The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Hong Cui LAC Library and Archives Canada Thurstan Young (sub.) 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 Maureen Jones SAA Howard University Yoko Kudo OLAC University of California, Riverside Tricia Lampron PCC University of California, Irvine Xiaoli Ma VRA University of Florida Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa Hayley Moreno OCLC OCLC Kate Peck AALL UC Berekeley, School of Law Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Amanda Ros CC:DA Texas A&M University John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Getaneh Alemu Southampton Solent University/RSC Allison Bailund San Diego State University Bryan Baldus OCLC Rebecca Belford Oberlin College Dominique Bourassa Yale University (retired)/MLA Jacqueline Brellenthin Library of Congress Cecilia Caride Yale University Chris Carr Concordia University/CCM Sherman Clarke Alfred University and Avery Index Emma Clarkson New York Public Library Iman Dagher UCLA Vickie D'Antonio St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Bonnie Dede University of Michigan Shi Deng University of California, San Diego Kevin Ford Library of Congress Julie Gagnon Université de Moncton Adriene Galindo Palatine Public Library District Kirk Hess OCLC Chris Holden Library of Congress/RSC Sarah Hovde University of Maryland Mary Huismann St. Olaf College Kate James OCLC Melanie Janßen GBV Common Library Network (VZG), Göttingen, Germany Mackenzie Johnson University of Saskatchewan Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Caroline Kent British Library Leonard Martin University of Houston/MLA E'Narda McCalister University of Maryland Liz Miraglia California Digital Library John Myers Union College Adrian Nolte Axiell Germany (retired) Elizabeth Outler DePaul University Pat Riva Concordia University/CCM Karen Ross Library of Congress Anna Oates Schaack University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Adam Schiff University of Washington Jasmin Shinohara University of Pennsylvania Naomi Shiraishi University of California, Berkeley Mary Beth Sigado Swarthmore College Michelle Sigiel Yiddish Book Center Tracey Snyder Cornell University Trina Soderquist Library of Congress Syd Stephenson Thurgood Marshall State Law Library Susan Straub Otis Library, Norwich CT Gary Strawn Northwestern University Hermine Vermeij UCLA Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Jenny Wright Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. Erica Zhang UCLA [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.
Approval of minutes from MAC June 2024 meeting
The minutes of the MAC Annual meeting, held online on June 25-26, 2025, were approved without correction.
Fast-track proposals
Five Fast-track proposals were approved since the Annual meeting:
Business meeting
Next MAC Annual meeting dates were announced: July 22-23, 2026.
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=202601-202602&L=MARC&O=&D=&TOC=&S=
PROPOSAL 2026-01: Addition of Codes "q" (Serial podcast), "a" (Activity report), and "i" (Serial zine) to Field 008/21 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-01.html
Source: ISSN Review Group
Summary: This paper proposes the addition of codes "q" for Serial podcast, "a" for Activity report, and "i" for Serial zine to field 008/21 and 006/04 (Continuing Resources/Type of continuing resource) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format as a logical and necessary step in modernizing bibliographic standards. The purpose is threefold: to provide increased granularity for contemporary and overlooked types of resources; to provide more useful faceting and statistical reporting in the ISSN Portal database and library information systems; and to provide more granularity in cases where coding for resource type is desired.
Related Documents: 2025-DP06; 2021-03; 2020-DP10
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: OCLC, ARLIS, BIBFRAME Interoperability Group (BIG), LC, Spain, CC:DA, NLM, Germany, Britain, Australia, PCC, MLA, OLAC, RBMS, Canada, and Law. Although there was support from all parties for this proposal, there were also a number of suggestions. Most of the comments have to do with the code "a", activity report, but there was one comment that adding "serial" to a code when all the codes are for continuing resources is redundant even if it does make sure it is not used for monographs. Comments on the code include: 1) "intended to serve" should be deleted from the definition; 2) Even though the code name is "activity report" it would still be good to add "e.g., annual or biennial report" parenthetically to the name. Another comment was that the final sentence of 3.1. "# - None of the following" is redundant and should be deleted. Lastly, Canada pointed out a number of mistakes in the examples that would need to be corrected, including invalid links to previous MARC papers. The author was also asked to explain the code that is in the 022 subfield $2; some MAC members are unfamiliar with the underscore/number in this subfield.
MAC Discussion:
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) introduced the proposal and expressed appreciation for the pre-meeting comments and editorial suggestions. Many of them were acknowledged and have already been incorporated into the final text. Regarding the question about MARC field 022, subfield $2, Regina explained the historical background of the underscore character as a filler in two-character codes and noted differences between international ISSN practice and CONSER practice.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) also responded with additional detail and clarifications to some of the other pre-meeting comments, and fielded several editorial comments regarding code definitions, etc.. These included: 1) removal of the last sentence "For annual reports and other activity reports use 008/21" in the proposed revision to code “# - None of the following”; 2) rephrasing the last sentence in code "a" after the comma to "but can be issued more or less frequently"; 3) adjusting the wording of the proposed code definitions so that they are phrased similarly to the existing codes in the documentation.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with editorial changes noted above.
PROPOSAL 2026-02: Additions and Revisions to Accessibility Fields 341 and 532 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-02.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes additional indicators and subfields for fields 341 (Accessibility Content) and 532 (Accessibility Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2025-DP12; 2024-02; 2023-DP05; 2018-03; 2017-11; 2017-DP03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support: Spain, CC:DA, Britain, OLAC, MLA, and Canada. There was mixed support from RBMS, AALL, and PCC. There was no support from BIBFRAME Interoperability Group (BIG), LC, NLM, OCLC, and Australia. The BIBFRAME Interoperability Group (BIG) had trouble with the definition. The current definition moves it more into the BIBFRAME instance, rather than work where it has been. They suggest changing the definition to "information about the accessibility of the content of the resource" so that it would remain in BIBFRAME work. They also felt that trying to shoehorn conformance information into the 532 got too complicated and that a new field for this information would make it clearer and easier to map. Britain is concerned about moving a note field into this very structured description. Germany feels there is not a demonstrated use case/need for the proposed additions and revisions. Comments from Mackenzie Johnson (University of Saskatchewan) pointed out that this proposal does not work well for accessibility issues with game resources. PCC and ALL had difficulties with the examples, pointing to 4.2.2 as being particularly difficult to understand because there is no explanation of what is being certified. They also wonder why subfield $q appears in a separate 532. OCLC has many concerns about this paper. They feel it should cover broader hazards than just sensory ones. They feel there is significant overlap with data provenance concepts that have not been addressed. OCLC also dislikes the use of the word "preferably" in the subfield $t. This differs from other MARC 21 language around dates. They also see inconsistencies in the $t example which do not follow ISO 8601. There are other spacing and formatting problems in the examples as well. Lastly, there was general concern that having an indicator that says whether something is in the field is redundant; doesn’t indicator Blank cover this?
MAC Discussion:
Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) introduced the proposal and, responding to pre-meeting comments, noted that Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) agrees with the wording changes suggested by BIG and the BIBFRAME community. CCM recognized the concern from some of the communities about expanding the use of a note field to record controlled vocabularies with granular subfields. The proposed changes in field 532 have been in the interest of not taking up space in the few remaining unused fields, and of not increasing the complexity of the 341 field. Regarding the suggestion to broaden the scope of hazards, CCM believed hazards are responses to an actual sensory input regardless of the cause. Regarding the need to record accessibility metadata for games, CCM is looking forward to a future paper addressing this specific use case. CCM views these accessibility concerns as a moving target that will likely require additional MARC modifications as libraries describe and encounter more real-world examples and potential use cases.
Thurstan Young (BL), addressing the potential to record/encode EPUB, ONIX, etc. attributes and data in the 341 field, mentioned ONIX 196 has the ability to capture both accessibility and conformance attributes. The UK community expressed concerns with the approach of encoding these data attributes in both 341 and 532 fields. Because the MARC 21 341 field currently accommodates both ONIX and SAPDV codes, they believe this field alone may serve the stated need.
Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) responded that the broader version of ONIX that was approved as a source code (instead of ONIX 196) is an unfortunate development. The world is constantly changing and other source codes are being approved – if ONIX 196 were to be approved, CCM would certainly be interested in revisiting their approach(es).
Kate Peck (AALL) said that there is precedent for using controlled vocabulary in the 5XX Notes fields (e.g., 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note)). She thought that the proposed second indicator value 3 in the 341 field appears unnecessary and duplicative and questioned whether this could be captured with the second indicator value "blank"; AALL also had questions about the use of subfield $q in Example 4.2.2.
Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) responded that CCM believed field 341 second indicator "3" will be especially helpful to capture resources that should be evaluated but have not been evaluated yet. It is also a value that could potentially come over with the schema.org. The value "blank" is for legacy metadata. Regarding the subfield $q in the 4.2.2. Source of Term example, CCM used the subfield $8 as a field-linking mechanism. These four 532 fields are intended to be understood as one single statement in a display.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) questioned whether an equivalent value as value "3" (Accessibility features unknown or undetermined) in field 341 could be applied to sensory hazards. Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) responded that it could be added if there is a need to define it.
Thurstan Young (BL) stated that this is a timely paper, as the European Accessibility Act came into force last year. This has ramifications for accessibility in European libraries. IFLA have released recommendations related to this. In terms of the approval of ONIX code list 196, Thurstan did not understand Chris Carr's (Concordia University/CCM) difficulty in coding or citing specific ONIX codes in MARC 21 341 field; he believed this can currently be done. Further to this, he emphasized that when the 532 field was first introduced it was done so with the specific purpose of being a human-readable free text note, which these changes would countermand.
Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) agreed that there should be no issue to record ONIX links via URLs/URIs in the field 341 subfields today, but it cannot accommodate the need to record the code value if a cataloger chooses to do so. He noted that not all libraries can act on URIs.
Thurstan Young (BL), regarding comments about using controlled vocabularies and/or coded values in the 532 field, as has been done elsewhere, questioned whether MAC should condone and broaden the use of this practice in the 5XX fields? The MARC 21 3XX block of fields are, to some extent, intended for machine-actionable and structured data coding, whereas the 5XX block is intended for free-text and unstructured data.
Kevin Ford (LC) shared the concern regarding moving away the note field 532 to a structured field. He suggested the standard conformance metadata may be recorded in a distinct MARC field instead.
Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) responded that CCM would need to identify available fields for use first, and asked whether MAC would be satisfied if CCM followed that path.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) suggested "splitting" the consideration of the 341 and the 532 proposed solutions separately, since MAC was struggling more with the 532 portion of the paper.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) proposed approving the 341 (Accessibility Content) portion of Proposal 2026-02 ; Hong Cui (LAC) seconded.
Kate Peck (AALL) supported this proposal, but wanted to see the field 341 second indicator value "3" clarified within the Field Definition and Scope to ensure that it is necessary. AALL believes that this second indicator value "3" needs further evaluation and consideration.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington), said that, in his earlier comments, Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) mentioned the need to be able to "flag" legacy data using the indicator value "blank". Could MAC possibly use the "blank" indicator value to "capture" that portion of CCM's intended use of the second indicator value "3"?
Chris Carr (Concordia University/CCM) acknowledged that there is similarity in the descriptions and may causing a confusion between the value "blank" and "3". In many cases, publishers can declare they haven't made the evaluation of the accessibility of a resource. When libraries receive metadata from publishers, the value "3" can be a placeholder for those who want to record that.
Additional discussion ensued about approving the 341 (Accessibility Content) field portion of Proposal 2026-02 but without the second indicator value "3" as described in the proposal. Instead, 341 field second indicator value "4" described in the proposal would now become value "3". The proposed value "3" in the paper would be removed altogether.
Jodi Williamschen (LC) mentioned that MAC also wants to incorporate the editorial revision(s) suggested by BIG into the vote for the 341 (Accessibility Content) portion of Proposal 2026-02.
Additional MAC discussion addressed whether to keep the example in Section 3.1.3 with indicator value "3", or to remove it altogether. The example was removed.
MAC Action:
Proposal partially approved. The field 341 (Accessibility Content) portion of the proposal was approved, with the following amendments: 1) editorial revision to the proposed field definition and scope to read: "Information about the accessibility of the content of a resource..."; 2) remove the proposed second indicator value "3" and approve proposed second indicator values "blank", "1", "2" and "4" (with "4" as written in the proposal taking the place of the removed second indicator value "3"). The field 532 portion of the proposal will return as another paper.
PROPOSAL 2026-03: Adding Indicators for Preferred Variant Headings in 4XX Fields in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-03.html
Source: Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Summary: This paper proposes adding indicators to See From Tracing fields (400, 410, 411, 430, and 451) in the MARC21 Authority Format to indicate the preferred variant heading in an alternate graphic representation when multiple headings use the same alternate script.
Related Documents: 2025-DP13; 2024-DP11, 2022-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Broad support from MAC for this paper, but there were significant comments and questions about how to move this forward. Spain thinks it will be difficult to implement and wonders why the 450, 470, and 480 were left out of the paper. NLM wonders if there is a need to have a way to indicate which institutions prefer a particular variant. Britain supports the paper since LC clearly needs it but is unsure how successful it will be outside LC. They request an example be added with a $5. MLA dislikes frequency being used to determine the preferred variant. Canada found the use of the term "preferred" within an Authorities/Name Identifiers context to be confusing.
The PCC Standing Committee on Standards, Non-Latin Script Variants in NARs Task Group sent a long document suggesting many revisions to many of the suggested changes. Those that had read the document before commenting, found the comments helpful. LC also appreciated the PCC comments and would appreciate help from this group. At the earlier MARC Steering Group Networks meeting (February 17, 2026), there was discussion of moving some of the more prescriptive parts of the paper to "input conventions" because they include more "best practices" recommendations than is normal within the MARC documentation.
MAC Discussion:
Kevin Ford (LC) introduced the proposal and expressed appreciation, on behalf of Library of Congress and NDMSO, for all the comments received, especially from the PCC catalogers. He recognized and acknowledged the time and effort taken in formulating those responses. He said the authors were open to the suggestion that this "preferred variant feature" also be extended to other 4XX fields within the Authority Format. The authors also wanted to incorporate the revised examples suggested/submitted by the PCC Task Group.
Kevin Ford (LC) also fully acknowledged that the current paper's "deciding factors criteria" in determining a "preferred variant" are less than ideal: That is: "Frequency of use/Most commonly-found form" are not necessarily good decision points; neither is the "Longest-form of variant name" a particularly compelling ideal. Communities of practice (e.g., NACO, PCC, etc.) will determine their "preferred non-Latin script form" mechanisms independently.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) questioned whether determining the "preferred form of variant name" is as complicated as the authors of this paper are making it. A NACO cataloger has already determined the "most commonly found form of entity name" and encoded it within the 1XX field as instructed by RDA. For non-Roman names, the entity name is then Romanized. Consequently, and based on this same process of elimination, the selection of a "preferred variant form" in this case could be similarly straightforward.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that PCC, OCLC, and Britain all also raised a question/concern regarding the choice of code; examples appear to be modeled upon BCP 47. General agreement that BCP 47 is one scheme or one mechanism for this modeling. There are others, and this should remain an option for MAC going forward. He also asked whether MAC's approval of this paper would oblige NACO catalogers to begin making these sorts of "preferred variant form" name decisions on NARs that contain non-Roman script variant access points.
Kate James (OCLC) was curious about how some of the suggested changes would be incorporated and designated. For instance, how would multiple preferred variant form(s) of name be captured, etc. Kate also echoed Thurstan Young's (BL) comment about wanting to maintain the flexibility and extensibility within the MARC 21 communications standard; it is an international, shared standard. New codes are developing all the time.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington), responding to some of Kate James' (OCLC) and Thurstan Young's (BL) comments, said that, yes, PCC did include language that does not restrict modeling to BCP 47, so they recognize the broader applicability. They are already experimenting with other non-BCP 47 options and alternatives. The PCC has provided many additional examples that illustrate, clarify and speak to many of these points, including providing "preferred variant forms" in multiple scripts, etc. To Thurstan Young's (BL) other question about PCC or NACO requiring all NACO catalogers to designate these "preferred variant forms." he answered No—only NACO catalogers with the language expertise and the need to do so should be making these determinations.
Hong Cui (LAC) thanked everyone for moving the paper along and for all of the helpful comments. As a NACO cataloger who works in a library and a geographic area in which French (i.e., non-English) forms of name are often the "preferred form", there may be some situations where this solution may be helpful for them.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said the scope and focus here is only for non-Latin scripts, so he didn’t think using this to designate the preferred form of name within another Latin script language (i.e., French) was something MAC should anticipate. That could instead be accomplished by using the MARC 7XX linking fields as LAC currently does.
Kevin Ford (LC) asked specifically about whether MAC agreed with the expansion and ability to apply this capability within all MARC 21 Authority 4XX fields.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) reminded everyone that MAC has not yet looked at this within the context of subject thesauri, etc., but primarily from the NACO lens. If MAC is to consider expanding this application to the entire 4XX block of the MARC Authority Format, she believed this consideration should be based strictly on another real-world use case; at which point, MAC consideration would proceed via the usual discussion paper and proposal process.
Other MAC members expressed agreement with Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM). MAC needs to wait for a use case demonstrating the specific need for this kind of expansion to the other 4XX fields.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the amendment to incorporate the PCC Task Group's revisions & examples, but NOT yet expanded to include all 4XX fields in the Authority Format.
PROPOSAL 2026-04: Modernization of Field 041 and Field 008/35-37 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-04.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This proposal revises field 041 (Language Code) and 08/35-37 (Language) to remove the requirement to use fill characters in 008/35-37 when the first 041 field uses non-MARC language codes.
Related Documents: 2025-DP14; 2001-06; 2001-DP02
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was general support from MAC members for this change. Many groups want to make sure that it is absolutely clear that fill characters can continue to be used. Canada proposes this alternate wording to clarify this: in the "no attempt to code" value it would read: Three fill characters may be used if no attempt is made to provide a MARC code for the language". This would clarify that using a more specific code in the 041 and NOT putting a code in the 008, is permitted. Canada also pointed out a stylistic change, namely "visual materials" should be bold, as it is in other formats.
MAC Discussion:
Kate James (OCLC) introduced the proposal. She mentioned the level of interest OCLC receives from GLAM institutions using non-MARC 041 codes, and how OCLC noted that the linkage between the MARC 21 008 requirement that only MARC language codes be used in the 008 represents a real stumbling block in current practice. OCLC is also interested in making these MARC 21 fields and coding practices more international and more inclusive.
During MAC discussion, members emphasized the overriding concern that libraries and catalogers may continue to use the 008/byte 35-37 fill-character option within MARC 21 Bibliographic descriptions to designate either "No attempt to code" or "No attempt to code with a MARC 21 language code".
Kate James (OCLC), responding to CCM's proposed alternate wording/revision, offered alternative phrasing that would make things clearer, from OCLC's perspective. The wording in the 041 field definition could be revised to read: "When a language code is recorded in field 008/35-37, the first code recorded in subfield $a or $d (for sound recordings) of field 041 should be comparable to the value recorded in field 008/35-37."
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) agreed that this new wording is clear. If MAC later determines that these wording revisions result in OCLC data errors or inconsistencies, MAC can then revise the wording of these field definitions.
Thurstan Young (BL) asked Kate James (OCLC) for additional clarification on OCLC's intentions for how codes entered in 008/35-37 and 041 subfield $a should be coordinated/confirmed. Particularly regarding the term "comparable value" and how that would work in practice.
Kate James (OCLC) responded that, for the most part, the language codes are broad enough to cover intent. There might be a need for some communities to develop "best practices” documentation.
Hong Cui (LAC) asked for clearer wording regarding when to use fill characters with non-MARC codes, in section 3.3.
Kate James (OCLC) suggested adding in an extra instance of the word "language" in 3.3 to be more specific about language codes versus fill characters.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with two editorial changes: 1) revise the third paragraph in the proposed definition of field 041 to read as follows: "When a language code is recorded in field 008/35-37, the first code recorded in subfield $a or $d (for sound recordings) of field 041 should be comparable to the value recorded in field 008/35-37."; 2) add the word "language" before the words "code recorded" in the following sentence where it appears in the proposed definitions of field 041 subfields $a and $d, so that it reads: "If a non-MARC language code is used [...] the language code recorded in field 008/35-37 should have a comparable value, e.g., an equivalent code or a collective code." Apply the above changes to the proposed parallel phrases in field 008/35-37.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2026-DP01: Renaming of Subfield $a in Field 041 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-dp01.html
Source: OCLC, in consultation with OLAC
Summary: This paper proposes removing the term "separate title" from field 041 (Language Code) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2025-DP14; 2019-05
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was general support from MAC members for this discussion paper with support for fast-tracking it from MLA, OLAC, AALL, RBMS, Germany, Britain, NLM, Spain, Canada, and OCLC (who wrote the paper). Friendly amendments include bracketing the old term in the definition for history, putting "silent films" in parentheses for clarity, and Spain would like to keep example 9 since it is a common mistake that gets made and it might cut down on the number of errors. PCC thinks there is still a general lack of clarity on the coding of moving images with different languages present, although they do not suggest any solutions.
MAC Discussion:
Kate James (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper and provided an overview of OCLC's investigation of the term "separate title(s)" in old MARC format documentation. OCLC concluded that "separate titles" was the same as "intertitles" within the context of silent film resources.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) suggested that MAC may be able to describe and clarify these past historical practices in the MARC 21 documentation (perhaps in the "Content Designator History" section for the 041 field).
Thurstan Young (BL) and other MAC members agreed with Regina Reynolds' (LC/ISSN) suggestion.
There was a motion to fast-track this paper, with the "footnote" provision to indicate historical practice(s), and an addition of parentheses around "for silent films" in the Field Definition and Scope. A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that Discussion Paper 2026-DP01 should be processed as a Fast-Track proposal.
The paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2026-DP02: Sign Language and English Alphabetical Order Instructions in Fields 008/35-37 and 041 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-dp02.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes updating the instruction in field 008/35-37 (Language) about recording a specific sign language and modifying instructions in fields 008/35-37 and 041 (Language Code) about recording language codes in English alphabetical order in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2025-DP14; 2018-02
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was general support for the sign language part of this discussion paper with Canada suggesting one small change, using "specific sign…" instead of "individual sign…" in the definition and Australia wondering if a different word than "book" could be used after "e.g." in the revised sgn definition. A number of groups see some difficulties around removing the instruction to alphabetize the codes. The issues center around problems with sharing the data if the codes will all be in a different order. It’s nice to have the codes in a predictable order even if it is in English. Are we sure that this change would not make sharing this data more difficult?
MAC Discussion:
Kate James (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) said that most MAC members were supportive of the sign language portion of this paper. The English-language alphabetical order component is more problematic and raised additional concerns. She said that MAC should consider these two topics separately in an effort to move forward
Sign language section
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) said that CCM questioned the first example in Section 3.1 and raised a question of whether sign languages could be considered as a collective/comparable code from the linguistic point of view.
Kate James (OCLC) responded that OCLC wrote the paper with that example before knowing the MAC outcome of Proposal 2026-04 ("Modernization of Field 041 and Field 008/35-37 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format") from the previous day. OCLC will revise the example in Section 3.1 considering MAC's decision regarding that proposal. In terms of whether "sgn" should be considered as a collective code, Kate explained that OCLC used the MARC language code list, where it describes "sgn" as a collective code for sign languages.
There was a motion to fast-track the sign language portion of the paper, with the amendment to change the new example in section 3.1 as follows: remove the first 041 tag, and revise the second indicator to "7" in the second 041. A straw poll was held and MAC agreed that the sign language section of Discussion Paper 2026-DP02 should be processed as a Fast-Track proposal.
The sign langauge portion of the paper was referred to the MARC Steering Group for final approval as a Fast-Track proposal.
English alphabetical order instructions section
Hong Cui (LAC) supported removing the stipulation to sequence the codes in English language alphabetical order from the internationalization perspective and LAC's use cases. LAC works routinely with two primary language communities and frequently encounters bilingual or trilingual publications with no predominant language. In cases where the French title precedes the English title on the title page and the resource is cataloged in French, it would not be appropriate to assign "eng" in 008/35-37 solely to comply with English alphabetical order.
Kate James (OCLC) said there are cases of non-MARC or non-English language codes where this change will prove difficult to apply (e.g., cases where the codes contain symbols or are alpha-numeric instead of strictly alphabetical, etc.). Also, as a reminder, this alphabetical order sequencing instruction only applies to resources that do not have a predominant language.
Pat Riva (Concordia University/CCM) said that one of the predominant reasons that CCM was concerned about this change is that it may affect the ability to detect duplicate bibliographic descriptions that need to be consolidated in OCLC's large and growing database(s).
Kate James (OCLC) responded that OCLC is confident that this will not impede or affect their ability to continue detecting and consolidating bibliographic duplicates.
Kevin Ford (LC) said that instead of focusing on the "English-language" label, MAC should be clear in saying that 2026-DP02 really addresses Latin-script or Western language bibliographic descriptions. He also made the argument for MAC to consider removing the "no predominant language" phrase from the documentation because that may not really be applicable or pertinent if MAC now wants this sequencing decision to be made by the individual cataloging agency.
Thurstan Young (BL) raised the issue of setting a precedent for removing Latin script alphabetical order across the MARC format. He also stated that different cataloging communities of practice will likely need to develop "best practices" and coordinated approaches for record sharing if there is no longer a common order for codes.
Kate James (OCLC), in response to Thurstan Young's (BL) point about other fields/subfields within MARC 21 in which alphabetical sequence appears, said that there appear to be two 008 Fixed Field bytes coded with single digit codes for which alphabetical sequencing is recommended/preferred (e.g., 008/bytes 18-21 Illustrations; the other is for Music, and accompanying materials for music, etc.), so those two other occurrences within the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format do not really apply well here.
A straw poll was held about whether MAC wanted to fast-track this portion of 2026-DP02, or to see a proposal come back. MAC voted to see this portion of the paper return as a proposal.
Kate James (OCLC) said that OCLC may not bring this back because the alphabetical order portion of the paper was not one of their primary concerns. However, she appreciated the feedback from MAC should OCLC decide to revisit this topic in the future.
Summary: The sign language portion of the paper was approved for fast-tracking; the English alphabetical order instructions portion of the paper may or may not return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2026-DP03: Recording Container Designation in the 87X Fields of the MARC 21 Holdings Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-dp03.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes the definition of subfield $n (Container designation) and subfield $o (Invalid or canceled container designation) in fields 87X (Item Information Fields) of the MARC 21 Holdings Format.
Related Documents: [None]
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
No opinion from PCC, Australia, NLM, AALL, and BIG. There was general support from the rest of the groups but NO support for fast-tracking. There are general difficulties understanding the examples which were not explanatory enough to tell what was happening. It was also unclear why it was important to track obsolete barcodes. ARLIS requests that the authors consider what happens when the contents of the box changes, does that matter? In general there needs to be more work done on this to reach the proposal stage.
MAC Discussion:
Kate James (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper and had one quick response to the pre-meeting comments, saying that, yes, OCLC does believe it is important to have the ability to track and record obsolete or canceled identifiers.
Hong Cui (LAC) said that Library and Archives Canada is a WorldShare Management Services (WMS) Library and supports this proposal. LAC can provide some specific use cases, including containers in off-site storage facilities, publisher-packaged containers, and containers (e.g., microfilm reels) that hold multiple distinct works that cannot be physically separated. In addition, subfield $p (Piece (i.e., Item) designation) is currently defined in the 852 (Location, Bibliographic and Holdings formats) and 863-865 (Enumeration & Chronology, Holdings format) fields. Hong asked whether MAC should also consider defining this new subfield for Container Designations in those fields as well.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) agreed with Hong Cui (LAC) about defining this container designation subfield "beyond" the MARC 21 Holdings 87X Item Information fields. New York University (NYU) uses a similar scenario for sending containers of microform materials to Off-site Storage; having the ability to encode "container identifier designations" will be helpful. Defining this "container designation" capability in the MARC 21 Bibliographic & Holdings Formats will be helpful to encourage consistent encoding.
Kate Peck (AALL) said that OCLC should also consult RBMS for additional possible examples, scenarios and guidance.
Maureen Jones (SAA) agreed that this paper for the Holdings format is quite promising and will be happy to see it further developed, especially in light of how some archivists are using DACs, Archives Space, etc. She also thought that RBMS may be really interested and will have some additional use case examples.
Hong Cui (LAC) flagged that different use cases would have different implications for local systems, including circulation workflows. LAC would require container designations to support the same functional needs as piece designations.
Kate James (OCLC) responded that the target use case focuses on physically discrete items in containers, and bound-with or filmed-with materials may require different solutions.
A straw poll was held and MAC voted to support a recommendation that OCLC look into expanding the container designation subfield(s) proposed for Holdings fields 87X to fields 852 and 863-865 in the Holdings format, as well as field 852 in the Bibliographic format.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2026-DP04: Recording Notated Movement Characteristics in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2026/2026-dp04.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper discusses either defining a new field 358 or redefining field 348 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format for recording Format of Notated Movement and Form of Movement Notation.
Related Documents: 2021-05; 2020-DP12
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Support for Option 1: Germany, Australia, Britain, OCLC, and Spain. Support for Option 2: LC and Canada. Support for either Options 1 or 2: OLAC, RBMS, RSC. No one supported Option 3. AALL had no preference. LC thinks this discussion paper is premature since there is no use case yet. Spain thinks the examples rely too much on dance examples. Britain feels there wasn't enough broad consultation in the writing of the paper. MLA, Germany and Canada pointed out a number of corrections. OCLC pointed out that the lack of examples of this in WorldCat makes it hard to find relevant examples. They also note that the music examples are often miscoded so it may be difficult to effectively implement this new coding. There was mixed support for adding this information to the Authority format as well.
MAC Discussion:
Leonard (Leo) Martin (University of Houston/MLA) introduced the discussion paper and responded to the pre-meeting comments, saying that MLA really appreciated the feedback received thus far. For the moment, they were trying to limit the paper's scope to the "art dance movement" content of the materials they are working with.
Dominique Bourassa (Yale University/MLA) said that the lack of examples in either MARC 21 or OCLC context raises the "chicken or the egg" paradigm. There is currently no MARC 21 "space" to record this information except in the 5XX Notes block. But because 5XX Notes are typically unstructured, this makes the information they are interested in difficult to retrieve, access or compile. The New York Dance Coalition would have been thrilled to be able to encode resource descriptions from their collections with this proposed level of granularity in OCLC.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) said that MLA initially considered proposing a new MARC 21 field but were uncertain about doing so because of the diminishing number of MARC fields remaining available in the 3XX block. However, now that MAC also raises several other types of movement that libraries and GLAM institutions may want to record, perhaps a new MARC field should at least be considered.
Thurstan Young (BL), picking up on earlier comments regarding vocabularies in RDA, reminded MAC that that RDA does include the option of applying alternative vocabularies. Thurstan also pointed out the need for papers to begin referring to Official RDA rather than only Original RDA. This is due to the upcoming transition to Official RDA in 2027. Lastly, there is an RSC-directed Music working group that it may make sense to coordinate with.
Kate James (OCLC) agreed with Ethan D'Ver's (MLA) suggestion that MAC consider a new MARC 21 field for encoding "movement" information.
MAC discussion demonstrated more support for Option 1 (a new MARC field) than for Option 2.
Ethan D’Ver (MLA) asked how MAC felt about not including the code subfields with the new field that are mostly not being used in field 348 (Notated Music Characteristics), if the preference is to indeed follow Option 1.
Thurstan Young (BL) spoke about both options and then appeared to prefer not including the code subfields until a clear need or use case for them is identified and presented to MAC.
Chris Holden (RSC) suggested that this new field and subfield structure also be defined in the MARC 21 Authority Format.
Ethan D'Ver (MLA), Leo Martin (University of Houston/MLA), and Dominique Bourassa (Yale University/MLA) all responded that MLA can include proposing the new field for the Authority format, but not with the same subfield structure, and especially not subfield $c (for now, at least). All believe that would need to be a separate MAC discussion.
A straw poll was held and MAC voted to bring back the paper as a proposal, following Option 1 (new field), and also supported adding the new field to the Authority format, but only with subfield $a, for now.
Leo Martin (University of Houston/MLA) and Dominique Bourassa (Yale University/MLA) asked for people to reach out if interested, and also asked for help from OCLC to find current textual note examples within the OCLC bibliographic files. They may also contact OLAC and others.
The paper will return as a proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 05/19/2026 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |