Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Sarah Stacy (rep. pro tem) LAC Library and Archives Canada Thurstan Young BL British Library Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Matthew W. Wise, Chair NYU New York University John Myers, Acting Secretary CC:DA Union College
Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Sherman Clarke (rep. pro tem) ARLIS/NA Freelance art cataloger Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota Lucas Mak (rep. pro tem) PCC Michigan State University Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa María Jesús Morillo Calero BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España John Myers CC:DA Union College Jean Pajerek AALL Cornell Law Library Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine James Soe Nyun MLA University of California, San Diego Weatherly Stephan SAA New York University Libraries Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Randall Barry Library of Congress Liv Berg Bokbasen AS Christopher Carr Concordia University Chew Chiat Naun Harvard University Nancy Fallgren National Library of Medicine Rine Gjerken Bokbasen AS M.J. Han University of Illinois at Urbana-Chamapaign Kalan Knudson Davis University of Minnesota Kelly McGrath University of Oregon Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Daniel Paradis Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec Heidi Segtnan Bokbasen AS Roy Tennant OCLC Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress Linda Woodcock Kwantlen Polytechnic University [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) opened the meeting by asking Committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves. A Committee roster was passed around the table and all were asked to "check in" and to annotate their entries with any corrections.
The minutes of the meeting at ALA Midwinter in Denver, CO, February 10-11, 2018, were approved without correction.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) reported on Fast-Track changes: proposals to add $4 to field 730 and to revise the definition of $r for field 382 were accepted. Fast-track changes are numbered on the proposals pages as FT-01, FT-02. John Zagas (LC) responded to a question from Midwinter to report that Discussion Papers converted to Proposals and Fast-Track Proposals are now numbered and recorded in the proposal section of the MARC website.
The next meeting will be in Seattle WA, January 26 and 27, 2019.
PROPOSAL 2018-02: Subfield Coding in Field 041 for Accessibility in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes adding new subfields in field 041 (Language Code) for accessibility modes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to enhance machine actionability.
Related Documents: 2018-DP02; 2018-03; 2017-11; 2017-DP03
MAC Discussion: The proposal was introduced by Sarah Stacy (LAC). Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized previously submitted comments, highlighting support by all and some caveats and concerns reported from NLM, OCLC, and MLA.
Discussion centered on the following topics: Kelly McGrath (University of Oregon, audience) raised the need for separating subtitles from intertitles as they, like captions and subtitles, perform different functions; an email from Pat Riva (CCM) to the MARC listserv suggested revisions to the proposal’s label and definition of $p, replacing references to the phrase "accessible text" with the term "captions"; legacy data issues for $j were raised by Elizabeth Plantz (NLM). Intertitles will be taken up at a later date if needed, possibly as part of a follow up MAC paper or fast-track proposal. Pat Riva’s comments led to the proposal being amended accordingly. OCLC will look into mechanisms to resolve the ambiguity of $j in legacy data.
MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously, with the following amendments for $p label and definition:
$p – Language code of captions (R)
Language codes for language used in moving image resource captions (open (Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (SDH)) or closed (CC)).
PROPOSAL 2018-03: Defining New Fields to Record Accessibility Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM), Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This proposal presents options for recording the RDA data element Accessibility Content (7.14) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: 2017-11; 2017-DP03; 2018-02; 2018-DP02
MAC Discussion: The proposal was introduced by Sarah Stacy (LAC). Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized previously submitted comments, highlighting support by all for the new fields, and then some caveats and concerns by the U.K. community, NLM, MLA, and OCLC.
The question of musical notation elicited a discussion of the modes of interaction with a resource. An email from James Soe Nyun (MLA) suggested that a fifth mode “musical notation” might be worth adding to the quartet of concepts listed by the paper: textual, visual, auditory and tactile. Some members of the music cataloging community may consider that musical notation is neither strictly textual nor visual in nature. In rebuttal, Matthew Wise (Chair) commented that, whereas musical notation prompts performance by a musician, a visual presentation does not prompt the viewer to act in a similar way. For instance, the viewer of a painting is not required to access the content by painting a picture themselves. He added that musical notations, like reading aloud, were in keeping with a textual rather than a visual mode of interaction, although the very concept of “textual” as a model of interaction may itself be problematic.
Thurstan Young (BL) queried the definition of 341 subfield $2 set out by the paper: as written, its scope is limited to identifying the source of subfields $b to $e, not including $a. He asked whether the proposal’s authors would consider amending this definition to encompass $a if W3C were to establish a controlled vocabulary for content access mode in the future. Chris Carr (Concordia University) confirmed that they would. Several issues of field 341 application will need to be addressed by best practices documentation for respective user communities: these include pairing the vocabularies referenced in subfields $b to $e with multiple instances of $a.
At present, the requirement for recording URIs in a 341 context is speculative; therefore it was decided that $0 and $1 need not be defined as part of the recommended changes covered by the proposal. If necessary, a fast-track change could accommodate subfields $0 and $1 in the future.
Subfield $8 was added to the list of subfields proposed for 341 at the suggestion of Jay Weitz (OCLC).
A final a modification to the proposal involved changing the label for field 532 1st indicator value 2 from "Accessibility hazards" to "Accessibility deficiencies" in line with Pat Riva’s emailed suggestion to the MARC list. This was in response to Diane Boehr’s (NLM) emailed comment that the term "hazard" may infer that a health warning is attached to accessing the resource.
MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously, with amendment to remove $0/$1 from field 341, to add $8 to both fields, and to modify 1st indicator value 2 for field 532 from "Accessibility hazards" to "Accessibility deficiencies" (with corresponding examples).
PROPOSAL 2018-04: Versions of Resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes two ways to designate in a MARC record that a resource is available in a specific version, e.g. as preprint, postprint, publisher’s version, etc., including, but not limited to values from NISO-RP-8-2008 "Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group".
Related Documents: 2018-DP06; 2013-03
MAC Discussion: The proposal was introduced by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized previously submitted comments, highlighting a general preference for Option 2, defining a new field 251.
There were three key topics under consideration: nature of the data under consideration by the proposal; "version" versus "publication status" as a labeling convention; and friendly amendments to add $3, $6, and $8.
Regarding the nature of the data, questions arose from Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) as to whether it would consist of a strictly controlled vocabulary or not, and whether it would be provided solely by the publisher; if uncontrolled terms were a possibility, then these could be recorded as supplied information in the existing 250 field using square brackets. Randy Barry (LC, audience) suggested that it would be desirable to cleanly distinguish between a) typically transcribed data for RDA and other cataloging codes' statements regarding edition and b) metadata-sourced terminology. Thurstan Young (BL) commented that terms other than those listed in the paper might be used by publishers to categorize the version of a resource; since the library community could not dictate what terms a publisher chose to use, the new field or subfield defined to record version information should allow for a mix of controlled and uncontrolled terms. He added that if a new field option were chosen for recording version information, the absence of $2, as in the 34X block, could be used to flag that a non-controlled term was present. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) agreed, pointing to the wording of the definitions of field 251 and its subfield $a, reading: "Information relating to the version of a resource, preferably taken from a controlled vocabulary."
Deliberation followed regarding whether the proposed new field label, "Version information", should be replaced by the alternative, “Publication status.” Using the term "version" appeared to generate no conflict with RDA terminology. In contrast, "publication status" generated unease at the prospect of conflict within the format for publication statements generally recorded in the 26X block. In addition, field 008 has a position 06 "Type of date/Publication status", and field 366 "Trade Availability Information" similarly covers steps which one and the same publication takes, whereas this proposal tries to distinguish separate publications from each other.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) submitted for consideration a friendly amendment to add $3, $6, and $8. He had no objection, and the committee followed his lead.
MAC Action: Proposal using Option 2 deploying a new field 251 approved unanimously, with amendment to add $3, $6, $8.
PROPOSAL 2018-05: Multiscript Records Using Codes from ISO 15924 in the Five MARC 21 Formats
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes ways on how to designate that the content of a MARC 21 field is written in a specified script by using codes from ISO 15924. The options are: "script identification code" portion of subfield $6 (Linkage), designation in field 066 (Character Sets present), and designation in field 546 (Language Note).
Related Documents: 2018-DP04
MAC Discussion: The proposal was introduced by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized previously submitted comments, highlighting broad consensus around Option 1, with the exception of a preference for Option 2 or 3 by the U.K. community, and no preference by the NLM. CCM raised several concerns with Options 2 and 3.
Thurstan Young (BL) reported that the British Library had considered the proposed change in scope for $6 in terms of its own MARC-8 to Unicode conversion script; expanding the use of $6 appeared not to pose a problem with this. However, the U.K. community was still concerned that other institutions might be adversely affected.
Randy Barry (LC, audience) commented that the use of ISO codes is a cleaner solution for non-Latin scripts than the MARC-8 set. Addressing non-Latin scripts at the subfield level is preferable, especially for BIBFRAME conversion, and for users desiring a specific script.
MAC Action: The proposal using Option 1 deploying codes taken from ISO 15924 in subfield $6 was approved, with one abstention.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2018-DP07: Designating Sources for Names in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC
Summary: This paper explores some reasons for extending the use of $2 for source vocabulary to the 1XX and 7XX name entry fields in the Bibliographic format, and the implications of doing so.
Related Documents: [none]
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The discussion paper was introduced by Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard, for PCC TG). Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized the MARC Discussion List responses to the paper in response to its questions, highlighting: 1) general acceptance of the use case with the exception of the U.K. community which cautioned that identity and authority management should not be conflated; 2) all but OCLC prefer $2 to be optional; 3) consensus that title complexities should be explored separately, e.g. the 1XX/240 field pairing; and 4) a preference for not amending field 720.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard, for PCC TG) requested clarification regarding the U.K.’s concerns over conflating identity management and authority control source information in $2. Thurstan Young (BL) responded that identity management systems aggregate name headings without specifying a preferred form: this is in contrast to authority files which do specify a controlled form of name. When used in a bibliographic record name heading context, $2 flags the preferred form of name which has been recorded in a linked authority file rather than an identity management system. He added that, with this in mind, $2 should only be appended to name headings recording authority URIs in $0 rather than Real World Object URIs recorded in $1. Nancy Fallgren (NLM, for PCC TG) commented that, in some cases, the distinction between authorities and Real World Objects is not clear cut: authority files can include RWOs with preferred labels. Thurstan Young (BL) responded that this still left sources of RWOs, including ISNI and ORCID, which do not follow an authority file model. He added that the U.K. community was not averse to coding the source of RWOs, but that this should be done using a subfield other than $2. John Myers (CC:DA) commented that alternative subfields may not be available to allow for such differentiation. Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard) added that it may be up to best practices within individual communities to work out the dynamics for use of $2.
Discussion turned to subfields $2 and URI schema for title and name-title entries. The authority practices of libraries in German speaking countries and their cataloging community would support addressing titles, at least the simple fields 130 and 730, and possibly field 240, but those of the Anglo-American community would be challenging. James Soe Nyun (MLA), on behalf of the music cataloging community, expressed a strong interest that any solution worked out for names should also accommodate works and expressions where possible, partly to guard against names being extracted from agent/title strings used to identify works and expressions.
The discussion paper will return as a proposal, focusing on names, with perhaps the addition of field 130 and 730 for titles in those fields. MAC expressed the desirability for the complexities of the authority and RWO URIs to be better explored in the narrower context of names.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2018-DP08: Use of Field 024 to Capture URIs in the MARC 21 Authority Format
Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC
Summary: This paper discusses the need to capture Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) of the MARC 21 Authority Format in a manner that clearly differentiates between:
The paper further considers differentiating MARC subfields for URIs that are alphanumeric standard numbers or codes already accommodated in 024 $a and dereferenceable HTTP URIs promoting the conversion of MARC data to linked data format.
Related Documents: 2017-08; 2017-DP01
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The discussion paper was introduced by Nancy Fallgren (NLM, for the PCC TG) and Lucas Mak (Michigan State University, for the PCC) with a report that the PCC TG prefers Option 2. Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized the MARC Discussion List responses to the paper in response to its questions, highlighting: 5.1 agreement on the use case; 5.2 several preferences for Option 2, with several others preferring or acknowledging Option 1 for its minimal retrospective work; and 5.4, three in support of revisions to $2.
Thurstan Young (BL), remarked that defining $0/$1 to carry authority/Real World Object URIs does offer consistency with approaches elsewhere in the format. The indicator approach would be an acceptable alternative. Cleaning up of legacy data to align with the changes proposed should be treated as optional.
Nancy Fallgren (NLM, for PCC TG) queried whether, since there appeared to be a consensus around defining $0 and $1 in field 024, the discussion paper could be converted into a proposal and voted on at the present meeting.
Sally McCallum (LC) responded that it should return as a proposal and that NDMSO could assist with drafting this.
The discussion paper will return as a proposal. The definition of 024 $0/$1 (Option 2) is preferred to the other alternatives explored.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2018-DP09: Improving Subfield Structure of Field 245 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Source: OCLC EMEA, Leiden (Netherlands) and OCLC, Dublin, Ohio (US)
Summary: This paper describes two options for a more granular subfield structure of Bibliographic field 245 (Title Statement) to improve data exchange with other more granular formats, matching (and merging), displays, and indexes.
Related Documents: 2010-07; 2010-DP01
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The discussion paper was introduced by Jay Weitz (OCLC). Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized the MARC Discussion List responses to the paper; these included general appreciation for the paper but caveats, some strong, regarding the impact on legacy data and skepticism that it would ultimately result in more not less variability, ambiguity, and complexity.
After an opening comment by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) that the German cataloging community would have liked to see this before moving to MARC, the fundamental question was taken up regarding the desired granularity of field 245 in recording and encoding Title statements and Statements of responsibility. Randy Barry (LC, audience) observed that for many years he would have desired more granularity as the discussion paper proposes, but is now contemplating no granularity in the face of complex examples. John Myers (CC:DA) reported on the anticipated “manifestation statement” expected to emerge from the revision of RDA under the 3R project – an element that may be used to record character strings from the upper left corner to the lower right of the title page for textual resources. Matthew Wise (Chair) observed that the examples of application presented by the paper were too simplistic. Thurstan Young (BL) observed that the mechanisms proposed by the paper did not offer much greater granularity in terms of coding, but rather more of the same coding; having a greater divergence of practice in how title information is coded could result in greater complexity and risk when processing it. Sally McCallum (LC) observed that what is most desirable is to better support relationships and the mechanisms proposed would not support that end. John Myers (CC:DA) offered a meta-analysis of the break down between instances of title proper, numbering, part title, other title information, and statement of responsibility of the primary resource, then parallel iterations for that primary resource, then iterations for additional resource(s), and parallel iterations for additional resource(s). Randy Barry (LC, audience), observed that parallel information can come from anywhere in the resource under RDA, which then gets coded in the 245 $b by catalogers, so that the 245 is no longer reflective of the title page. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested that the 2016 "Revised Final Report" of the "PCC ISBD and MARC Task Group", already referenced in the paper, should be taken into account, with field 245 being analyzed in the report's section 4: "Fields Requiring Substantive Changes to MARC 21".
The question was put to Jay Weitz (OCLC), representative of the paper’s authoring agency, as to how OCLC would like to proceed, either dropping the paper or asking for substantial further analysis. He did not want to impose unduly on the Leiden office staff who had developed the paper.
A straw poll was taken, with 8 votes in favor of sending it back for more work, and 12 votes indicating it would not be fruitful to move forward in this direction.
There were additional comments by Stephen Hearn (SAC) regarding the lessons which MAC has learned over the years of trying to make one field perform double duty for description and access, e.g. the 440 field. Sherman Clarke (VRA) reported feedback he had received in favor of a further paper exploring a “clumped” field (i.e. transcribed, un-subdivided), and a “parsed” field (i.e. structured).
Though the discussion paper in its present form will not return as a proposal, it was credited for initiating a conversation about the merits/drawbacks of more granularity in field 245.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2018-DP10: Designating Access to Online Resources in Field 856 in the MARC 21 Formats
Source: OCLC and the German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes adding a new subfield to field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) containing a numeric designator indicating accessibility (restricted, open, or partly restricted) to the online resource linked in the URI in subfield $u. For the purposes of this paper, an "open access" document can be reached without requiring payment or a login.
Related Documents: 2018-DP11
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The discussion paper was introduced by Roy Tennant (OCLC), highlighting the desirability of an unambiguous, language neutral, machine actionable mechanism to indicate open access of a resource accessed through the associated URL. Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized the MARC Discussion List responses to the paper chiefly in response to its questions.
Roy Tennant (OCLC) responded to the various MARC discussion list issues which had been raised. One of the key arguments addressed was that $3 could be used to denote access restrictions – Roy commented that this is actually extremely difficult to use as a means of identifying access restrictions on a consistent basis; he added that a report of such generated 15,000 pages of non–machine actionable strings. Addressing what the paper meant by the term "open access", Roy explained that the resource should be openly available to all users; hence the information could be recorded at the MARC 21 bibliographic rather than just the holdings level. As regards the concern expressed over instances of field 856 containing more than one $u, Roy commented that OCLC had found only 5,005 cases of 856 fields in which multiple $u subfields pointed to different resources.
The close alignment of this paper with 2018-DP11 was acknowledged. For most of the time, the two papers were developed in parallel independently and their mutual existence was discovered late in the authoring process. OCLC and the German National Library then collaborated to create coordinated papers, and agreed to co-sponsor and support the other institution's paper.
Further discussion focused on the three proposed $7/$e values: 1 for open access, 0 for restricted access, and 2 for partial/hybrid open access. The "2" value drew significant discussion. Thurstan Young (BL) held that a resource was either open access or it was not. By contrast, Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) held that aggregate resources (e.g. a journal) could be a mix of open access and restricted components (e.g. articles or issues). There was no clear resolution to the question of how users might be impacted by deployment (or non-deployment) of value "2" – whether it would generate confusion, unmet expectations, or extra work in the former case, or whether it would cause users to overlook potentially accessible resources in the latter case. The value "2" might incur or support maintenance, such as when a resource was embargoed for a period of time.
There was agreement that positive and negative coding represented by the "1" and "0" values was necessary, not just a "1" value for open access. Roy Tennant (OCLC), as the paper’s presenter, was willing to defer resolution of value "2" in order to move forward on what he considered the more pressing work of coding values "1" and "0".
Outstanding questions from the paper concerned which formats the proposed 856 change should apply to. Jay Weitz (OCLC) expressed the view that since 856 $u is already defined in all formats, the change proposed should parallel this. As regards the choice between defining $7 or $e to carry access information, Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed preference for using both. The former could be used to record a coded value denoting access information, whilst the latter could accommodate a free text note or controlled term. This is because DNB intend to use $e for recording a free text note or controlled term. This would reflect the proposed approach outlined in 2018-DP11.
Sally McCallum (LC) observed that field 856 was defined very early in the Internet era and was developed to encompass a variety of mechanisms, some of which have been superseded, and data elements, later found to be unnecessary with the development of the URI. It may be appropriate to review and overhaul it, with even the exceptional practice of redeploying some subfields for new uses.
The paper will return as a proposal, possibly in conjunction with 2018-DP11.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2018-DP11: Open Access and License Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats, and OCLC
Summary: This paper explores ways on how to reflect open access and license information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings formats. It analyzes the existing fields 506 (Restrictions on Access Note), 007 (Electronic Resource), 008 (Fixed-Length Data Elements), 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) and 856 (Electronic Location and Access) and makes suggestions for extensions to cover needs identified by the German speaking part of the MARC community, in cooperation with OCLC.
Related Documents: 2018-DP10; 2018-04; 2018-DP06; 2006-03; 2002-10
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The discussion paper was introduced by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized the MARC Discussion List responses to the paper; these included understanding the desire to record open access details in a variety of ways, although most felt 007/008 had too many limitations. Several argued for a limitation of recording open access details to the Holdings format.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted that language was included in the paper explicitly to exclude institution specific restrictions on access; hence the mechanisms explored in the paper are applicable at the bibliographic level, not only at the holdings level.
Furthermore, Reinhold responded to various other MARC Discussion List responses, particularly quoting the Budapest Open Access Initiative document for the definition of “open access.”
"By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited."
(Budapest Open Access Initiative, February 14, 2002, online at http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read , viewed July 12, 2018).
The discussion resumed from 2018-DP10 concerning mixed access and the value "2" (partial/hybrid open access) with the additional observation that null values, as listed in the paper, should be incorporated into any forthcoming proposal.
Thurstan Young (BL) reported that the National Library of Finland would favor clean up of field 856. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) and others responded that resolution of the open access issue should not be delayed by this process.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) raised the question of whether this paper solely concerned electronic resources with respect to licensing, to which Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that open access does not exist as a corresponding business model for print resources.
The paper will return as a proposal, in coordination with the substance of 2018-DP10.
John Myers (Acting Secretary)
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
|The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
( 08/20/2018 )
|Legal | External Link Disclaimer