Bruce Chr. Johnson, Chair ALCTS Library of Congress Josephine Crawford ALCTS University of Minnesota Ellen Crosby RUSA Indiana Historical Society Annemarie Erickson RUSA epixtech Elaine Henjum LITA Florida Center for Library Automation Diane Hillman LITA Cornell University Christina P. Meyer RUSA University of MinnesotaMARBI Interns
Byron C. Mayes LITA Hunter College Thom Saudargas RUSA College Center for Library Automation Barbara Weir ALCTS Swarthmore CollegeNational Library Liaisons:
Sally McCallum Library of Congress Margaret Stewart National Library of CanadaMARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group Karen Anspach AVIAC EOS, International, Inc. John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Donna Cranmer ALCTS Media Resources Siouxland Libraries Bonnie Dede ALCTS CCS SAC University of Michigan Michael Fox SAA Minnesota Historical Society Kathy Glennan MLA University of Southern California David Goldberg NAL National Agricultural Library Rich Greene OCLC OCLC, Inc. Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Michael Johnson MicroLIF Follett Co. Maureen Killeen A-G Canada A-G Canada Ltd. Rhonda Lawrence AALL UCLA School of Law Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library Louise Sevold PLA/CIS Cuyahoga County Public Library Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Mark Watson ALCTS CCS CC:DA University of OregonOther Attendees:
Jim Agenbrod Library of Congress Rich Aldred Haverford College Everett Allgood New York University Elizabeth Ankersen Queens Borough Public Library Jean Altschuler Arnold & Porter Phil Bergen University of Pittsburgh Cecelia Boone MINITEX Priscilla Caplan FCLA Mehmer Celih ELIAS Becky Culbertson University of California, San Diego Alan Danskin The British Library Carroll Davis Library of Congress Mollie Dellaterza Harvard College Library Simone Dimitrova Follett Software Jennifer Edwards Massachusetts Institute of Technology John Espley VTLS Jack D. Fitzpatrick Auburn University Jessica Gibson UIUC Elena Guadagno DRA Ruth S. Haas Harvard University Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Jean Hirons Library of Congress William Jones New York University Kris Kiesling University of Texas at Austin Kenneth King ProQuest Wen-ying Lu Michigan State University Giles Martin OCLC Forest Press Gail Mazure Sagebrush Corporation Linda D. Miller Library of Congress Hideyuki Morimato University of California, Berkeley Mary Ann O'Daniel FCLA Kevin M. Randall Northwestern University Ellen Rappaport Albany Law School Louise Rees University of Pennsylvania Dave Reser Library of Congress Regina Reynolds Library of Congress Wendy Robertson University of Iowa Donnell Ruthenberg DRA Kelly Sanderson Southern Methodist University Philip Schreur Stanford University Jacque-Lynne Schulman National Library of Medicine Stephanie Sheppard University of Illinois at Chicago Ann Sitkin Harvard Law Gary Smith OCLC Gary L. Strawn Northwestern University Bob Thomas OCLC Mitch Turitz San Francisco State University Paul Weiss Innovative Interfaces Nancy Lynne Williams University of Florida Bruce Williams Hennepin County Erin Wise Harvard Business School Martha Yee UCLA Film and Television Archive
AALL - American Association of Law Libraries
ALCTS - Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
ARLIS/NA - Art Libraries Society of North America
BL - British Library
CC:DA - Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (of ALCTS CCS)
CIS - Community Information Section (of PLA)
CCS - Cataloging and Classification Section (of ALCTS)
LC - Library of Congress
LITA - Library and Information Technology Association
MAGERT - Map & Geography Roundtable
MLA - Music Library Association
NAL - National Agricultural Library
ND/MSO - Network Development and MARC Standards Office (of LC)
NLC - National Library of Canada
NLM - National Library of Medicine
OLAC - Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.
PLA - Public Libraries Association
RUSA - Reference and User Services Association
SAA - Society of American Archivists
SAC - Subject Analysis Committee (of ALCTS CCS)
VRA - Visual Resources Association
Saturday July 8, 2000
Chair Bruce Johnson opened the meeting at 9:30 by announcing updates to committee membership. Completing service with this meeting are Josephine Crawford, Elaine Henjum, Diane Hillmann, and Carol Penka. New committee members will be Byron Mayes and Bill Jones, representing LITA. Bill Jones will also serve as chair of MARBI. Mitch Turitz will be representing ALCTS. Thom Saudargas will be representing RUSA and, for this conference only, will be the RUSA intern. Currently there are intern vacancies from LITA and RUSA.
Carol Penka moved and Annamarie Erickson seconded the adoption of the proposed agenda. The agenda was approved by voice vote.
Michael Fox moved and Carol Penka seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the mid-winter meeting in San Antonio. John Attig pointed out there were several misspellings of names. Corrections should be emailed to Bruce Johnson. The minutes were adopted by voice vote.
The Chair reported on changes to the MARBI web site including a link to the UKMARC-MARC 21 Harmonization page. Further web site enhancement requests should be sent to Bill Jones, incoming MARBI Chair. Committee members were asked to review and revise their information on the roster.
Discussion Paper 119: Seriality and MARC 21
Jean Hirons (LC) began by listing the three steps in the process of revising how the concept of ‘seriality' is to be identified, described, and recorded: revising the descriptive cataloging rules; revising the content designation in MARC 21; and developing CONSER implementation guidelines. The discussion paper proposes that the serial 008 be redefined as "seriality" or "continuing resources" 008 and recommends that a new bibliographic level code i for ‘integrating resources' be implemented in leader/07. CONSER participants have been polled and the consensus is that this is an appropriate approach. NASIG members also support it. John Attig asked where the descriptive cataloging code rule revision process current stands. Hirons said that the JSC will consider this in September after its member bodies have had a chance to consider and comment on it. The main concern is to clearly identify what an integrating resource is.
Rhonda Lawrence (AALL) reported that law libraries have discussed this proposal but most didn't understand it. It will be discussed at the upcoming law catalogers' roundtable. The UCLA Law Library is excited to be able to sort out true serials from integrating resources, so that they could output a list of true serials and not include things like pocket parts.
Rhonda Lawrence asked where multi-volume sets with replacement volumes fit. Diane Hillmann (LITA) said they have to be continuing resources. The definition of continuing resource may need to be loosened up in order to ensure these would be included.
Hirons asked for comments on other proposed changes. It was noted that this is nothing like the proposed new code k in the frequency byte for continuously updated resources. Another change will be to the type of serial (or continuing resource) to include a new code l for looseleafs. Marti Scheel said that NLM likes the idea of the code, but not the letter l because it looks too much like a 1 (one). Rhonda Lawrence added that l is used in the Type of Content byte.
Regina Reynolds (LC) asked about the decision not to code d for database since the ISSN community is interested in this concept. If the purpose is to identify a type of continuing resource, would you code database as ‘other?' Hirons agreed there may be a need for that here and that it could be useful.
Hirons discussed the idea of using code 2 in the Successive/Latest Entry Indicator position to identify an integrating entry. It would not be desirable to lump these with latest entry titles records; libraries are getting rid of latest entry records and new catalogers are taught that latest entry is not good cataloging. Lawrence supported the idea since it is consistent with other concepts in the discussion paper and would enable catalogers to know early in the record what kind of publishing pattern they are working with. Kevin Randall (Northwestern University) agreed but wondered whether there is a better term to differentiate the two concepts integrating resource and integrating entry. Lawrence believes it will be an educational process for catalogers. Diane Hillmann said there would be more of a problem with the use of 247 fields for title changes. Sometimes catalogers treat 246 fields like latest entry, but these titles get put together with spine titles, running titles, etc. There is a need for a simple way to identify the latest title. Ellen Rappaport (Albany Law School) asked if the OPAC display might be misleading. Hirons added that we are looking at a definition of an international serial title to give us a stable title. This could then reflect the most current title in the 245.
The last section of the paper proposed making the 260 field repeatable when publishers change but the bibliographic item does not otherwise change. Publication status would be identified by a subfield $3 to be used with indicators 3 (for current) and 4 (for intervening) publication status. The 260 would repeat with a change of publisher, not a change of place, and would be consistent with the treatment of series. Scheel reported that NLM has reservations about this because they use the place of publication to distinguish similar titles. Lawrence asked that examples be provided when the paper is submitted as a proposal.
Margaret Stewart (NLC) said that the Canadian Committee on MARC would like to see a separate field in the 26X block to carry current publication information, with intervening publication data recorded in a 550 field. Sherman Clarke (VRA) questioned whether putting 260 information in notes was a good idea, noting that it blurs the distinction between description and access. Hillmann also observed that there are several uses for publication information and that putting it into notes would limit its accessibility.
Attig stressed the need to support AACR display. This can be done based on coding, but it won't be consistently displayed in all systems. There is a need to distinguish the latest, earliest, and intervening publication information, but the proposal has to show how this would work consistent with the descriptive cataloging rules. Christina Meyer (LITA) stressed that it is critical that we think about how this will affect users. Thom Saudargas (RUSA) spoke in favor of separate 26X fields since it is difficult to program systems to index 5XX field data. Rich Greene (OCLC) asked whether there could be two categories rather than three, for latest and all previous. Hirons replied that the earliest title information must remain in the record since it is the only guaranteed stable information. Ellen Rappaport agreed with the need to make distinctions between different titles even though this requires additional record maintenance. Bill Jones pointed out that if the repeatability of the field depends on the indicator value, then this is the first time we've defined it this way.
Hirons reviewed the discussion paper questions:
Hirons added if the JSC approves most of the descriptive rule revision proposals, there will be a format revision proposal submitted for midwinter. A proposal making field 260 repeatable should be written as a separate proposal for Midwinter.
Proposal No. 2000-01R: Definition of subfield $z (numbering scheme) in fields 853-855 of the holdings format
Rebecca Guenther and Linda Miller (LC) introduced the proposal. The paper proposes adoption of coding which would enable the identification of the numbering scheme used in order to assist in issue receipt and claiming processes. This proposal incorporates the ISO script code that provides for four positions as detailed in a recent Draft International Standard. In the six-character code string, the first position would code for number, letter or combination; the second position would code for case; and the third through sixth positions would code for script.
Miller stated that vendors now support this level of detail which matches the way works are cited. Diane Hillmann asked why symbols were not included in this proposal, and discussion ensued on how they might be incorporated. Hillmann suggested a code in the first position for ‘symbol' with some coding in the third position to illustrate the symbol. Discussion turned to the difficulties of coding Hebrew numbers and letters and for Greek letters used as numbers. Jean Hirons asked if the descriptive cataloging rules needed to be changed, because the rules state that numbers are to be converted to Arabic. There was general agreement that this is a holdings problem and not a description problem. Ellen Rappaport asked if this would be optional or mandatory. Some systems have implemented this but not to the extent proposed here. John Attig asked how this would deal with more complex situations, such as combined letters and numbers or upper and lower case alphabetics. Guenther indicated there was a code for combined letters and numbers, but that another code could be added in the second position for ‘mixed case.'
The Chair recommended a motion to approve the proposal with the following revisions: the addition of a code in position one for ‘symbol/special character', the addition of a code in position 2 for ‘mixed case', and allowance for numeral or symbol in positions 3-6. Diane Hillmann moved and Carol Penka seconded approval of the proposal with these revisions. A straw vote was requested with 23 in favor of the motion and none against. The committee approved the motion in a voice vote.
Proposal 2000-09: Changes to fields 052 and 058 in the Community Information format
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal, which aligns the 052 field in the Community Information format with the 052 in the Bibliographic Format. The proposed changes in the Community Information Format are:
|5||U.S. Dept. of Defense|
|7||Source specified in subfield $2|
MARBI Business Meeting
Sally McCallum presented the Library of Congress report. All MARC 21 format documents are now available on the web in concise versions. The new Community Information format will be available soon in print. The language code list is print now, with the remaining code lists projected to be available in the fall. There will be a consolidated update to all formats in the fall, with plans for annual updates in the future.
Concerning Cataloger's Desktop, Bruce Johnson reported that the holdings format infobase is about two-thirds complete and should be included in issue 4. The classification format may also be included in issue 4. Work has not yet begun on the Community Information format.
There will be a change to the LCCN in January. The prefix will be two positions and the year will be four. More information is on the MARC home page and test files are available.
Sally McCallum reported on improvements to the MARC web site. The systems and tools pages are now available. The Network Development and MARC Standards Office should be notified if there are other useful tools that can be added.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:55.
Sunday, July 9, 2000
Proposal No. 2000-07: Definition of Subfield $y (Link text) in Field 856 in all Formats
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal which proposes the addition of subfield $y in field 856 to record link text to be used in online display of URL data. Priscilla Caplan of the Florida Center for Library Automation gave a brief summary indicating that although standard HTML coding makes it difficult to display URLs in links, the MARC 856 field makes it difficult to not display it. She reported that several ILS vendors are supportive of this proposal.
John Attig (OLAC) noted that although there are many options available for handling display, there are few indicators left to control them, and asked if the display or anchor text is an "all or nothing" deal. Priscilla Caplan indicated that if anchor text is included in subfield $y it displays but if not, subfield $u would display. Rebecca Guenther added that systems would have the option in deciding what displays and how. Diane Hillmann (LITA) advised that the order of display should be explicit in the field definition and that dependencies on similar elements should made be clear.
Concerning section 2.2 of the proposal [856 link text which notes, "Many current applications are programmed to use the contents of $3 or the contents of $z as the link text"], Marti Scheel (NLM) asked how adding one more option will clear up confusion about display elements and suggested that better guidance about what to do was what really was needed. Caplan responded that the confusion arises from systems' need to do something that is undefined; there is currently no option to specify display text other than the URL itself.
Michael Johnson (MicroLIF) noted that although MicroLIF has used subfield $z to handle display, more explicit guidance from the format would be preferred. Michael Fox (ALCTS) asked about the use of subfield $3. Hillmann responded that the use of subfield $z is problematic as it leaves no other place for a public note, and that $3 is not intended to be used for this purpose.
Rich Greene (OCLC) asked what impact this would have on fields to which URL subfields were recently added thru Proposal 2000-06.
The Chair summarized that there were two concerns apparent: the need to have a place for link text information, and the need for guidance in its implementation. Diane Hillmann moved to adopt the proposal with suggested display implementation examples to be developed by LC. Jo Crawford seconded. A straw vote of all in attendance was taken with a result of 32 in favor and 2 against.
The Chair asked Sharon Moore (LITA) and Kathy Glennan (MLA) about their concerns with the proposal. Each expressed concern over the limited number of unused subfields for the 856 field. Glennan was particularly concerned about defining the subfield particularly for HTML coding since this technology may or may not be used in the future. Michael Fox noted that the concept of link text is not limited to HTML and is adaptable to new technologies. Rebecca Guenther indicated that LC would look at other fields with URL/URI information and prepare for a discussion paper, if necessary. The proposal passed on a vote of 8-0 with the Chair not voting.
Proposal No. 2000-08: Definition of Additional Subfields in Field 754 in the Bibliographic Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced this proposal to add subfields to field 754 so that different levels of taxonomic hierarchy could be recorded. This would be used instead of repeating subfield $a if desired to allow for more flexible searching and display. Florida Center for Library Automation is currently the only known user of this field.
Priscilla Caplan (FCLA) indicated that the Center uses it for specimen records converted to MARC for Z39.50 access. As currently defined the field is difficult to search and display. Each subfield needs to be defined for a different level of taxonomic hierarchy. In this proposal subfield $2 names the classification system, thereby leaving only 24 fields available for hierarchical information. Since some taxonomic systems have more than 24 levels, this may be problematic (though discussion with a botanist revealed that not all levels are necessarily used for a given item).
John Attig suggested that measures similar to those taken with field 654 – putting the term in a single subfield – might be useful. Priscilla Caplan indicated that the result would be an inability to search by specific data element.
Paul Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) noted that the current proposal doesn't resolve the problems caused by variance in levels of taxonomy and display inconsistencies. Michael Fox added that although the proposal deals with biological taxonomies, there are other taxonomies that need to be considered. Priscilla Caplan suggested that an approach similar to the 654 field might work better, but tying the identification of the taxonomic system to a subfield $2 would not be advisable since there are no standardized names for many taxonomic systems. Ellen Crosby (RUSA) made a motion to approve the proposal. Carol Penka (RUSA) seconded. The proposal was rejected with a vote of 0-8 with the Chair not voting. A proposal that uses the 654 field as a model will be brought to the committee at a future meeting.
Reports of Task Forces
CCS CC:DA Metadata Task Force (Mary Larsgaard)
The preconference on metadata took place on July 6-7 with approximately 420 persons in attendance. Attendees seemed satisfied with the event. The possibility of turning this into a regional institute is being explored.
Remaining tasks include publication of papers, which will be transcribed from presentation recordings by July 24 and then written in a format appropriate for a paper.
The task force has been discharged and its activities have been subsumed by the ALCTS Networked Resources and Metadata Committee. CCS SAC Metadata and Subject Analysis Task Force (Bonnie Dede) A program for Annual Meeting 2001 is in the planning stages. The report on Subject Data in the Metadata Record is now available on the CCS SAC web site.
East Asian Character Set Task Force (John Espley)
The task force has received CEAL's recommendations and will be issuing a final report by September 1st. The task force is charged to establish a mapping between the USMARC East Asian character set and Unicode. Sally McCallum pointed out that the mapping will be part of the MARC documentation.
Unicode Task Force (Gary Smith)
The task force, charged with addressing questions left unresolved with the adoption of Proposal 98-18 (Unicode Identification and Encoding in USMARC records). There are a few minor issues to be resolved. A final report with recommendations will be finished shortly. It is anticipated that proposal will come from the task force's deliberations. The proposal should appear on the Midwinter agenda.
Multi-Lingual Records Task Force (Jo Crawford)
The task force was established last year to explore multi-script and multi-lingual issues in MARC records and MARC databases. The task force has initially focused on high level conceptual discussion. The next six months will focus more on practical implementations to resolve the technical problems that multi-script and multi-lingual records cause. Task force minutes as well as summaries of discussion documents are available on the MARBI web site.
RUSA Program "Is MARC Dead?"
Elaine Henjum reported that the program drew an overflow audience, most of whom were systems or technical services librarians despite it being a RUSA program. The thrust of the program was that MARC is in very good shape, but that there may be issues that need to be addressed in the descriptive cataloging rules.
PLA Program "Technology and Multicultural Library Services: A Vision for the Future"
Jo Crawford reported that the program was primarily concerned with issues of multi-lingual society and diversity, though a few more technical issues were addressed.
Meeting times for Midwinter 2001 were established. Requests will be made for the usual time.
Chair Bruce Johnson recognized retiring members Josephine Crawford, Elaine Henjum, Diane Hillmann, and Carol Penka and thanked them for four years of service to the Committee.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.
Monday July 10, 2000: Joint meeting with CC:DA
Chair Bruce Johnson opened the joint meeting of MARBI and CC:DA by identifying the committee chairs. The Chair also welcomed the guest speakers and the audience. The Chair introduced the agenda topic and the main speaker, Dick R. Miller, Head of Technical Services at Stanford University's Lane Medical Library, by reading from the article "The End of MARC" that appeared in the Technically Speaking column in the April 2000 issue of American Libraries.
XML and MARC: A Choice or a Replacement?
Dick Miller illustrated his talk with a power point presentation. Mr. Miller presented the background for the development of an XML replacement for MARC. He notes that with the "burgeoning web development, we felt that our ‘library information' was under-utilized due to its segregation from mainstream web resources, and in danger of becoming marginalized." Lane Medial Library staff felt that library resources were being under utilized and had projected a significant decline in use of print resources due to their perception that MARC data could not be used in the web environment.
He noted that systems often exist for handling digital resources differently from bibliographic resources and this often results in redundant effort to bring web resources under bibliographic control. This may result in users' searching multiple databases or in different ways to retrieve information.
Mr. Miller discussed the development and structure of XML and MARC separately. He observed that the "significant aspect of XML may be its separation of content, presentation, and linking, so that each may be handled optimally." He noted the widespread adoption of XML for business applications because of its interoperability on the world wide web.
XML structure and the use of XSL for the display of XML data on the web were outlined. Mr. Miller also reported on its limitations and issues. Among these are: schemas, element naming restrictions, decisions on elements vs. attributes, compactness/verbosity, etc.
Lane's XMLMARC software was developed to test the feasibility of converting MARC data into XML markup. To take advantage of XML's features, Lane examined the MARC bibliographic structure. DTDs were developed quickly, ignoring many fields not used at Lane. Currently, they are exploring indexing, search access, and presentation issues. Java coding converts MARC records to XML documents, one-way, utilizing DTDs for bibliographic and authority data. Equivalence maps, also in XML, provide flexibility. He explained that the DTDs provided in the software can be changed, or other ones substituted. He stated they intend to improve the documentation.
Mr. Miller examined MARC through its structure and use of character sets. MARC was characterized as "flat, with limited support for hierarchy." XML in contrast was described as "inherently hierarchical" and "advanced and web-oriented." Further, he sees current cataloging practice as centering on description at the expense of access. A major problem with current cataloging practice and MARC was the inability to adequately describe bibliographic relationships.
Mr. Miller concluded by saying that "XML-based library systems would put libraries in the Web mainstream, and foster, rather than impede, our ability to provide new and improved user services in this exciting environment."
Paul Weiss (for MARBI)
Paul Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) said that he believed that XML and MARC do not represent an "either/or" but rather an "and" choice. He noted that MARC is a communication format and had other uses: input, storage, processing, communication, and display.
Mr. Weiss stated that XML was being considered for use in library systems in other areas such as the emerging NCIP circulation protocol. He did not feel that MARC was going away. He also reminded everyone that XML is a meta language, and that the use of XML would require significant training just as MARC currently does. He felt that XML would not replace MARC in the near future for a variety of reasons including multiple and sometimes competing standards; XML itself could be used as a wrapper around MARC 21; IFLA work on the Fundamental Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); DTD standardization and the existing base of MARC records. There is a need, however, for building a set of standardized library-related XML DTDs. In the near term, experimentation with XML in bibliographic data applications will be very helpful.
He concluded by saying "XML: yes, MARC: yes."
Matthew Beacom (for CC:DA)
Matthew Beacom (Yale University) felt that Mr. Miller "got it wrong." XML presents new opportunities and life for MARC. XML retools the carrier but not the content. XML may suggest a different relationship between libraries and publishers and other content creators by communicating metadata along with the content. The weaknesses in the current AACR2r may be improved by experimenting with ways to describe relationships such as using URLs as a linking method. He agreed with Weiss' contention that this is a "and" situation.
Diane Hillmann (LITA) pointed out that, in considering this question, syntax must be separated from semantics. Librarians have a rich semantic heritage that other metadata communities are struggling with as they formulate their standards. Our semantics are portable to other syntactic structures and that we can always scale up. John Attig (OLAC) stated that it is more difficult to define semantics than syntax. He also pointed out that MARC is intentionally a flat structure because it needs to be portable.
Sally McCallum (LC) noted that the SGML DTDs for MARC and the MARC-to-SGML and SGML-to-MARC structure conversion programs LC developed as generic freeware are available from the MARC web page. She also argued that there is a need for standardization in tag sets. Because we are not a throwaway community and need stability she saw a gradual move to the use of XML. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS) asked about the difficulty of mapping SGML to XML. McCallum replied that it was not difficult and LC will put up XML DTDs and converters this fall. Miller stated that software was available to convert SGML DTDs to XML DTDs.
Weiss agreed with the need for linking to current web resources. Miller responded that the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) model could be used for multiple maps of data clumps. Adam Schiff (CC:DA) spoke about the richness of authority records and the difficulty in justifying the extra work of adding data to XML records. Miller felt that linking to other resources would be the answer rather than having stand-alone resources.
Mary Larsgaard (CC:DA) thought that relationship structures needed to be worked on and questioned how easy it would be to manipulate data that can be very hierarchical.
Questions were asked about the current use of the Lane database and MARC to XML freeware. Miller stated that it is one way mapping. Karen Coyle (California Digital Library Project) noted that they had tried it out but that there was a dearth of software tools available to actually use the records. Software needs to be developed to utilize XML data, particularly a UNIX version. Miller responded that they were looking at database managers for storage of records. Weiss suggested that Lane document their processes and decisions for others interested in the project.
Bruce Johnson, MARBI chair, asked whether this was a proposal for the committee as a whole or a task force to consider. Weiss saw a discussion centered around interdependence and record relationships and that perhaps a user survey on record relationships needs to be conducted.
Bruce Johnson concluded the discussion by thanking the speakers and asking that comments and suggestions be forwarded to William Jones, the incoming MARBI chair.
Byron C. Mayes
Thomas A. Saudargas