The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
MARC Standards
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC

MAC Meeting Minutes
MARC Advisory Committee


ALA Midwinter Meeting
Philadelphia, PA - January 25-26, 2020


MARC Steering Group Members:

Sally H. McCallum               LC                Library of Congress
Thurstan Young                  BL                British Library
Reinhold Heuvelmann             DNB               Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

MAC Chair and Secretary

Matthew W. Wise, Chair          NYU               New York University
Everett Allgood, Secretary      NYU               New York University

MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:

Sherman Clarke                  VRA             Freelance art cataloger
Rachel Decker                   AALL            Chapman University
Catherine Gerhart               OLAC            University of Washington
John A. Maier                   ARLIS/NA        Pratt Institute Libraries
Lucas Mak                       PCC             Michigan State University Libraries
Susan M. Moore                  MAGIRT          University of Northern Iowa
John Myers                      CC:DA           Union College
Karen Peters                    MLA             Library of Congress
Elizabeth Plantz                NLM             National Library of Medicine
Regina Reynolds                 LC/ISSN         Library of Congress
Adam Schiff                     SAC             University of Washington Libraries
Jay Weitz                       OCLC            OCLC
John Zagas                      LC              Library of Congress

Other Attendees:

Dominique Bourassa              Yale University
Christopher Carr                Concordia University
Lia Contursi                    Princeton University
Rebecca Culbertson              University of California San Diego
Kalan Knudson Davis             University of Minnesota
Ann Fath                        Getty Research Institute
Kevin Ford                      Library of Congress
Kathy Glennan                   University of Maryland
Caroline Hassler                Government Publishing Office
Stephen Hearn                   University of Minnesota
John Hostage                    Harvard University
Kate James                      Unaffiliated
Tim Kiser                       Michigan State University
Oksana Osborne                  Government Publishing Office
Charles Riley                   Yale University
Jessica Robertson               Central Rappahannock Regional Library
Amanda Ros                      Texas A&M University
Nancy Sack                      University of Hawaii
Tina Shrader                    National Library of Medicine
Keiko Suzuki                    The New School
Chiharu Watsky                  Princeton University
Mary Beth Weber                 Rutgers University
Jodi Williamschen               Library of Congress
Amanda Xu                       National Agricultural Library


[Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network 
Development and MARC Standards Office.]

Introductions, etc.

Introduction of members

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.

Approval of minutes from MAC June 2019 meetings

The minutes of the meeting at ALA Annual in Washington, DC, June 22-23, 2019, were approved, without correction.

Business Meeting/Other

Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) reported on the approval by the MARC Steering Group and MAC Chair of two Fast-Track Proposal since the 2019 Annual Conference: 1) 2019-FT01, from Library and Archives Canada: Adding a Code for Audio Belt in Field 007/01 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format; 2) 2019-FT02, from the German National Library: Defining Subfield $g in Field 751 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

 


MARC PROPOSALS

 

PROPOSAL 2020-01: Defining a New Indicator Value for Human-generated Content in Field 883 of the MARC 21 formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-01.html
Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper proposes a way that metadata provenance information can be extended in the MARC formats from fully or partially machine-generated metadata to any type of metadata, including intellectually assigned metadata. The approach outlined is the definition of a new value "2" for "Created by a human cataloger" as the first indicator of field 883 in all five MARC formats. The name of the field is to be changed from "Machine-generated Metadata Provenance" to a broader scope, and the name of the first indicator position is to be changed from "Method of machine assignment", accordingly.
Related Documents: 2018-DP05; 2017-DP05; 2012-03

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was a general consensus that recording this value would be beneficial. Several favored revising the 883 field definition and scope, along with the field labels.

NLM noted that, if this is intended to be only a temporary solution, as noted in Section 2.3, they would prefer to wait for a discussion paper from the MARC/RDA Working Group.

Germany noted that additional names and definitions, which were suggested in the preceding discussion paper, will also need to be changed:

$a - Generation process         =>        Creation process
$d - Generation date              =>        Creation date
$q - Generation agency          =>        Assigning or generating agency

Allgood pointed out that metadata records are not static, and that data provenance within such records may change over time, shifting the line between machine- and human- generation. He noted that data generation workflows are not necessarily black-and-white. Lastly, he raised the possibility of using the term "curated in the new indicator value label." However, Clarke cautioned against this.

MAC Discussion:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the proposal.

Regina Reynolds (ISSN) spoke about the history of field 883, and the binary nature of data within MARC records (i.e., either machine-generated or encoded by hand).

Thurstan Young (BL) expressed the view that the binary nature of possible 1st indicator values should be reflected as follows:

He added that the expansion of 1st indicator values made the following last sentence in the current definition of field 883 redundant: “Intended for use with data fields that have been fully or partially machine-generated, i.e., generated by some named process other than intellectual creation.”

MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously, with the following editorial amendments:


PROPOSAL 2020-02
:
Adding Subfield $0 to Fields 310 and 321 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-02.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format that currently do not have subfield $0 defined: Field 310 (Current Publication Frequency) and Field 321 (Former Publication Frequency).
Related Documents: 2019-DP05; 2017-08; 2016-DP19; 2010-06

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was general support for this proposal. However, the U.K. would like to see examples that demonstrate the need for field 310 to be repeatable. In the last example of field 310, they also questioned the use of punctuation in subfield $a and the date in subfield $b. Lastly, they noted the current difference of opinion between PCC and the RDA RSC over how subfields $0 and $1 are to be applied.

NLM would like to see it explicitly stated somewhere that subfield $0 applies only to the data in subfield $a.

Allgood, speaking on behalf of the continuing resources community, expressed concern about tinkering with fields 310 and 321, which are already finely-tuned to drive serials functionality in many library systems (i.e., check-in/receiving, bindery, predictive check-in, etc.). Such a change in practice would need to be well-described in the documentation and communicated broadly. Canada echoed this concern, particularly with regard to the need for repeatability of field 310. The PCC responded that the repeatability described in the proposal (whereby subfield $1 is repeatable, but subfield $0 is not) is consistent with the practices recommended in the PCC Linked Data Best Practices report . It does, however, raise questions of consistency with subfield $0 elsewhere in the MARC format, where it is generally repeatable.

MAC Discussion:
Introducing the paper, Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) noted that the inclusion of MARC field 310 (Current Frequency) repeatability was a late addition. Currently, during the MARC-to-BIBFRAME conversion exercise, former frequencies previously encoded in 321 fields return from BIBFRAME as multiple 310 fields in MARC. The hope is that these multiple post-BIBFRAME 310 fields will be differentiated by date or numbering information available in 321 $b. The reality though is that not all former frequencies encoded in MARC 321 fields include differentiation attributes in subfield $b. That is, sometimes the cataloger does not have further information regarding when the former frequency was applicable, so a significant number of 321 fields contain former frequency information without date or numbering for differentiation.

MAC expressed a general concern about such a loss of data in the MARC-to-BIBFRAME conversion. This is especially so when the data in question lacks the necessary differentiation to pragmatically drive basic continuing resource functionality (i.e., check-in/receiving, bindery, predictive check-in, etc.).

Following further discussion among members of NDMSO, MAC was assured that LC is now confident they will be able to differentiate current and former frequency data during the MARC-to-BIBFRAME conversion. This will be accomplished with an amendment to current BIBFRAME to MARC conversion rules.

MAC Action: Proposal approved, with one abstention.


MARC DISCUSSION PAPERS

 

DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP01: Modernization or Replacement of Field 856 in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp01.html
Source: OCLC and the German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper considers options for the modernization of the existing field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) and/or the definition of a new field 857; a new subfield $e to account for access, use, and reproduction information; and the possibility of reassigning the existing subfield $7 for access status.
Related Documents: Proposal 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2019-01; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; 2018-DP11; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised August 1999; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised March 2002

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Canada and MLA supported the paper’s assessment of 856 subfields and indicator values, and agreed that many of the use cases originally provided for are no longer required in today's technological context.

The U.K. noted that, although the paper is intended to modernize the 856 across all MARC formats, it was written almost exclusively to address the Bibliographic format. It also cautioned that the duplication of information across fields 506/540 and 856/857 would require significant large-scale and local data migration, along with on-going maintenance. NLM pointed out that repeated use of the word "deprecate" had made this discussion difficult for some. It questioned whether making some subfields obsolelete may result in the loss of data unless it is analysed and migrated.

Myers wondered about the criteria that were used to determine the "deprecation" of 856 subfields, and whether OCLC might provide additional statistics about the number of bibliographic and holdings records these changes would affect. He also noted that, when MARC subfields are redefined, more than just national databases are affected. Old and newly-defined metadata, which might reside together in local systems would be put into conflict.

MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the discussion paper.

Sally McCallum (LC) noted this may be the first of two papers which MAC receives addressing the 856 field. This first paper is intended to clear out irrelevant or no-longer-needed 856 subfields, and the second is intended to make a better job of defining the field to reflect current needs and usage.

Thurstan Young (BL) and Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) spoke in favor of retaining the 856 field; the widespread usage of the field over an extended period was used to bolster their argument. Thurstan Young added that, from the British Library’s perspective, the existing coding of access restrictions, reproduction rights, etc. in fields 506 and 540 was perfectly adequate. However, even if an institution were not planning to record access restrictions, etc. in a new 857 field, implementation of it would become necessary to ensure that electronic access was not disrupted in a shared cataloging environment. Bearing this in mind, the redefinition of redundant 856 subfields to carry access restriction information, etc. would be a preferable alternative.

Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) and others raised the important point of historical split practices among library catalogs. While most libraries today create and maintain Manifestation-specific bibliographic descriptions, there are some libraries that still follow the older Single-Record Approach. In short, the Single-Record Approach allows libraries holding bibliographic resources in multiple physical formats to use a single bibliographic description, with separate holdings records attached to each representing a distinct format (i.e., Print, Online, etc.). While in most cases, the Single-Record Approach was intended to accommodate print and electronic holdings, some libraries included additional formats as well (e.g, Microform(s)). Many libraries today have abandoned Single-Record cataloging in favor of other processing models, but still have Single-Record descriptions within their legacy data. Moving forward with this 856 initiative, careful consideration must be given to this use case which affects numerous library catalogs.

Cate Gerhart (OLAC) mentioned MAC's previous discussions regarding the transition from the 260 to 264 field. Gerhart believed that we may not yet be ready to deprecate the 856 altogether. However, MAC might be able to clear out the unnecessary subfields, and also consider defining a new, similar field for any new identified need(s) or usage.

Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) expressed support for the idea raised by Australia to proceed with clearing out the 856 subfields as necessary to reflect current need(s)/usage, but also to define a new 85X field for the purpose of recording related resources. The effort of doing so via a 2nd indicator value in a single 856 field has proven to be misguided.

Adam Schiff (SAC) and others noted that if OCLC and the German National Library chose to move forward with defining a new field altogether (i.e., 857 field), it made little sense to bother deprecating any of the numerous 856 subfields.

OCLC and the German National Library will work further on this paper based on MAC discussion and responses; it is possible it will come back as two (or more) separate papers at Annual.


DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP02: Adding Subfield $0 to Fields 504 and 525 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp02.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format that currently do not have subfield $0 defined: Field 504 (Bibliography, etc. Note) and Field 525 (Supplement Note). Revised definitions for each field are also suggested.
Related Documents: 2017-08; 2019-DP05

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was a request from MLA for additional clarification regarding the use of and relationship(s) between the 504 and 525 Note fields.

Responding to the DP Questions:

5.1. Do you agree there is a use for subfields in these fields to record URIs?
There was broad consensus that a need for the proposed changes has been demonstrated. But there was also general agreement that the provision for eye-readable notes must also be retained should this proposal move forward.

5.2. Does the proposed solution meet the needs discussed?
Several respondees commented that the proposed solution meets the need. However, Myers and others were troubled by the idea of intermixing free-text and controlled terminology in the 504 subfield $a. NLM pointed out that the suggested change to field 504 did not match its current definition and scope with regard to combined notes on bibliographies and indexes. This remains a widespread practice. The addition of subfields $0 and $1 to 5XX fields also struck some as being inconsistent with past coding practice; several expressed an interest in seeing other options explored. These might include 5XX subfield $u (or other 5XX subfields for controlled values / URIs), field 340, another 3XX field, or 008 bytes 24-27.

5.3. Are there any potential consequences that this paper does not address?
The PCC and Myers made mention of growing data duplication in the 008 field and other fields, which we might want to consider making obsolete, at some point (see also Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP03). This concern has also been raised repeatedly by NDMSO and has been a difficulty during the MARC-to-BIBFRAME transformation process.

MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Thurstan Young (BL) and others preferred the option of seeing identifers and controlled language for indexes, bibliographies and other supplementary information encoded within the 3XX block, perhaps the 340 field. Adam Schiff (SAC) noted that the current paper describes this need within the Bibliographic format, and encouraged NDMSO to also consider whether there may be a similar need within the Authority format.

Regarding the current NDMSO efforts at mapping MARC 008 values and data into BIBFRAME, several MAC members suggested following the model of the current 33X fields, allowing for codes as well as controlled terms. Vocabularies from id.loc.gov were specifically mentioned.

The paper will likely return as a more focused discussion paper at Annual.


DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP03: Defining New Subfields in Field 340 to Record Illustrative Content and Sound Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp03.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding new repeatable subfields to Field 340 (Physical Medium) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to record the illustrative content and sound content of resources.
Related Documents: 2017-05

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:

6.1. Do you agree there is a use for subfields in field 340 to record Illustrative content and Sound content?
There was broad support for recording illustrative content and sound content using URIs and controlled terms; the use case described within this paper clearly indicates a need. But Myers wondered whether concepts of content and carrier were being mixed, and thus whether field 340 (Physical Medium) would be the proper place to encode information about content. Many prefered sound content information to be recorded in field 344 (Sound Characteristics), with the field name being changed to reflect broader contents, if necessary. Myers suggested instead that a new field could be defined in the 33X block for "Additional content characteristics". Regarding the separation of content and carrier information in the MARC format, OCLC noted that this rubicon had already been crossed.

6.2. Does the proposed solution meet the needs discussed?
Some respondees believed that the proposed solution met the need articulated, but many others felt that further study was needed. Future development of the paper might usefully include input and assistance from OLAC/CAPC, the Music Library Association, and possibly the Visual Resources Association communities as well.

6.3. Are there any potential consequences that this paper does not address?
OCLC and MLA noted that the proposed definition of subfield $p (Illustrative Content) needed modification, since it implies a binary choice between the presence or absence of illustrative content, rather than the possibility of recording various types of illustrations listed in RDA 7.15.1.3. Clarke (VRA) added that there was an ongoing confusion about the intention of this subfield. OCLC and MLA also pointed out that the proposed definition of $q (Sound content) did not line up with the binary definition in RDA 7.18.1.1. Noting an issue which is in common with Proposal 2020-02 and DP04, the U.K. pointed out that examples of RDA Registry URIs have been coded in subfield $0, rather than in the RDA Steering Committee’s preferred subfield $1.

6.4. Should Sound Content be placed in field 344 (Sound Characteristics) instead? For reference, field 344 is "Sound Characteristics. Technical specifications relating to the encoding of sound in a resource" and separate subfields are defined for "type of recording, recording medium, playing speed, groove characteristic, track configuration, tape configuration, configuration of playback channels, and special playback characteristics."
Some expressed agreement with moving the sound content characteristics described in this paper to the 344 field (Sound Characteristics). But Myers argued that field 344 only addresses carrier aspects.

MAC Discussion and Action taken:
Jodi Williamschen (Library of Congress) introduced the paper and noted that any definition of a subfield to carry a controlled term for sound content should allow for the value "silent" to be recorded.

Adam Schiff (SAC) commented that, as with supplementary content, consideration should be given to recording a MARC code equivalent value for illustrative and sound content as well as the controlled terms and URIs from id.loc.gov.

John Myers (CC:DA) noted that any follow up proposal to the discussion paper should include a review of how color content is currently coded in MARC 21. Like illustrative and sound content, a MARC coded value could be recorded for this as well as a controlled term and URI.

Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) noted that the general issue of how subfields $0 and $1 should be applied in MARC was being considered by the RSC Technical Working Group; RSC may approach PCC in order to discuss and resolve the issue.

Based on the discussion around 2020-DP02, MAC encouraged NDMSO to consider following the model of the current 33X fields for sound and illustrative content, combining terms and codes from defined vocabularies.

NDMSO will work with OLAC, and possibly with the Music Library Association and the Visual Resources Association, to bring this paper back as a proposal.


DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP04: Renaming Field 345 and Defining New Subfields for Aspect Ratio and Motion Technique in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp04.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes renaming field 345 from "Projection Characteristics of Moving Image" to "Moving Image Characteristics" and adding new repeatable subfields to record the aspect ratio and motion technique of resources.
Related Documents: 2017-05

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:

6.1. Do you agree with proposed renaming and redefinition of field 345?
There was broad support for the proposed renaming and redefinition of field 345, which parallels other field names in the MARC 3XX block. But as with 2020-DP03, Myers wondered whether concepts of content and carrier had been mixed, and thus whether field 345 would be the correct place for this information. NLM wondered about this field's relationship to field 346 (Video Characteristics), and whether the two fields might somehow be combined.

6.2. Do you agree there is a use for subfields in field 345 to record Aspect ratio and Motion technique?
There was agreement on the need to record these values, though OCLC expressed disappointment that OLAC/CAPC was not consulted earlier in the process.

6.3. Does the proposed solution meet the needs discussed?
There was agreement that the proposed solution met the need.

6.4. Are there any potential consequences that this paper does not address?
OCLC recommended that a wider discussion should take place about certain "unhelpful distinctions" of motion technique in MARC and RDA. The U.K. again pointed out that examples of RDA Registry URIs have been coded in subfield $0, rather than in the RSC’s preferred subfield $1 (see Kathy Glennan’s proposed RSC resolution at 2020-DP03).

MAC Discussion and Action taken:
While there was general agreement on the merit of this paper, John Myers (CC:DA) recommended that the drafting of any follow up proposal should include the involvement of OLAC. Cate Gerhart (OLAC) volunteered to help in this regard.

NDMSO will work with OLAC to bring this paper back as a proposal.

DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP05: Reinstatement of Field 241 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp05.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes the reinstatement of Field 241 (Transliterated Title) with updated indicators, subfields, and a revised field definition and scope.
Related Documents: 82-17

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
MLA strongly disagreed with the assertion that transliteration is of no use to end users. For example, the use of non-textual resources is not predicated on an individual’s ability to read a particular script, as might be the case with predominantly textual resources. Furthermore, library staff may find transliteration necessary in their day-to-day work.

Responding to the DP Questions:

6.1. Does the proposed solution meet the needs discussed?
Canada and Spain supported the proposed solution. OCLC noted the need for additional subfields: $f (Inclusive dates), $g (Bulk dates), $k (Form), and $s (Version). Canada, NLM, and OCLC also suggested that there was a need for the transliteration scheme to be encoded. However, Germany opposed the solution, citing the widespread established practice of Model A. They (as well as OCLC) did not see the benefit of reinstating field 241. NLM wondered whether anyone has given any thought to simply making field 245 repeatable.

Several respondees pointed out a need for more analysis of the current usage of Models A and B, as well as more information about the impact of any change to current transliteration practices. Myers suggested that more stakeholders needed to be involved in this conversation, including major and minor ILS vendors. Allgood wondered about the future of legacy data in 880 fields. MLA noted the need for some more complex examples in the paper that might include multiple parallel languages, multiple titles, multiple scripts, and different transliteration schemes.

6.2. Does the field definition and scope for field 245 need to be updated?
OCLC pointed out that the definition and scope of field 241 only included "title proper", but not "remainder of title". Also, as set out by the paper, the definition of "title proper" in field 241 differs from that found in field 245. The U.K., MLA, and Myers believed that, if the change were implemented, a note should be added to the field definition and scope for field 245, stating that field 241 is used to record a transliterated title.

6.3. Are there other potential consequences of the change?
OCLC believed that the impact of a move from Model A to Model B for non-Latin data would be enormous. Indexing, matching, sharing of data, display of records and conversion of existing data, are just a few of the aspects to be considered. The U.K. noted that the desirability or otherwise of this change depended on the community served. If a community prefers not to use field 245 / 880 combinations, then it may be regarded as advantageous. If it does support the application of field 245 / 880 following established practice, then the proposed change could be highly disruptive to current workflows and legacy content. The U.K. added that the paper made no reference to how legacy data could be amended in line with the proposed change and that any follow up proposal should do so.

MAC Discussion and Action taken: Sally McCallum (LC) presented the paper along with a brief history of transliteration practices at the Library of Congress. She mentioned the ALCTS Transliteration report as well as a the work of a recent internal DLC Task Force to examine transliteration practices. Due to high costs and heavy demands on staff resources, DLC is considering ways to limit the amount of transliteration necessary for cataloging workflows. Moving forward, DLC is considering transliteration for the 245 (Title Statement) field and 1XX/7XX access point fields only. The change in approach advocated by DLC seeks to take advantage of technological advances since transcription conventions were first established for the representation of vernacular scripts in MARC. Although the advent of Unicode took place more than thirty years ago, it has been used more widely since the uptake of XML and RDF.

Thurstan Young (BL) noted that, as regards the technical innovations based around Unicode etc., these could only be harnessed by an institution if it possessed the appropriate skills and tools to do so.

Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) commented that the practice of using 880 fields to record vernacular scripts was a longstanding one; discontinuing it in favour of field 241 may be a move which impacts databases containing large numbers of prospective and legacy descriptions.

Jay Weitz (OCLC) commented that even if field 241 were reintroduced, since there were no plans to make field 880 obsolete, any system would have to be capable of inputting and outputting both fields for the foreseeable future; OCLC and other library systems must be capable of storing and exchanging records following all implemented practices.

While the changes planned by DLC do not involve making field 880 obsolete, Sally McCallum (LC) noted that the current BIBFRAME-to-MARC conversion does not include fields 880 in the output record.

Adam Schiff (SAC) noted that, while the paper addressed the recording of titles and access points, it did not cover the other data elements which may undergo transliteration as part of a cataloging process.

Thurstan Young (BL), Jay Weitz (OCLC) and John Myers (CC:DA) noted that since DLC’s initiative on transliteration practices is currently at a testing stage, a local field might be more appropriate for use in this context; this would only require changes to LC record validation procedures rather than those of the wider community.

The paper will return as a proposal.


DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP06: Defining a New Field for Manifestation Statements in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp06.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper describes defining a new field to accommodate Resource Description and Access "Manifestation Statements" in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: None

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
OCLC wondered about how the notorious inaccuracy of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) impacts the feasibility of this paper.

Responding to the DP Questions:

6.1. Is the approach of defining one field for manifestation statements a path worth exploring?
There was broad support for the change and several respondees noted a need to indicate the content standard (i.e., transcription guidelines) being used. RBMS suggests using subfield $2.

6.2. Is choosing the field number "881" a feasible way? Are there better options?
The U.K., Spain, NLM, and OCLC preferred to define field 881 over the other options available.  Myers preferred a field closer to the usual 2XX manifestation transcription fields.

6.3. Which option is preferred: Sorting the subfield codes $b through $h and $j through $o in alphabetical order (option 1), or ordered roughly in the ISBD / MARC element equivalence (option 2)?
A majority of respondees preferred option 2 because it makes the list easier to remember;  the U.K. preferred alphabetical order, which is the order found in RDA. However, OCLC, the PCC, and Allgood questioned the need for such articulated granularity, noting that scanned and therefore completely unmanipulated data may only be subjected to such parsing by hand.

6.4. Is there a need for an additional subfield "$z" to carry an "other manifestation statement"?
Canada, Spain, NLM, and Myers supported the inclusion of subfield $z. However, the U.K. cautioned that any "other manifestation statement" should not be recorded separately, as it is not an RDA element. Instead, if a granular manifestation statement is not appropriate, then the default should be to use the broader, more general element in the manifestation statement hierarchy. If the community feels that it is desirable to build on the new RDA element set or guidance, then a proposal should be submitted to the RSC for consideration in the first instance.

6.5. Is subfield "$i" in the new field the best option to carry "source" information?
There was general support for the inclusion of subfield $i.

6.6. Is there need for a subfield $3 "Materials specified", if parts of a manifestation are to be distinguished from each other, e.g., in the case of a serial changing its appearance over time?
There was general support for the inclusion of subfield $3.

6.7. Is keeping the RDA terminology useful, or should a more general terminology be chosen, (more) independent of the RDA terms?
There was general support for using the RDA terminology.

6.8. Field 245 (Title Statement) and its subfield $a (Title) are not strictly mandatory in a MARC bibliographic record. Most data base systems and routines however do rely on their presence. If in 881 a subfield with a "Manifestation title and responsibility statement" is present, does a field 245 with a subfield $a still have to be present in the record? If yes, should 245 $a be filled with the title proper, or with the same content as in 881 $c, or with a default string value?
The U.K. noted that field 245 is not mandatory in the MARC Bibliographic format. Yet, Canada, Spain, OCLC, and RBMS do not favor the omission of the 245 field, as it would have too great an impact on indexing and display within library systems.

MAC Discussion and Action taken: Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group, describing the manifestation statement approach as the floor level of cataloging.

Thurstan Young (BL) noted that field 881 was preferable to a field in that MARC 2XX range as a means of recording manifestation statements. This is because not all the subcategories of manifestation statement have parallels in that sequence. For example, outliers would include "manifestation series statement" and "manifestation dissertation statement". He added that using 881 offered a means of collocating manifestation statements in a range that is independent from the 2XX, 4XX and 5XX blocks of fields.

Adam Schiff (SAC), John Myers (CC:DA) and others suggested considering a subfield $u for the new 881 field to link to an image of the scanned statement. Thurstan Young (BL) responded that, from an RDA perspective, this would not represent a manifestation statement, but rather a related manifestation. Kate James (Unaffiliated, former RSC member) added that this need is currently met within MARC via the 856 field with a subfield $3.

Cate Gerhart (OLAC) suggested looking at field 505 (Formatted Contents Note) as a model for transcription or scanning in this new field. The 505 field provides for a Basic or Enhanced Note with an indicator value. In the 881 field, "Basic input" would encode all data into a single subfield; "Enhanced input" would parse individual data elements into separate subfields. By this means a distinction could be made between manifestation statements which consist of a whole source being transcribed and those which are more granular but not explicitly covered by RDA.

Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) noted that mapping something intrinsically broad to something more granular would not work; distinctions should not be made between high level manifestation statements and those which do not fit into the subcategories of manifestation statement expressed by RDA.

John Myers (CC:DA) suggested that the different applications of a high level manifestation statement could be expressed using more varied examples than those presented in the paper.

MAC reached consensus that, in addition to subfields $a to $o and $3, an additional 881 subfield is needed to encode transcription rules ( i.e., content standards); perhaps $2. There was a preference that the order of manifestation statements presented in MARC documentation should follow the order found in the ISBD/MARC element order for identifiers, titles, editions, etc. However, it was acknowledged that the 881 subfield sort at input should follow the order of elements as presented on the source of metadata.

The paper will return as a proposal.


DISCUSSION PAPER 2020-DP07: Recording the Extension Plan for Bibliographic Works in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp07.html
Source: MARC/RDA Working Group
Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding the new RDA element "extension plan" in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority formats.
Related Documents: None

Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Responding to the DP Questions:

6.1.  Does this paper establish the utility for recording extension plan in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic formats?
There was broad recognition of this change. However, Canada would like the use case for this data element in the Authority format to be more fully explored. Allgood notes that, especially with continuing resources, the publisher's intent may be difficult to determine, or may not occur as planned. In light of this, Myers wondered whether there was a need to encode "ceased" when this information is known.

6.2. Is the benefit of recording extension plan using a structured description, identifier or URI sufficiently articulated?
There was broad support for recording extension plan using a structured description, identifier or URI.

6.3. Is field 335 a suitable field in which to record a structured description, identifier, or URI for extension plan?
There was support for defining field 335 as a field for recording extension plan.

6.4. Would it be useful to add subfield $b to field 335 in order to record a coded value representing extension plan?
There was general support for defining an additional subfield $b in field 335, analogous to subfield $b in the 336, 337 and 338 fields; NLM though was not convinced.

6.5. Would it be useful, since the RDA phrases are actually two concepts joined together: static (i.e., monographic), successive (i.e., serial), and integrating joined with determinate (i.e., planned end) and indeterminate (i.e., open end), to record them into separate subfields, in preparation of what the future may bring?
Some respondees considered that recording the "mode" and "termination" concepts in separate subfields would represent good practice. This would correspond to the demarcation of these concepts in the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization.

MAC Discussion and Action taken: Thurstan Young (BL) introduced the paper on behalf of the MARC/RDA Working Group. He noted that using the vocabulary for extension plan provided by RDA would preferable to using the more granular terminology used to express Extension Mode and Extension Termination in the RDA/ONIX Framework. This is because, although the beta RDA Toolkit guidance on resource categorization references these content attributes, they are not represented as vocabularies in the RDA Registry.

Kathy Glennan (RSC Chair) commented that RSC had no plans to create new elements and vocabularies to cover Extension Mode and Extension Termination; likewise, there were no plans to add a new element and vocabulary covering the associated content attribute Extension Requirement.

Thurstan Young (BL) noted that there were no circumstances under which it would be necessary to record a former extension plan. In situations where an extension plan changes (e.g. static to integrating or integrating to successive), this should trigger the creation of a new description for a new work. If a diachronic work were to be described following its completion, then this should not affect the value recorded for extension plan since the element is used to express the anticipated behavior of a diachronic work rather than its actual, observable behavior over time.

Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) acknowledged this distinction between the anticipated and observed behavior of a diachronic work, but noted that it was still useful to record whether a continuing resource had ceased publication in 008 field character position 06.

MAC reached a consensus that field 335 represents a reasonable location for recording extension plan information. It also agreed that subfield $b should be added to the list of 335 subfields in order to express an extension plan as a coded value.

The paper will return as a proposal.

 

Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood


MARC 21 HOME >> MAC

The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
( 04/28/2020 )
Legal | External Link Disclaimer

Contact Us