Annual meeting:
Business meeting
Scheduling of 2025 Annual meeting: there was a proposal to hold the next MAC meeting on June 25-26, 2025, just prior to the ALA Annual Conference.
Library of Congress report
Sally McCallum (LC) gave a brief description of the "Modern MARC" initiative and directed the MARC community to review a document posted on the MARC website for more details.
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=202501-202501&L=MARC&O=&D=&TOC=&S=
PROPOSAL 2025-01: Adding Subfields $i and $4 to Fields 368, 376, and 381 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-01.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This proposal seeks to add subfield $i (Relationship information) and subfield $4 (Relationship) in fields 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) and 376 (Family Information) in the MARC 21 Authority Format, and in field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats.
Related Documents: 2024-DP09; 2017-02; 2017-03; 2022-DP05; 2022-FT01
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: LC, Spain, OLAC, RBMS, and Germany. Mixed support: CCDA, ARLIS, Britain, MLA, PCC, and Canada. Does not support: OCLC. OCLC has problems with many of the examples and wonders if the PCC SC on Standards should consult with the PCC SCS Privacy Task Group before we move to approve this proposal. Canada has many concerns as well about the use of these fields for what might be harmful labeling of individuals. They find many of the examples problematic and
some are wrong. For instance, section 4.3.1 ex. 4 relates works and expressions to a publisher which is a manifestation level entity. Britain, PCC, MLA, and ARLIS also find the issue of privacy in the examples a concern as well as the fact that they are mismatched, with words like "disability" associated with a person demographic term rather than the name of disability. AALL sees less of a problem with the 381 than the other two fields and wondered if that one could be split into its own proposal.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (RBMS), co-author of the paper and temporary liaison for PCC SCS, introduced the proposal.
Several MAC members expressed concerns with the current examples. Specific concerns were raised regarding privacy, ethics, etc. MAC Members questioned whether the PCC Standing Committee on Standards (SCS) should coordinate here with the PCC SCS Task Group on Privacy in Name Authority Records.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) said that the PCC SCS Privacy Task Group has only recently issued its Final Report; PCC SCS is currently reviewing that report and will take all recommendations and best practices under advisement in regard to this proposal, et al.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) asked whether we may consider the content of the proposal without focusing too closely on the current examples.
John Myers (CC:DA) acknowledged concerns with the current examples, however, at its core the merits of 2025-01 advocate for moving it forward. The MARC format supports these usages and structures. Best practices developed for individual MARC user communities will govern how subfield content in these fields will be used.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) spoke in support of John Myer's (CC:DA) comments.
Kate Peck (AALL) suggested the 368 and 376 fields be considered separately from the 381 field. The 381 field examples for Works and Expressions represent a different functional purpose, are not as problematic, and may be easier to address.
Ethan D/Ver (MLA) said that sticking with factual data attribute content (e.g., awards nominated for and received, entity founded by, etc.) is certainly easier and less likely to cause privacy concerns.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) asked Matthew Haugen (RBMS) if PCC SCS might be willing to go back and revisit the examples in the proposal in response to the Final Report from the PCC SCS Task Group on Privacy in Name Authority Records. Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) and others also spoke in favor of this approach.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) responded that this sounded reasonable.
John Myers (CC:DA) said that if the examples are the only concern, that is an editorial issue. He questioned whether MAC could approve this proposal with the consensus provision that the examples will be reworked.
Thurstan Young (BL) said that the use of "Other designations" in Original RDA is largely being deprecated as we move to Official RDA. That change too may require additional analysis.
Kate James (OCLC) seconded Thurstan Young's (BL) comments regarding changes between the currently-applied Original RDA and the soon-to-be-adopted Official RDA.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) said, in response to John Myers's (CC:DA) comments about approving the paper and then having the author's (i.e., PCC SCS) rework the examples, that he was not completely comfortable that the results will fully incorporate all MARC community concerns. There are numerous, diverse cataloging communities represented by MAC members. It is critical that each of them retain an equal voice and ability to guide the MARC approval process.
MAC Action:
Proposal rejected, with the stated intention that Proposal 2025-01 will be worked on further, especially in response to the recent PCC SCS Privacy Task Group report. The paper will return at the June 2025 Annual meeting.
PROPOSAL 2025-02: Redefining Subfield $b in X00 Fields in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-02.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper proposes redefining subfield $b (Numeration) in X00 Fields in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats to allow the recording of forms of regnal numeration other than roman numerals.
Related Documents: 2024-DP10
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: AALL, LC, Spain, CCDA, OCLC, OLAC, RBMS, ARLIS, Britain, MLA, PCC, Germany and Canada. There were just a couple of comments: OCLC thinks Arabic and Roman should be capitalized rather than lowercase in the proposal. However, a quick check regarding the capitalization of these terms in the MARC documentation showed that it is definitely not consistent in the format so one should not worry about this issue. MLA wonders why Kabuki names are not considered valid. Canada notes that Example 10 in Section 4.1 is a local use and not valid in MARC 21.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (RBMS), temporary liaison for PCC SCS, introduced the proposal and responded positively to the pre-meeting comments regarding the examples. These changes are appreciated and can be incorporated into the final proposal.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) calrified that MLA members expressly asked that the Kabuki names example be removed because it is considered inappropriate. If necessary, then the appropriate guidance can be covered in best practice guidelines.
The examples highlighted in the discussion will not be added to the MARC documentation.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved as submitted.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP01: Defining a New Subfield for Context of Transcribed Title Statement in Field 245 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp01.html
Source: The Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) of the Rare Book and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of ALA (American Library Association); co-sponsored by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging Advisory Committee on Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Belonging, and Accessibility (PCC EDIBA)
Summary: This paper proposes adding an optional subfield $z for "Title statement context note" to field 245 (Title Statement) to meet the reparative description need for immediate contextualization of racist, homophobic, ableist, and other biased, prejudicial, or hateful language found in transcribed titles of many special collections resources.
Related Documents: 2024-DP02
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
AALL supports the paper but does not favor the use of "transcribed". They don’t think users will understand what it means. CCDA, RBMS, Canada, and ARLIS would like to see this move forward. Canada reminds the system dependencies of the communication and display of metadata after the metadata creation. OLAC supports it going forward, but has concerns about the lack of discovery system issues discussed in the paper and the lack of non book examples. Britain would also like to see some non-book examples. There was general agreement that what goes in this subfield should be decided on by best practice and not the MARC format. Also, there was agreement that it should go at the end of the 245. University of Washington and MLA would like to see some discussion of implementation issues, including how this could be handled as language changes over time. Britain points out that the $7 data provenance subfield can be used without coded values and could be used for this information. They would also like to point out that multiple ways of addressing harmful content could be useful, in both the 245, the 500 and the welcome page of the catalog. These are not mutually exclusive. OCLC thinks that this solution might not be most helpful to solve the issue and wonders if it needs a more system wide solution.
MAC Discussion:
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) introduced the discussion paper and responded to pre-meeting comments, saying that RBMS agrees that some of the suggested alternative approaches (e.g., OPAC banner statements, 5XX Notes, etc.) are not mutually exclusive with the suggested 245 subfield approach. Subfield $7 (Data provenance) was considered but rejected as a solution, because of the perceived need to record coded values for the type of provenance/subfield relationship and not just a free-text term, and how this might affect end user display.
Helena Zinkham (LC/RBMS) thanked MAC members for their comments and suggestions. Helena, on behalf of the RBMS community, was very receptive to several of the pre-meeting comments.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) said the discussion about non-filing indicators and ILS indexing reminded him of why catalogers need to encode this subfield at the end of the 245 field.
Kate Peck (AALL) asked for clarification about the move in Official RDA for discontinuing the practice of encoding non-transcribed data in MARC fields within square brackets.
Thurstan Young (BL), responded that this change is coming more from the ISBD Community guidance than from the Official RDA content standard. According to Thurstan, Official RDA is "agnostic" regarding such recording practices.
Thurstan Young (BL) continued with a comment about considering the use of subfield $7 (Data provenance) rather than the proposed subfield $z. He noted that there was nothing in the definition of $7 (Data provenance) which required a coded value to be recorded; coding can be included or not, depending on a community's preference. However, the modeled examples of 245 $z's application in the paper suggested that only a free text note would ever be recorded. If so, this would be less permissive than $7 (Data provenance) which allows any recording method to be used. In an RDA context, the modeled examples appeared to fall into two categories: the elements "recording source" and "note on metadata work". Taking account of this and the unstructured nature of the information recorded should help the paper's authors as they try to hone the definition of $z going forward.
Kate James (OCLC), echoing Thurstan Young's (BL) comments regarding square brackets in RDA, said the use of square brackets was a cataloger convention outside the confines of RDA. There are other numerous techniques for recording information that does not appear on a resource and is not transcribed.
Charlene Chou (NYU/RSC) said that there are no obvious concerns here with regard to RDA.
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) said that in the shared cataloging environment, the usage and application proposed in this paper and appearing among different bibliographic descriptions may cause friction and confusion regarding the different bibliographic descriptions. This needs to be considered.
Thurstan Young (BL) said that $7 can be used to enter metadata using a variety of recording methods: free text, controlled, identifier, URI; the use case for $z rests solely on the first of these options and so the $7’s flexibility is thus considered to be surplus to requirements. Nevertheless, the scope of metadata modeled using $z is still one of data provenance (i.e., recording metadata in an unstructured form about the source of a transcribed title and other contextual information) so any label and definition for 245 $z should reflect that.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) said that the paper's authors did look at and consider various bracketing conventions and user applications from a number of Rare Book and Special Collections repositories during the writing of this paper.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) asked whether the paper authors had enough information and feedback to move forward with a proposal. Matthew Haugen (RBMS) responded that he thought they did and that they will move the paper forward.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP02: Adding a Code for Remote Sensing Image to Fields 008/25 and 006/08 (Maps) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp02.html
Source: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus Library - Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials
Summary: This paper proposes adding an additional code for "Remote sensing images" to fields 008/25 and 006/08 (Maps, Type of cartographic material) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format in order to provide enough granularity for useful faceting and statistical reporting in library OPACs.
Related Documents: 97-6; DP95
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Spain, RBMS, PCC, Canada, and Germany. Support from OLAC was divided. No comment from AALL. Britain feels it may be necessary to distinguish between aerial and satellite images. CCDA has a number of issues that need to be addressed in a future paper, the main one being a better look at the definition of remote sensing. They found that many remote sensing images are not maps, which will make the coding difficult. They are also not convinced that the 008/006 is the correct place for the information. OLAC thinks that the use of the 655 is probably adequate but would look to the map community for the final decision. University of Washington wonders why there cannot be codes for both aerial photographs and remote sensing images. Perhaps developing an 007 for remote sensing images would be a good idea, since there are so many different kinds. Germany has yet to discuss this issue with its map catalogers. MLA feels that the current 007 is enough.
MAC Discussion:
Krina Doekes Brandt (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) introduced the discussion paper.
There was general agreement that there will need to be clarification of the definitions in terms of defining remote images, maps, aerial photographs, etc.
John Myers (CC:DA) described the current forms of coding and description as "a hot mess"; the MARC community is in need of a more holistic approach to this issue, preferably led by the cartographic cataloging community. The currently available options produce inconsistent bibliographic descriptions and results – not a desirable outcome within a shared environment.
Thurstan Young (BL) agreed John Myers's (CC:DA) comments and said that the British community had identified at least three distinct definitions for remote sensing images, and there may be more than three. He believed that this calls for a holistic approach to examining the current state of 006/008 values and the descriptive practices of various user communities. A follow-up paper should consider whether it is sufficient to distinguish between aerial and satellite, but also radar, sonar, lidar, infrared, and ultraviolet images.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) said that 008/21 (Type of continuing resource) might be another fixed field area in need of additional study and examination for this more holistic approach/revision. The ISSN community is currently struggling with describing podcasts. It needs more clarity and additional granularity.
Jodi Williamschen (LC) said that in Modern MARC, the 007 field has been simplified. Valid values for the first two bytes are included, but the rest of the field contains fill characters. There are no plans to alter the contents of the 008 field in a similar manner.
John Myers (CC:DA) described the ongoing tension in MARC 21 among the 008/006 coded values and the 6XX fields – especially the 655 genre/form terms. These represent different faceting elements.
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) said that among cartographic catalogers, "Aerial photographs are to remote sensing images as apples are to fruit." Library collections tend to have more of the aerial type than of the satellite remote images type.
Thurstan Young (BL) said that, in talking about coding, remote sensing objects in RDA could be encoded and recorded in numerous areas of MARC using different recording methods.
Krina Doekes Brandt (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) asked whether the authors might have had a better chance of moving their paper forward if they had approached it only from the aerial photographs perspective as opposed to both remote sensing and aerial photographs perspective.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) said she thought there were remote sensing images which were not maps.
Susan Moore (MAGIRT) said that if the remote sensing image is not of a geographic area, it is not considered a map. She suggested that the authors bring this paper back addressing the remote sensing value. She would be happy to work with the paper's authors in the revisions for this paper.
Sherman Clarke (Alfred University and Avery Index) mentioned to please also keep in mind drone photographs and a way to distinguish between drone photographs and aerial photographs.
The paper may return as a proposal or as a revised discussion paper, with MAGIRT's possible involvement.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP03: Defining Field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp03.html
Source: Yale University
Summary: This paper presents a case for defining field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format.
Related Documents: 2022-DP09
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Spain, RBMS, ARLIS, MLA, PCC, Germany and Canada. Both AALL and LC have concerns about adding Bibliographic fields, such as the 6XX, to the Holdings format. Spain would also look forward to a paper adding 7XX to the Holdings format. OCLC wondered if the authors had looked at the 842 (Textual Physical Form Designator) for this information. RBMS and University of Washington are worried that holdings with multiple items will have difficulty linking to the correct item. ARLIS is interested in looking at extensively expanding support in MARC Holdings of item level description. University of Washington suggested using the 380 (Form of Work) rather than the 655 since the 3XX fields are already in the Holdings format. [NOTE: 380 field would need to be added to the Holdings format; 380 is currently defined in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats, but not in Holdings]. Britain has general concerns about the duplication of information in the Holdings format that is already in the bibliographic record. They are also concerned about the problems of indexing information in Holdings. Britain points out that field 562 (Copy and Version Identification Note) is also available for this kind of information
MAC Discussion:
Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) introduced the discussion paper and responded to pre-meeting comments by saying that they ruled out 5XX fields in Holdings as they are free-text and not controlled as desired for the genre terms. They did not look at 842 field, again due to the nature of its contents and rarity of use. Field 380 could work but would need to be defined in the Holdings format, and would require revision and redefinition for a field that is specifically intended to contain Work and Expression attribute data. The current need is more at the Item/physical artifact level. Regarding indexing and display, this is system dependent and some systems might not be able to be configured appropriately (though it is possible in, e.g.,, Solr and Primo discovery based layers), but system constraints should not rule out the use of field 655 just beause it cannot be as easily indexed in the Holdings format as in the Bibliographic and Authority formats.
Hong Cui (LAC) said that Content Standard for Holdings & Items is governed by ANSI and ISO standards (i.e., ANSI-NISO Z39.71). The authors of this paper may want to consult this robust Content Standard specifically.
Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) thanked Hong Cui (LAC) and said that would be looked at carefully.
John Myers (CC:DA) said that just as encoded data in bibliographic descriptions does not always apply to all copies, the same may be said of holdings records and the Item records attached to them. This tension and inconsistency need to be addressed in the paper that returns. Additionally, he requested the consideration of a possible use for subfield $3 to clarify which Item/Items a specific genre term applies to.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) said that he has long been waiting to see the MARC 21 Holdings Format receive more robust attention and development. Libraries collectively struggle with a current landscape in which institutional policies are driven by how closely individual ILS & Discovery Systems adhere to the MARC 21 Holdings Format and the ANSI-NISO Z39.71 Content Standard. The inability or unwillingness of individual Library ILS/Discovery Systems to follow international standards should not prevent MARC from further development. Also, regarding adding the 6XX block of fields in the Holdings format, there has long been a keen resistance to doing this. Perhaps this paper will allow MAC to reconsider that past practice.
Thurstan Young (BL) described the potential drawbacks of defining the same MARC fields across multiple formats. Characteristically, MARC Holdings data is not shared between institutions, whereas Authority and Bibliographic data is; defining 655 in the Holdings format risks making the process of metadata exchange less effective. It also risks the bifurcation of information which could previously only be recorded in one place. He asked for additional clarification on why Yale and the authors of this paper prefer not to use Bibliographic Level 655 with subfields $3 and $5. He also noted that defining a 6XX field in the Holdings format could set a precedent and queried whether Yale had other fields in mind beyond the 655; indeed, the discussion paper's final question implied that definition of 7XX fields in the Holdings format was also possibly on Yale's agenda.
Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) responded positively, saying that wider changes might be considered.
TJ Kao (PCC) emphasized an interest in exploring the possibilities with the 842 (Textual Physical Form Designator) field, especially because it is already available within the Holdings format. PCC is bringing forth a paper on Linked Data which may also address some of the current needs raised in this paper. He also mentioned the library practice of using separate, unique holdings records to describe specific Item attributes, and therefore avoid the need for using subfield $3 to distinguish among multiple, clustered Items.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) said that this discussion was making her envision the proliferation of separate holdings records necessary to encode large map sets.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) said that within the Bibliographic and Authority formats, catalogers describe differences in applicability by repeating fields and designating what each applies to (i.e., via subfield $3 (Materials specified), etc.). Within the Holdings format, catalogers typically use separate holdings records to record Holdings or Item level data with different attributes (including format and genre attributes). He asked whether MAC members recalled the PCC practice of the Single Record approach (i.e., a single bibliographic description with holdings records attached representing a range of different physical and virtual formats (e.g., Print, Microfilm, Microfiche, CD-ROM, DVD, Online, etc.). That MARC practice developed largely in response to delays and shortcoming with how ILS systems initially adopted the MARC 21 Holdings Format.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) continued: As for the 655 field amongst the block of other 6XX tags, there has always been a distinction here as well. The 655 field (Genre/Form) describes the physical (or virtual) form or "Of-ness" of a Library Resource; most of the other 6XX tags describe the subject content or "About-ness" of a Library Resource. This represents an important distinction, and perhaps one that makes bringing this particular 6XX tag into the Holdings format an "easier lift" for MAC. The long-standing difficulties which libraries and GLAM institutions have experienced with sharing institution-specific Holdings & Item data within a distributed environment should not prevent MAC from developing better techniques for doing so.
John Myers (CC:DA) said, in response to PCC's comment/recommendation to create individual holdings records containing Item-specific genres, etc., that while this practice is permissible based on both the MARC 21 encoding standard and the ANSI-NISO Z39.71 content standard, many ILS systems do not currently allow it (e.g., Alma, etc.). At a minimum, libraries and standards setting organizations need to continue conversations with ILS & Discovery System vendors to ensure their systems support this functionality.
Matthew Haugen (RBMS) said the value of the control this would provide for recording data either in the Bibliographic or the Holdings format would be significant. When this Item-specific data is encoded in bibliographic descriptions and the library's records are then synched with OCLC, this sometimes means sharing local data information we do not want shared so widely. The capability to instead record such information at the Holdings level – which is not typically synched beyond the library or consortium setting – would be preferable.
Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) said that Yale is looking forward to moving Item-specific data closer to where it belongs – i.e., within Holdings descriptions.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) asked Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) if she and the other authors were looking for additional collaborators.
Zoe Dobbs (Yale University) responded that she is looking forward to working with the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee. Others may reach out if they are interested.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2025-DP04: Redefining Subfield $7 to Accommodate its Use with Subfield $g in Fields 856 and 857 of the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2025/2025-dp04.html
Source: University of Washington Libraries in consultation with OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes redefining subfield $7 (Access status) in fields 856 (Electronic Location and Access) and 857 (Electronic Archive Location and Access) of the MARC 21 Formats by adding subfield $g (Persistent identifier) in the definition as an additional possible paired subfield, in addition to the existing subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier). Either a subfield $g or a subfield $u fulfills the needs of a subfield $7–namely, a URI. When the subfield $g (Persistent identifier) was added to fields 856 and 857, the $7 was not updated to reflect the new possible source of URIs which might need data about access.
Related Documents: 2022-08; 2023-01
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was general agreement from all parties that this should be approved. However, there were some small proposed amendments. Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) suggested that the final sentence of the subfield $7 definition read "...in order to include both URIs" so that this is clear. He would also suggested adding an example containing two URIs with different statuses as described in the paper. That is, one Open Access URI and another proprietary or pay-only URI. OCLC had a couple of small editorial suggestions: The word "subfield" is missing before one the $u's and "URL" was used instead of "URI" once. They would also like clarification on the use of a PID in the $u rather than the address that it links to. Britain notes an inconsistency in the first indicator values of field 856 and 857 and recommended that outdated values in field 856 be made obsolete so that the first indicator in both fields can be aligned.
MAC Discussion:
Crystal Yragui (University of Washington) introduced the discussion paper and responded that the authors were amenable to adding an example with both "open access" and "closed access" URIs, but did not know of any case where that was a reality and asked for help if anyone knew of one.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) mentioned his observation that some e-journal titles, including some Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ) titles contain both Open Access URIs and "closed" or proprietary access URIs (e.g., EBSCOHost, ScienceDirect, etc.). He can help find one or more examples for the authors of this paper.
Hayley Moreno (OCLC) questioned one of the examples used in Discussion Section 2 of the paper (i.e., the second example).
Crystal Yragui (University of Washington) responded that the example was used to illustrate a bad work-around solution forced by the current encoding environment. This example will not be included in the MARC documentation.
There was a motion to fast-track this paper after incorporating the suggested editorial changes, additional examples, etc. A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2025-DP04 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 ( 05/02/2025 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |