The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards

MARC Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List


MARC DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 2020-DP13

DATE: May 29, 2020
REVISED:

NAME: Defining New Subfields in Bibliographic and Authority Field 046 for Expression Dates and Related Elements

SOURCE: ALCTS SAC Subcommittee on Faceted Vocabularies

SUMMARY: This paper proposes adding subfields for expression dates, materials specified, and explanatory notes to the MARC Bibliographic field 046, and subfields for materials specified and explanatory notes to the MARC Authority field 046.  It also asks MAC to consider whether 046 subfields $u and $v should be added to the Bibliographic format.

KEYWORDS: Field 046 (AD, BD); Special Coded Dates (AD, BD); Expression Dates (AD, BD); Work Dates (AD, BD); Materials Specified (AD, BD); Nonpublic Note (AD, BD); Public Note (AD, BD); Uniform Resource Identifier (AD, BD); Source of Information (AD, BD)

RELATED:

STATUS/COMMENTS:
05/29/20 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.


Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP13: Defining New Subfields in Field 046 for Expression Dates and Related Elements

1. BACKGROUND

Field 046 is currently defined in the Bibliographic format as follows:

Field Definition and Scope
Date of item information that either cannot be recorded in 008/06-14 (Type of date/Publication status, Date 1, Date 2) because such information involves one or more Before Common Era (B.C.E.) dates, incorrect dates, dates when resources have been modified or created, and date spans when resources are valid, or is recorded here in addition to appearing in 008/06-14. When field 046 is used for B.C.E. dates, 008/06 is set to code b (No date given; B.C.E. date involved) and field 008/07-10 and 008/11-14 contain blanks (####). When field 046 is used for incorrect dates, field 008/06 is coded for the type of corrected data and field 008/07-10 and 008/11-14 contain correct dates.

The ALCTS SAC Subcommittee on Faceted Vocabularies is developing best practices for recording faceted chronological data in bibliographic records.  In the course of this work, several issues arose about how best to record both work and expression dates, and how to deal with situations where multiple work dates apply.

Although the 046 was originally intended to accommodate dates of publication or creation that could not be recorded in 008 for some reason, the use of 046 $k/$l and $o/$p has expanded in practice to be used to record the RDA elements for date of work and date of expression, making its use similar to that of many of the 3XX fields added for RDA. It is the only place in the MARC Bibliographic format to consistently record this information in a machine-actionable form.  Facets and limits based on these coded date and attribute fields are in use in many commonly used discovery systems.

Bibliographic records are an amalgamation of work, expression, manifestation, and item elements.  Date information is increasingly being used in faceted discovery systems to allow users to search and limit.  Users may search or limit by publication date (manifestation data), but the inclusion of date data in field 046 now provides the ability to search or limit by date of creation, which is often very different from the publication date.  For expressions of works such as translations and musical arrangements, multiple dates apply: the date the work was first created and the date the expression was realized.  They may be the same or they may be different.  Currently in MARC, both types of dates must be recorded in 046 subfields $k/$l:

$k - Beginning or single date created (NR)
$l - Ending date created (NR)

In developing best practices, the Subcommittee realized that recording both expression and work dates in multiple 046 fields in subfields $k/$l is problematic because there is no current way to identify which date means what.  For facets developed for work dates, an expression date coded in 046 $k would be treated as a work date.  For example, the 1922 orchestral arrangement by Maurice Ravel of Modest Mussorgsky’s piano work from 1874, Kartinki s vystavki, would currently have to be coded as:

046 ## $k 1874 $2 edtf
046 ## $k 1922 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, $d 1839-1881, $e composer.
240 10 $a Kartinki s vystavki; $o arranged $s (Ravel)
245 10 $a Pictures at an exhibition / $c Moussorgsky-Ravel.
500 ## $a Arranged by Maurice Ravel in 1922.

There is no way for an ILS or discovery system to distinguish between the two dates in the record.  However, a user searching for piano music written in the 1920s probably does not want this piece. If the dates could be distinguished by coding, a separate facet for dates of the original work would exclude dates of arrangements or translations.

When a resource contains multiple works and/or expressions, there is currently no practical way to specify which date recorded in field 046 applies to which work or expression.  For example:

046 ## $o 1947 $2 edtf
046 ## $o 1949 $2 edtf
046 ## $o 1953 $2 edtf
245 00 $a Film noir triple DVD feature.
505 0# $a Fear in the night (1947, 71 min.) -- D.O.A. (1949, 84 min.) -- The hitch-hiker (1953, 71 min.).

Note regarding $o and $p: The SAC Subcommittee on Faceted Vocabularies is planning to recommend the use of 046 $o and $p for date of creation of the individual works in compilations whether the dates are given as a range (1947-1953) or as individual dates (1947, 1949, 1953) and to recommend that for aggregates only dates of aggregating works themselves be given in 046 $k/$l and only when these are of interest (e.g., an anthology of classical Latin poetry in Gale’s Eighteenth Century Collections Online may have a date for the aggregating work in the 1700s, but the individual aggregated works may have been created in the 1st century AD). This is intended to prevent conflation of these two kinds of dates.

Although 046 contains subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number), which could be used to link an 046 field to a work added entry, this method has not been implemented widely.  Few systems support the input of $8 and the subcommittee knows of no systems that make the input of $8 easy or use it in discovery interfaces.  The addition of subfield $3 for materials specified would provide a partial alternative solution to this problem.  Although $3 is challenging to use for machine manipulation, it is easier to implement in most cataloging systems and would enable clearer public displays.

diagram


Finally, in the course of developing best practices, the Subcommittee has identified a potential need for subfields to record notes about the dates recorded, as well as the sources of information for those dates.  In this paper, we suggest the subfields $x and $z could be used for non-public and public notes, respectively, and that subfields $u and $v, already present in the Authority format, could usefully be added as well to the Bibliographic format.

2. DISCUSSION

2.1. Expression Dates in Bibliographic Records

In developing best practices, the Subcommittee on Faceted Vocabularies determined that it was not desirable to record work and expression dates in multiple 046 fields in bibliographic records as long as there is ambiguity about what subfields $k/$l and $o/$p mean.  The subfields are not explicitly limited to work creation dates in the MARC format, so catalogers have also used them for expression creation dates.

Among the options that were considered:

  1. Record only work dates in 046 $k/$l. Do not record expression or other kinds of dates.
  2. If the expression date(s) differ from the work date(s), only record expression date(s) in 046 $k/$l.
  3. Create a new subfield to indicate what kind of date is recorded in 046 $k/$l.  This could be a subfield that could hold a code for the type of date or a subfield that could hold an explanatory note, or both.
  4. Create two new subfields for expression dates and limit the use of $k/$l to work dates.
  5. Create two new subfields for expression dates and two new subfields for work dates and leave 046 $k/$l for unspecified legacy data.

Option 1 could be implemented with no change to the MARC format so long as everyone agrees on how to use these subfields.  Facets developed for date of creation of works would, if creation date were consistently coded and added retrospectively to existing records, be able to return all expressions of a work when only the work creation date is encoded.  We want a user who searches or limits for Russian novels created in the 19th century to be able to retrieve them regardless of the date and language of expression.  In fact, some libraries are developing retrospective data enrichment projects to improve faceting on this and other work attributes for literary, musical, or other kinds of works.  However, this option does not allow further limiting by the translation date.

Option 2 would allow searching and limiting by a date of translation, arrangement, or revision, but would not permit users to retrieve all expressions of a work.

We believe that a combination of options 3 and 4 (or 5) is the best solution.

Proposed new subfields $q and $r would primarily be used for the dates of individual expressions published separately or in compilations.  In the case of compilations of expressions, another potential codable date is the date the aggregate expression was created.  It is unlikely that this date will be of much interest to users, but we raise the issue here to ask whether new expression subfields $q/$r will be sufficient, or whether two sets of subfields are needed to parallel $k/$l and $o/$p?  Subfields $h/$i would be available for this purpose.   Some examples of this situation would be:

We do not feel that it would be practical to try to code this level of complexity in bibliographic records and are not convinced there are that many users interested in this. If we can code the expression dates of the individual works, that should be sufficient.  If we think catalogers will try to code the aggregating expressions, MAC could explicitly make it clear that subfields $q and $r are not to be used for that purpose.

2.2. Expression Dates in Authority Records

The Subcommittee also considered whether changes are needed in the Authority format.  Since authority records are narrower in scope, and can be construed as describing a single IFLA LRM entity, the 046 subfields $k and $l can be used for both work and expression dates, with the assumption that the types of dates would not be commingled in a single MARC authority record.  However, because there is currently no explicit marker in use saying "this is a work record" and "this is an expression record", some members of the Subcommittee and of SAC would like to see separate subfields for work and expression dates in the Authority format.  Some members think this could be more parsimoniously resolved by use of field 075 (Type of Entity). Given the remaining subfields in the Bibliographic and Authority formats, if the same pair of subfields were to be used for expressions in both formats, it would have to be $h/$i or $w/$y (subfields $x and $z are also currently available in both formats, but are proposed below for notes).  This is an issue that MAC should discuss and the MARC proposal resulting from this paper will be revised if necessary based on MAC’s guidance.

2.3. Notes About Dates in Bibliographic and Authority Records

When it is desirable to record multiple dates associated with a work (such as in the case of a film created in one year and released in another) or an expression, the addition of nonpublic and public note subfields would allow catalogers to clearly label what type of date is recorded in the field.  Subfields $x and $z are used for nonpublic and public notes in other fields, and could be added to both the Bibliographic and Authority format 046 fields.  Public notes could be included in displays to inform users of the type of date.  For example:

Creation Date     2008 (Creation date)
                             2015 (Release date)

Creation Date     1941-1942 (Creation date)
                             2004 (Publication date)

From a retrieval perspective, explanatory notes are not ideal.  They function best in display.  However, if a controlled vocabulary were developed for such notes, it could have the potential to be implemented in search and retrieval as well as in display.

2.4. Materials Specified in Bibliographic and Authority Records

When multiple works and/or expressions are contained within a resource, such as is the case with compilations, a subfield to identify the work or expression to which a date applies could be useful. Subfield $3 is used in many other fields, and could be added to both the Bibliographic and Authority format 046 fields. Text in subfield $3 could be used in displays to make the information more clear.

Creation Date        Fear in the night: 1947
                                D.O.A.: 1949
                                The hitch-hiker: 1953

2.5. Source of Information About Dates in Bibliographic Records

The Authority format includes two subfields that allow catalogers to state the source of date information:

$u - Uniform Resource Identifier (R)
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), for example a URL or URN, which provides electronic access data in a standard syntax. This data can be used for automated access to an electronic item using one of the Internet protocols. In field 046, subfield $u is used for the source of information about dates accessible electronically.

$v - Source of information (R)
Source where the information recorded in field 046 was found if not through a URI.

The subcommittee believes that it could be useful to also have these subfields in the Bibliographic format.  This could be particularly helpful when no authority record for the work or expression has been created and the information about the date(s) does not come from the resource being cataloged.  The information would be useful for catalogers, and discovery systems could decide whether or not to display it.

3. PROPOSED CHANGES

3.1. Changes to Field 046 in the Bibliographic Format


3.1.1. Define two new subfields for expression dates:

$q - Beginning or single date of expression (NR)
$r - Ending date of expression (NR)

3.1.2. Define two new subfields for explanatory notes:

$x - Nonpublic note (R)
Note relating to the date(s) recorded in the field. The note is written in a form that is not adequate or intended for public display.

$z - Public note (R)
Note relating to the date(s) recorded in the field. The note is written in a form that is adequate or intended for public display.

3.1.3. Define new subfield $3 for materials specified:

$3 - Materials specified (NR)
Part of the described materials to which the field applies.

3.1.4. Add the following subfields as defined in the Authority format 046:

$u - Uniform Resource Identifier (R)
$v - Source of information (R)

3.2. Changes to Field 046 in the Authority Format

Define the following explanatory note subfields $x and $z and the materials specified subfield $3 as proposed above for the Bibliographic format:

$x - Nonpublic note (R)
$z - Public note (R)
$3 - Materials specified (NR)

4. EXAMPLES

4.1. Bibliographic Format Examples


4.1.1. Expressions: Arrangements

008/07-10: 1997
008/11-14: 1929
046 ## $k 1874 $2 edtf
046 ## $q 1922 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, $d 1839-1881, $e composer.
240 10 $a Kartinki s vystavki; $o arranged $s (Ravel)
245 10 $a Pictures at an exhibition / $c Moussorgsky-Ravel.
264 #1 $a London ; $a New York : $b Boosey & Hawkes, $c [1997]
264 #4 $c ©1929
500 ## $a Arranged by Maurice Ravel in 1922.

4.1.2. Expressions: Translations

Example 1: Work created in the 8th century B.C.; Lattimore’s translation is from 1951

008/07-10: 2011
008/11-14: 2011
046 ## $k -07
046 ## $q 1951 $2 edtf
100 0# $a Homer, $e author.
240 10 $a Iliad. $l English. $s (Lattimore)
245 14 $a The Iliad of Homer / $c translated by Richmond Lattimore.
264 #1 $a Chicago : $b University of Chicago Press, $c [2011]
264 #4 $c ©2011

Example 2: Two different translations in English of the same work; French work created in 1897; Bair’s translation is from 1972; Hooker’s translation is from 1923

008/07-10: 2012
008/11-14: 2012
046 ## $k 1897 $2 edtf
046 ## $q 1972 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Rostand, Edmond, $d 1868-1918.
240 10 $a Cyrano de Bergerac. $l English $s (Bair)
245 10 $a Cyrano de Bergerac : $b a heroic comedy in five acts / $c Edmond Rostand ;
translated by Lowell Bair ; with an introduction by Eteel Lawson ; and a new afterword
by Cynthia B. Kerr.
260 ## $a New York : $b Signet Classic, $c ©2012.

008/07-10: 1979
046 ## $k 1897 $2 edtf
046 ## $q 1923 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Rostand, Edmond, $d 1868-1918.
240 10 $a Cyrano de Bergerac. $l English $s (Hooker)
245 10 $a Cyrano de Bergerac : $b an heroic comedy in five acts / $c by Edmond Rostand ; a new
version in English verse by Brian Hooker ; prepared for Walter Hampden.
260 ## $a New York : $b Bantam Books, $c 1979.

Example 3: Only the date of expression is known

008/07-10: 2019
008/11-14: 2019
046 ## $q 2019 $2 edtf
130 0# $a Bible. $p Old Testament. $l English. $s Alter. $f 2019.
245 14 $a The Hebrew Bible : $b a translation with commentary / $c Robert Alter.
250 ## $a First edition.
264 #1 $a New York, NY : $b W.W. Norton & Company, $c [2019]
264 #4 $c ©2019

Example 4: Dates of creation of the original Kannada poems and date of English translation recorded

008/07-10: 2014
008/11-14: 2014
046 ## $o 1975 $p 2006 $2 edtf
046 ## $q 2014 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Shivaprakash, H. S., $e author.
240 10 $a Poems. $k Selections. $l English
245 10 $a In other words : $b selected poems 1975-2006 / $c HS Shiva Prakash ; translated from
 the Kannada by the poet.
264 #1 $a Mumbai : $b Poetrywala, an imprint of Paperwall Media & Publishing Pvt. Ltd., $c [2014]
264 #4 $c ©2014

4.1.2. Expressions: Revisions, new editions, etc.

Example 1:

008/07-10: 2008
046 ## $k 1972 $2 edtf
046 ## $q 2003 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Ihimaera, Witi, $d 1944- $e author.
240 10 $a Pounamu pounamu. $f 2003
245 10 $a Pounamu pounamu / $c Witi Ihimaera.
250 ## $a New edition.
264 #1 $a Rosedale, Auckland, New Zealand : $b Raupo, $c 2008.
264 #4 $c ©2003
500 ## $a Stories originally published as a collection in 1972 and rewritten for the new edition of 2003.

Example 2:

046 ## $k 1982 $2 edtf
046 ## $q 2007 $2 edtf
130 0# $a Blade runner (Motion picture : $s Final cut)
245 10 $a Blade runner : $b the final cut / ...
500 ## $a Originally released as a motion picture in 1982. "The final cut" released in 2007.

Example 3: Approximate date of expression; date of work unknown so not recorded

046 ## $q [1946..1954] $2 edtf
110 2# $a H.E.C. Robinson Pty. Ltd., $e cartographer.
245 10 $a Atlantic road map of Queensland.
250 ## $a Fifth edition.
264 #1 $a [Sydney] : $b Atlantic Union Oil Co. Pty. Ltd., $c [between 1946 and 1954]

4.1.3. Explanatory Notes

Example 1:

046 ## $k 2008 $2 edtf $z Creation date
046 ## $k 2015 $2 edtf $z Release date
130 0# $a Accidental love (Motion picture : 2015)
245 10 $a Accidental love / $c KJam Media presents ; a Kia Jam/Persistent Entertainment production ; with Lost Fifties Films ; screenstory and screenplay by Kristin Gore and Kristin Gore & Matt Silverstein & David Jeser ; directed by Stephen Greene.
500 ## $a Filmed in 2008 but not released as a motion picture until 2015.

Example 2:

046 ## $k 1941 $l 1942 $2 edtf $z Date of creation
046 ## $k 2004 $2 edtf $x Written in 1941-1942 but only discovered in 1998. First published in
2004 $z Publication date
100 1# $a Némirovsky, Irène, $d 1903-1942.
245 10 $a Suite française : $b roman / $c Irène Némirovsky.
260 ## $a Paris : $b Denoël, $c ©2004.

4.1.4. Materials Specified

Example 1:

046 ## $3 Fear in the night $o 1947 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 D.O.A. $o 1949 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 The hitch-hiker $o 1953 $2 edtf
245 00 $a Film noir triple DVD feature.
505 0# $a Fear in the night (1947, 71 min.) -- D.O.A. (1949, 84 min.) -- The hitch-hiker (1953, 71 min.).

Example 2:

046 ## $k 1978 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 The heroes $o 1950 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 The compromise $o 1955 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 The philosopher $o 1959 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Ashbery, John, $d 1927-2017, $e author.
240 10 $a Plays. $k Selections
245 10 $a Three plays / $c by John Ashbery.
260 ## $a Calais, Vt. : $b Z Press, $c 1978.
505 0# $a The heroes -- The compromise -- The philosopher.
500 ## $a "The Heroes, was written in 1950, and was staged first by The Living Theatre in 1952 ... The Compromise was written in 1955, and was performed the following year by the Poets Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Philosopher was written in 1959"--Jacket.

4.1.5. Source of Information About Dates

046 ## $k 1959 $2 edtf $v Britannica online, April 16, 2020 $u https://www.britannica.com/ biography/Mordecai-Richler
100 1# $a Richler, Mordecai, $d 1931-2001.
245 14 $a The apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz / $c Mordecai Richler.
260 ## $a Toronto, Ont. ; $a New York, N.Y. : $b Penguin Books, $c 1995.

4.2. Authority Format Examples


4.2.1. Explanatory Notes

Example 1:

046 ## $k 2008 $2 edtf $z Creation date
046 ## $k 2015 $2 edtf $z Release date
130 #0 $a Accidental love (Motion picture : 2015)

Example 2:

046 ## $k 1941 $l 1942 $2 edtf $z Date of creation
046 ## $k 2004 $2 edtf $x Written in 1941-1942 but only discovered in 1998. First published in
2004 $z Publication date
100 1# $a Némirovsky, Irène, $d 1903-1942. $t Suite française

4.2.2. Materials Specified

046 ## $k 1978 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 The heroes $o 1950 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 The compromise $o 1955 $2 edtf
046 ## $3 The philosopher $o 1959 $2 edtf
100 1# $a Ashbery, John, $d 1927-2017. $t Plays. $k Selections
400 1# $a Ashbery, John, $d 1927-2017. $t Three plays
670 ## $a Ashbery, John. Three plays, 1978: $b jacket ("The Heroes, was written in 1950, and was staged first by The Living Theatre in 1952 ... The Compromise was written in 1955, and was performed the following year by the Poets Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Philosopher was written in 1959")

5. BIBFRAME DISCUSSION

When the proposed additions are further developed, approved and implemented, BIBFRAME will handle them in the same manner as it treats dates, notes, materials specified, and URIs for other MARC fields now.

6. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

6.1. Has the use case for expression date subfields been adequately made?  Are the proposed subfields $q and $r acceptable?

6.2. Do you agree that separate subfields for expression dates are not needed in the Authority format? Or is it more desirable to keep the coding in both Bibliographic and Authority formats in parallel?  If separate coding for expression dates is desirable to have in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats, then subfields $h/$i could be used instead of the proposed $q/r in just the Bibliographic format ($q/$r are already defined as Establishment date and Termination date in the Authority format).  In addition to $h/$i, the following subfields are also still available in both formats: $w, $y, $0, $1, $4, $5, $7, $9.

6.3. Do you agree that adding both non-public and public note subfields is a useful enhancement of the field?  Is another subfield needed to hold codes that could be used to explain the type of date?

6.4. Has the case for adding subfield $3 for materials specified been adequately made?

6.5. Do you agree that there is a use case for adding subfields for source of information of dates to the Bibliographic format?  Subfields $u and $v are currently established only in the Authority 046.


HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
(05/29/2020)
Legal | External Link Disclaimer Contact Us