MARBI Meeting Minutes

ALA Annual Meeting
San Francisco, CA -- June 16-18, 2001

MARBI members:

William W. Jones, Chair   LITA            New York University
Ellen Crosby              RUSA            Indiana Historical Society Library
Annemarie Erickson        RUSA            epixtech
Michael Fox               ALCTS           Minnesota Historical Society
Bruce Chr. Johnson ALCTS Library of Congress
Byron C. Mayes LITA Temple University
Christina P. Meyer LITA University of Minnesota
Thomas A. Saudargas RUSA College Center for Library Automation
Mitch L. Turitz ALCTS San Francisco State University

MARBI Intern:

Barbara Weir              ALCTS           Swarthmore College

Ex-Officio Members:

Sally McCallum                            Library of Congress
Margaret Stewart                          National Library of Canada
MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Joe Altimus               RLG             Research Libraries Group
Karen Anspach             AVIAC           EOS, International, Inc.
John C. Attig             OLAC            Pennsylvania State University
Sherman Clarke            VRA             New York University
Donna Cramner             MRC             Siouxland Libraries
Bonnie A. Dede            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
Marti Scheel              NLM             National Library of Medicine
Mark Watson               CC:DA           University of Oregon    
Other Attendees:
Danielle Adams                            Harvard Medical School
Rich Aldred                               Haverford College
Joan Aliprand                             Research Libraries Group
Everett Allgood                           New York University
Donna Alsbury                             Florida Center for Library Automation
Jean Altschuler                           Arnold & Porter
Elizabeth Ankersen                        Queens Borough Public Library
Kathleen Ashe                             Southwest State University
Linda Ballinger                           State University of New York at Binghamton 
Jeffrey Beall                             University of Colorado, Denver
Nina Bloc                                 San Francisco State University
Wei Jeng-Chu                              Indian Trails Public Library District
Ana L. Cristán                            Library of Congress
Sarah Corvene                             Harvard University
Karen Coyle                               California Digital Library
Josephine Crawford                        University of Minnesota
Becky Culbertson                          University of California, San Diego
Alan Danskin                              British Library
Karleen Darr                              University of California, Davis
Renette Davis                             University of Chicago
Rebecca Dean                              OCLC
Ann Doyle                                 University of Kentucky
John Espley                               VTLS
Jack Fitzpatrick                          Auburn University
Edith Gewertz                             New York Public Library
Susan Goldner                             University of Arkansas
Ruth Haas                                 Harvard University
Mary Haessig                              OCLC
Shelby Harken                             University of North Dakota
Patricia Hart                             University of Washington
Stephen Hearn                             University of Minnesota
Diane Hillman                             Cornell University
Marguerite Horn                           State University of New York
Cecilia Hui                               Queens Borough Public Library
Charles Husbands                          Harvard University
Alice Jacobs                              National Library of Medicine
Beth Jedlick                              University of Georgia
Jane Johnson                              UCLA Film & Television Archive
George Johnston                           University of Cincinnati
Judy Johnston                             University of North Texas
Rhoda Kesselman                           Princeton University
Kris Kiesling                             University of Texas in Austin
Ken King                                  ProQuest
Arlene Klair                              University of Maryland
Mary Charles Lasater                      Vanderbilt University
Cynthia Levine                            North Carolina State University
Ju-Giwa Lin                               Queens Borough Public Library
Kristin Lindlan                           University of Washington
Wen-ling Liu                              Indiana University
Wen-ying Lu                               Michigan State University
Elizabeth Mangan                          Retired
Margi Mann                                OCLC Western
Giles Martin                              OCLC Forest Press
Kim Maxwell                               Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Gail Mazure                               Sagebrush Corporation
Brian McCafferty                          Wabash College
Catherine McKenzie                        Data Research Associates
Philip Melzer                             Library of Congress
Linda Miller                              Library of Congress
Nancy Miner                               Data Research Associates
Sarah Mitchell                            Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Francie Mrkich                            New York University
Nancy Norris                              UCLA
Mary Ann O'Daniel                         Florida Center for Library Automation
Seunghi Paek                              Harvard University
Diane Paldan                              Wayne State University
Sue Young Park                            New York University
Glenn Patton                              OCLC
Carol B. Penka                            University of Illinois, Urbana
Jackie Radebaugh                          Library of Congress
Ellen Rappaport                           Albany Law School
Louise Rees                               University of Pennsylvania
Bruce Rennie                              Kansas City Public Library
David Reynolds                            Johns Hopkins University
Frieda Rosenberg                          University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Nicolas Rucks                             University of Buenos Aires
Barbara Rudich                            UCLA
Janet Rutan                               Harvard University
Helen F. Schmierer                        Harvard University
Marta Seliak                              Izum (Slovenia)
Cecilia Sercoun                           Cornell University
Steve Shadle                              University of Washington
Jackie Shieh                              University of Michigan
Beth Siers                                Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Reeta Sinha                               Endeavor Information Systems, Inc.
Ann Sitkin                                Harvard University
Gary Smith                                OCLC
Daniel Starr                              Metropolitan Museum of Art
Barbara Story                             Library of Congress
Gary Strawn                               Northwestern University
Julie Su                                  San Diego State University
Barbara Tillett                           Library of Congress
Bob Thomas                                OCLC
Marc Truitt                               University of Notre Dame
Sarah Tudesco                             University of Massachusetts, Boston
Carla Dewey Urban                         MINITEX Library Information Network
Mary E. Van Winkle                        Harvard University
Melanie Wacker                            Metropolitan Museum of Art
David Walkes                              Follett Library Resources
Regina Wallen                             Stanford University
Anna K. Wang                              Harvard University
Jian Wang                                 Portland State University
Marie Whited                              Yale University
Paul J. Weiss                             Innovative Interfaces
Jay Weitz                                 OCLC
Matthew Wise                              New York University
Russell Wong                              Follett Audiovisual Resources
Min Xu                                    Metropolitan Museum of Art


Saturday, June 16, 2001

Bill Jones, MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. The proposed agenda was adopted and the minutes of the previous meeting (Located at: were accepted by a voice vote.

Proposal 2001-04: Making field 260 repeatable in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Jean Hirons (LC) introduced the paper that proposes making field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)) repeatable to accommodate both current and historical publishing information. A repeatable 260 field would improve access to publishing information for database managers and library system users. Proposal 2001-04 suggests redefining the first indicator as "Sequence of publishers, distributors, etc." with values of # (No information provided/Earliest publisher, distributor, etc.), 2 (Current publisher), and 3 (Intervening publisher) and defining subfield $3 as "Materials specified" to differentiate multiple date statements.

The group discussed several concerns stemming from the proposal. Marg Stewart (NLC) reported the CCM's warning that making the field repeatable could hinder validation because it is used for matching; for integrating resources, one could not match on the earliest. It also introduces the potential for incorrect coding. Rhonda Lawrence (AAL) felt that the proposal allows flexibility to attain useful OPAC displays. Although she thought that users may find the display confusing when an entire date span was recorded in subfield $c (Date of publication, distribution, etc.), she felt optimistic that guidelines could be issued to solve this problem in the future. Paul J. Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) also expressed concern that the proposed changes were AACR2-specific. He felt that the group should not force non-AACR2 users to apply its conventions.

Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) asked the group whether subfield $3 (Materials specified) could be coded with the first indicator (Sequence of publishers, distributors, etc.), value # (No information provided/Earliest publisher, distributor, etc.). Sally McCallum (LC) clarified that catalogers could use subfield $3 with all of the indicator values. She suggested that an example of its use be added to the documentation. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked whether subfield $3 (Materials specified) could contain something other than dates. Consensus was yes, other possibilities may be volume numbers, folio numbers, etc. The participants agreed that only one 260 field containing subfield $c (Date of publication, distribution, etc.) and one using the first indicator, value # (No information provided/Earliest publisher, distributor, etc.) should be coded in a group of repeating 260 fields.

The participants also discussed the first indicator values. Kathy Glennan (MLA) requested that the name of the first indicator, value 2 (Current publisher) be changed to "Current/latest publisher" because the publication date rules varied for monographs and serials. Rhonda Lawrence (AALL) also suggested that the MARC 21 documentation display examples for both monographic sets and serials. Rich Greene (OCLC) recommended that the order be changed to # (Not applicable/No information provided/Earliest available publisher); 2 (Intervening publisher); 3 (Current/latest publisher) to create a chronological display. Karen Coyle (California Digital Library) also commented on the difficulty of depending on leader codes to order displays of current versus later publisher.

Tom Saudargas (RUSA) moved to accept the proposal as written with the following modifications:

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 6 - 0 in favor of the proposal (Byron Mayes (LITA) was not present for the vote).

Proposal 2001-05: Changes in MARC 21 to Accommodate Seriality

Proposal 2001-05/01: Definition of a new code "i" for integrating resources and renaming of the serials 008

Jean Hirons (LC) introduced the paper that proposes defining code i for integrating resources in the serials 008 field.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) questioned Hirons about why integrating resources should use the seriality 008 field. Hirons (LC) explained that the seriality 008 field contains several data elements required for coding integrating resources, such as different forms of issuance. In a recent BIBCO/CONSER meeting, the participants preferred using the seriality 008 field to describe integrated resources. Rhonda Lawrence (AALL) also affirmed that law catalogers have traditionally cataloged loose-leaf materials as serials to deal with their seriality aspects.

Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) motioned to accept this part of the proposal and Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of the proposal as written.

Proposal 2001-05/02: Definition of code k in field 008/18 and 006/01 for "continuously updated"

Jean Hirons (LC) introduced the paper that proposes defining code k in fields 008/18 and 006/01 for "continuously updated." She explained that fields 006/01 and 008/18 currently contain codes that indicate the issue frequency for serials. The frequency of updates for integrating resources, however, may be different than for other serial items. For example, no code indicates continuous updates required for some integrating resources, such as dynamic webpages.

The participants discussed multiple frequencies. Christina Meyer (LITA) recommended coding multiple frequencies in the bibliographic record. Ellen Rappaport (Albany Law School), however, felt that using multiple 853 fields (Captions and Pattern -- Basic Bibliographic Unit) would best express multiple frequencies. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) thought that the name of code k, "Continuously updated," implied the concept of multiple frequencies. Jean Hirons (LC) suggested that the use of multiple frequencies in the MARC 21 formats be further investigated.

Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) motioned to accept this section of the proposal and Bruce Johnson seconded his motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of it as written.

Proposal 2001-05/3: Changes to 008/21 and 006/04 type of serial

Jean Hirons (LC) purported that the proposed code l in field 008/21 would provide system access to active loose-leaf subscriptions that are purchased and maintained in institutions. The ISSN Center would also like to use codes d (Database) and w (Updating web site) to identify and retrieve records for databases and Web sites for which ISSN numbers have been assigned. Without adding these codes, websites and databases would be coded blank (#), a category that now includes annual reports and directories.

The differences between databases and websites were discussed. Paul J. Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) questioned the usefulness of codes d (Database) and w (Updating website) when users apply them using different criteria. Kathy Glennan (MLA) suggested that MARBI or LC create guidelines for differentiating databases from websites. Karen Coyle (California Digital Library) also recommended that code w be renamed "online" because the term, "Web," implies the HTTP protocol. Tom Saudargas (RUSA), however, questioned if "online" would include locally-accessed webpages. The group favored expanding the definitions of codes d and w in the documentation to promote consistent coding.

Jean Hirons (LC) also suggested that MARBI rename fields 008/21 and 006/04 to "Type of Continuing Resource" to reflect the language used by the JSC in the AACR2 revisions.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to rename fields 008/21 and 006/04 to "Type of Continuing Resource" and to add only code l (Updating loose-leaf) to them. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 3 in favor, 3 opposed and 1 abstention. Because there was a tie, Tom Saudargas (RUSA) moved to rename fields 008/21 and 006/04 to "Type of Continuing Resource" and to add codes l (Updating loose-leaf), d (Database) and w (Updating website) to them. The definitions of codes d and w will be expanded to reduce ambiguity and to promote consistent coding. Christina Meyer (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 5 - 2 in favor of it.

Proposal 2001-05/4: Defining code 2 in 008/34 and 006/17 successive/latest entry indicator

Jean Hirons explained that the JSC added latest entry cataloging conventions for integrating resources into the AACR2. Latest entry for integrating resources differs from the latest entry practices applied to serials under pre-AACR cataloging rules. Under latest entry for integrating resources, for example, a new record would be created only when there is a major change in edition, a title merges or splits, or it is determined that a new work has been created.

Tom Saudargas (RUSA) suggested that the code be named "Integrated entry" instead of "Latest entry integrating resource" to help with clarity and to lessen confusion between codes 1 (Latest entry) and 2.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with one modification: to rename code 2 "Integrated entry." Byron Mayes (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of the proposal as amended.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP07: Name/Title of Unit in MARC 21 Holdings Records

Rebecca Guenther introduced the discussion paper that explores the relationship between field 844 (Name of unit) and subfield $o (Type of supplementary material/index) in fields 854/864 and 855/865. It also considers recording a distinctive title associated with a basic bibliographic unit that applies only to a constituent part. Two approaches, a single record and a separate record, were discussed by the group.

Diane Hillman (Cornell University) felt that using subfield $o (Type of supplementary material/index) with records containing serial component parts may prevent users from differentiating between parts of bibliographic entities. It was also mentioned that using subfield $o in field 853 is more confusing than coding field 844 because repetition of the field implies a change in pattern rather than an indication of the part. Ms. Hillman suggested using several multiple holdings records for large items instead of coding subfield $o. Because of the inherent weaknesses of subfield $o, several participants favored coding field 844 for both serials and non-serial publications.

Many participants, however, felt that using subfield $o is more flexible than using field 844. Subfield $o has also been coded prevalently in the past for supplements and indexes (It is not defined in field 853 for the basic unit).

Diane Hillman (Cornell University) recommended using subfield $3 (Materials specified) to encode such data in the CONSER Publication Initiative field 891. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) also suggested using CONSER Publication Initiative field 891 for type of unit information, indicated by field 844 in subfield $9. The participants agreed that these approaches should be explored further. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that a follow-up discussion occur based on experiences coding both fields 844 and subfield $o.


  1. Should field 844 be used for all names or titles of a basic bibliographic unit whether serial or non-serial? Yes

  2. If yes, should subfield $o be made obsolete in fields 854-855 and 864-865? Or could it continue to be used only for supplement or index titles, while field 844 would be used for basic bibliographic unit titles? Although field 844 is useful for single items, subfield $o can be used for large multi-item sets and serials. Subfield $o has also been used prevalently in the past.

  3. If subfield $o is retained, what sort of guidelines are needed to distinguish between that in fields 854-855 (Type of supplement/index) and 864-865 (Title of supplement/index)? The group could not answer this. A new discussion paper may be needed.

  4. What options are there for the CONSER project using holdings fields embedded in bibliographic records if field 844 is the desired approach? Using subfield $3 (Materials specified) to input data in the CONSER Publication Initiative field 891 and coding CONSER Publication Initiative field 891 similar to field 844, which would be indicated in subfield $9, were seen as options.

  5. Should it be considered to have two alternatives available in the format depending upon the complexity of the situation? This could include the definition of $o in fields 853/863 for simple situations, but specify the optional use of 844 for more complex situations that would result in many repeated 85X/86X pairs. The group did not approve of this alternative.

Another discussion paper will be considered that explores guidelines for using both subfield $o and field 844 in the MARC 21 holdings format.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP08: Coding for publication pattern at the first level of enumeration in MARC 21 holdings records

Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper that considers coding publication pattern subfields $v (Numbering continuity), $u (Bibliographic units per next higher level), and $x (Calendar change) in fields 853-855 when only one level of enumeration is present. A future proposal could result in a coding practice change and revision of subfield descriptions that would promote accurate predictive check-in and also eliminate coding inconsistencies.

The group agreed with the proposed changes and the suggested revision of the subfield descriptions. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) and Paul J. Weiss (Innovative Interfaces), however, both felt that the complexity of coding for publication at the first level of enumeration in the 85X fields may lead to inaccurate coding of the fields. They also felt that legacy data problems should be further researched before a proposal is written. Marti Scheel (NLM) expressed a need for this change. John Espley (VTLS) thought that it would make things easier, while Karen Anspach (EOS) felt it would be necessary to clearly elaborate when it would be used. Several other participants expressed concern over using the year as a volume number.


  1. Are there any implications in terms of cataloging conventions and/or existing practice that will be affected by the change to the scope of subfields $v, $u, and $x if they are applied at the first level of enumeration? A change in Chapter 12 of the AACR2 may be needed. Several participants expressed concern over using the year as a volume number.

  2. Does the implementation of restart for first level enumeration have any negative impact on practitioners who have already coded publication patterns that do not allow a restart at the first level? There are possible legacy data problems. Work arounds, however, are now being used and a solution could be a positive development.

A proposal will be presented that includes examples where coding is needed at the first level when there are multiple levels.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP09: Repeatability of Subfield $w (Frequency) in Fields 853-855 of the MARC 21 Holdings Format

Linda Miller (LC) introduced the paper that discusses repeating subfield $w in fields 853-855 when multipart titles are issued in a specified frequency. She recommended making the practice of coding for frequencies more specific to ensure accurate prediction. The paper presents three options to allow coding for both issuing frequency and number of pieces: 1) Repeat subfield $w; 2) Use separate subfields; 3) Keep the present practices and emphasize the differences between frequencies.

John Espley (VTLS) recommended using a different subfield to express issuing frequency. Ellen Rappaport (Albany Law School) agreed with him and explained that one subfield would drive the expected date for prediction and the other one would describe the number of issues for inventory and claiming activities. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that the definition of subfield $w (Frequency) be changed to accommodate the new subfield. The group agreed.


1. Are the current structures in the bibliographic formats (e.g., 3XX, 5XX fields) and in the holdings format (e.g., 85X, subfield $w) sufficient to express the sequential behavior of multi-part serials? No

2. If both aspects of frequency, issuance and number of pieces, are required to fuel accurate issue prediction, should both facets of frequency be separately expressed within the holdings format? Yes, separate subfields are needed.

3. If we retain our concept of frequency as is currently expressed in both bibliographic and holdings formats, should we consider some additional examples and specific instructions to allow all necessary aspects of serial frequency to be expressed for multi-part items? Although the group recommended that separate subfields be used, it also felt that additional examples and specific instructions for the frequency subfields should be added to the documentation.

A proposal will be prepared for the midwinter 2002 meeting.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP10: Incrementing intervals in publication patterns in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

Linda Miller (LC) introduced the paper that explores coding titles with multiple basic components that sequence enumeration with skipped numbers. The two approaches described are: 1) Define subfield $s to function at each level of enumeration and permit the definition of an "incrementing interval" that would enable a process of identification and prediction for sequencing activities; 2) Enhance subfield $y to include a new code for enumeration regularity.

The participants were concerned about the complexity of coding for incrementing intervals in publication patterns. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) worried that the required system algorithms would be too complex for vendors to implement. John Attig (OLAC) also felt that specifying the use of separate holdings records may not effectively represent incrementing intervals in prediction and thus, some coding enhancements may be needed in the format.

Diane Hillman (Cornell University) preferred using subfield $y (Regularity pattern) for its similarity to other coding practices. Linda Miller (LC), however, explained that the subfield $y approach limits coding for continuous numbering. With subfield $y, numbering could only be applied when values are characterized by a numbering continuity ($v) that restarts. John Espley (VTLS) also recommended coding separate subfields for enumeration and chronology. Linda Miller (LC) proposed that other comments be posted to the MARC electronic discussion list for consideration.

A proposal will be presented during the 2002 midwinter meeting.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP11: Spans of enumeration and chronology in expressing publication patterns in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

Linda Miller (LC) introduced the discussion paper that considers expressing patterns for enumeration and chronology that span issues or years. The paper describes two solutions: 1) Add a new subfield $p (Span interval); 2) Enhance subfield $y (Regularity pattern).

Although participants were interested in expressing patterns for enumeration and chronology spans, some members expressed concern over the complexity of doing so. John Espley (VTLS) preferred coding subfield $y (Regularity pattern).

Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked the group to consider the modification of the current chronology codes for spanned years. Code y would include a last digit of the four digit year field to indicate the range of the span, as shown in section 2.2. The participants approved of this method.

Sunday, June 17, 2001

Proposal 2001-06: Accommodating Non-MARC Language Codes in Field 041 of the Bibliographic and Community Information Formats

Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper that proposes accommodating non-MARC language codes in field 041 (Language code). Changing the repeatability of field 041 and subfields $a-$g is suggested. To identify the source of the language codes used, defining the second indicator position (Source of code) and subfield $2 (Source of code) is also proposed.

Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) asked the group if any library systems indexed field 041. John Espley (VTLS) reported that the VTLS system indexes the field and allows limits on the data. Kathy Glennan (MLA) also answered that the SIRSI system indexes field 041, but does not distinguish between the subfield codes. Marti Scheel reported that the NLM system indexes field 041, subfield $a (Language code of text/sound track or separate title), however, it unstacks the codes to improve functionality.

The repeatability of field 041 was discussed. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) explained that repeating field 041 would not hinder an archival application used to distinguish between the languages of finding aids. Matthew Wise (New York University) asked if field 041 should be repeated when using the same second indicator value. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) reminded the group, however, that field 041 is used for indexing and not for display purposes. Rich Greene (OCLC) recommended repeating the field only if the indicator value is 7 (Source specified in subfield $2), not when it is blank. Thus, it is repeated only for different language code schemes. Accordingly, Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) told the group that the application of fields 780 (Preceding entry) and 785 (Succeeding entry) has set a precedence for repeating fields based on indicator values.

The placement of subfield $h (Language code of original and/or intermediate translations of text) was also discussed. John Attig (OLAC) questioned if its position would be made ambiguous when other subfields were repeated. To make the placement of subfield $h unambiguous, Kathy Glennan (MLA) suggested repeating the field for each different occurrence of it. Another alternative would be to unstack only non-MARC codes. Tom Saudargas (RUSA), however, reminded the group that sharing records may be hindered if they contain different structures of codes in field 041. Paul J. Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) also remarked that obsolete data elements keep consistency in the formats and allowing two coding practices for a field is against precedence. The question of whether to repeat subfield $h after each subfield or after a group of subfields was not decided; those concerned may contact LC about how is should be documented.

Kathy Glennan (MLA) was concerned that unstacking the codes may make them more difficult to visually read. Unstacking may also result in fewer people coding the field. Rich Greene (OCLC) disagreed, however, for he thought that both unstacked and stacked codes were difficult to read. According to Greene, OCLC would support both stacked and unstacked codes. Rebecca Guenther (LC) and Joe Altimus (RLG) also reported that their institutions would not unstack 041 language codes in existing records. Rich Greene suggested that the language of the proposal be changed from "Eliminating the practice of stacking codes" to "Making obsolete the practice of stacking codes." The group agreed.

Joe Altimus (RLG) warned that library systems may have difficulty accommodating the present, previous and future practices of coding field 041. None of the vendors, however, anticipated many problems with implementation.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to adopt the proposal with one change: To make the practice of stacking codes obsolete. Mitch Turitz seconded the motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of the proposal as amended.

Proposal 2001-07: Repeatability of field 508 in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper that proposes changing the repeatability of field 508 in the MARC 21 bibliographic format to record complex and multiple credit notes.

Jane Johnson (UCLA Film and Television Archive) was concerned that repeating field 508 would allow catalogers to code for multilevel description. She felt that accommodating for system imposed field lengths is the predominate reason why catalogers would repeat field 508. The group agreed.

Marti Scheel (NLM) asked if MARBI should consider RLG's request to add subfields $3 (Materials specified) and $u (Uniform Resource Identifier) into the field. Rebecca Guenther (LC) recommended that another proposal be written to consider these changes.

Tom Saudargas (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Bruce Johnson (LC) seconded the motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of the proposal as written.

Proposal 2001-08: Coding DVDs in Field 007 for Videorecordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper that proposes adding a code for DVDs in field 007/04 for videorecordings to differentiate DVDs from other kinds of videodiscs.

Byron Mayes (LITA) asked if the proposal addressed music DVDs and video CDs. Jackie Radebaugh (LC) explained that it analyzed only video DVDs. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that separate proposals be written for music and computer file DVDs for the 2002 midwinter meeting.

Because laserdiscs are analog media and DVDs are digital, Joe Altimus (RLG) recommended that encoding specifications be described in the documentation. Matthew Wise (New York University), however, explained that DVD and laserdiscs are digital media for they are both linear. NDMSO will do further research to ascertain the correct encoding specifications for DVDs and laserdiscs.

Byron Mayes (LITA) suggested that if the size of DVDs were coded in field 007/07 (Dimensions), the definition of code z (DVD) may not be needed in field 007/04. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA), however, reminded the group that the dimensions of DVDs are somewhat fluid, and thus, specifying only the size of the discs may not effectively identify them. John Attig (OLAC) added that field 007/07 describes only width and thus, its definition must be broadened to accommodate the diameter measurements for DVDs.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with the following amendments:

  1. Name code v "DVD."
  2. Rename code g to "Laserdisc."
  3. Revise the description of both codes g and v to reflect the differences between encoding specifications.
  4. NDMSO should follow up with proposals for computer file and sound recording DVDs and CDs.

Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of the proposal as amended.

Proposal 2001-10: Definition of Additional Codes in Field 007/10 for Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper that proposes expanding field 007/10 to describe additional materials used in the manufacture of sound recordings. The proposed changes would assist libraries and archives with sound recording preservation.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) recommended that MARBI consult a larger cross-section of the archival community before it approves the proposal. As reported in an e-mail message to the MARC Forum electronic discussion list (June 7, 2001), RLG conferred with one archivist who suggested codes for materials not mentioned in the paper. Rebecca Guenther (LC) explained that the proposed list was written to assist the Library of Congress with the processing of its sound recordings, and was thus, not comprehensive.

Kathy Glennan (MLA) reported that several of the proposed codes represent composite materials. She was concerned that including composite codes may cause coding and retrieval problems. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA), however, remarked that because there were many other pre-coordinated codes in the format, changing the practice would require redesigning many other MARC fields. Mr. Fox also suggested that the description of field 007/10 be broadened to include tape since there is now a preservation need to code for it. The group agreed.

Byron Mayes (LITA) moved to table the proposal until consulting with other members of the archival community about the codes in field 007/10. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of tabling the proposal until a more comprehensive one is written. NDMSO will ask members of ARSC and IASA (International Organization of Sound and Audiovisual Archives) for any additional codes needed in field 007/10.

Proposal 2001-11: Definition of field 887 (non-MARC information field) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper that proposes adding field 887 in the bibliographic format for information that cannot map to existing MARC 21 fields. Since field 886 (Foreign MARC Information Field) is Z39.2-specific, it cannot be used with other metadata schemes.

Because some metadata standards, such as the VRA Core, separates tags from content, Sherman Clarke (New York University) suggested that tags and content be separated into two different subfields. Rebecca Guenther (LC), however, explained that the DTD rules would reveal the syntax of a scheme and thus, this separation may not be needed. Accordingly, Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) remarked that content is also included in XML tags.

Joe Altimus (RLG) expressed concern over using non-MARC characters in fields 886 and 887. He suggested expressing details about both the character set and version of the non-MARC format in the fields to clarify the meaning of the proposed surrogates when a non-MARC format defines more than one kind of character set encoding scheme. The encoding scheme for other metadata systems may not be fully represented in MARC records and thus, creating non-MARC character surrogates should also be further researched. The Chair suggested defining a subfield for encoding schemes. Joe Altimus (RLG) told the group that UNIMARC uses fields 886 (Data not covered from source format) and 100 (General processing data) to specify the encoding scheme. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that NDMSO write a discussion paper to explore the encoding problems inherent in both fields 886 and 887.

Tom Saudargas (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal and Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) seconded it. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of the paper as written. NDMSO will investigate the encoding problems inherent in both fields 886 and 887.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP04: Expanding Field 046 for Other Dates in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Community Information Formats

Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the discussion paper that explores whether specific types of dates are important for bibliographic description. It also examines coding the new dates in field 046 (Special coded dates) in the bibliographic and community information formats.

Jane Johnson (UCLA Film and Television Archive) asked if dates recorded in field 033 (Date/Time and Place of an Event) could also be coded in field 046. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered that field 046 should contain dates not coded in other fields. John Attig (OLAC) asked if dates in field 046 could be used to qualify searches. Diane Hillman (Cornell University) remarked that qualifying searches was an application issue. She also suggested that one could code unindexed dates in field 046 to enhance retrieval. John Attig (OLAC), however, reiterated that field 046 should be used for dates not found elsewhere in the formats.

The group discussed other dates needed in the formats. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) reported that the archival community has identified a date of collection accumulation needed for documents assembled over a long period of time that are later accumulated into a collection. Several other participants suggested recording processing dates and changes in bibliographic information, especially for loose-leaf materials. This may be helpful in both the deduping of looseleaf records in OCLC and when there are changes in integrating resources that do not require a new record. Participants felt that defining new coded values for subfield $a (Type of date code) may hinder retrieval. They did favor, however, defining subfields for the following new dates in field 046: Date modified; Date created; Beginning date valid; Ending date valid and using subfield $a with the existing subfields for types of dates associated with publication..

The Chair asked if defining subfield $2 (Source) was useful to indicate the format of the date. MARBI agreed with its use. Rebecca Guenther (LC) also asked if a textual subfield is needed in the field. John Attig (OLAC) recommended that because field 046 provides coded data, a displayable note subfield may not be useful.


  1. Is it important to provide a place in the formats for dates used for electronic resources, such as date modified, date created and date valid? Yes, but it is difficult to define these dates. Are there any other types of dates that may need to be recorded in the formats? The archival community has identified a date of collection accumulation needed for documents assembled over a long period of time that are later accumulated into a collection. Recording processing dates and changes in bibliographic information, especially for loose-leaf materials, was also suggested.

  2. Is merging the bibliographic and community information 046 fields advantageous to facilitate consistency across the formats? No. Because the formats have different scopes, subfields in the community information format could be used differently in the bibliographic format. If so, what changes would be needed to the field?

  3. If field 046 were merged, could any of the existing subfields be used to include the dates needed for electronic resources? If not, would either expanding the codes in subfield $a (Type of date code) or defining new subfields be better approaches? Defining new subfields is the best approach to ensure successful information retrieval.

A proposal will be written for the 2002 MARBI midwinter meeting.

Monday, June 18, 2001

Library of Congress Report

Sally McCallum (LC) reported that Update No. 2 for all five formats will be released in the fall. It will include changes voted upon at the 2001 midwinter and annual ALA MARBI meetings.

Ms. McCallum also reported that the organization code database is now online ( The Library of Congress is working on an agreement with South African libraries to affiliate the South African organization codes with the MARC organization code list. The South African codes would be valid anywhere MARC organization codes are specified.

The British Library announced that it will begin to use the MARC 21 formats. A meeting was held in May to discuss MARC format maintenance procedures between representatives from the United States, Canada and Great Britain. Because the Library of Congress has direct access to the MARC 21 archives, it will continue to develop the MARC 21 format proposals and documentation.

The new MARC 21 LITE Bibliographic Format will be released in July ( It will allow libraries from all over the world to adopt and translate the formats without contending with many of the data elements that are used by specialized populations of MARC 21 users.

Rebecca Guenther (LC) reported that the Classification Web pilot project is available online and uses the MARC 21 Format for Classification Data. Ms. Guenther also explained that the ISO (ISO 639-2), NISO (Z39.53) and MARC language code lists have been recently synchronized.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP06: Coding Series Numbering in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

Alice Jacobs (NLC) introduced the paper that proposes several solutions to improve the sorting of series headings in library systems. The proposed solutions include changing subfield $v in the 4XX and 8XX fields of the bibliographic format, and field 642 in the authority format.

Rich Greene (OCLC) asked if there were any other places in the formats that would benefit from the proposed solutions. John Attig (OLAC) remarked that the call number fields may cause similar sorting problems and should also be considered.

The Chair reminded the group that in a message to the MARC electronic discussion list, Dan CannCasciato (Central Washington University) wrote that some systems sort series information correctly and thus, the "burden of correctly sorting this information should be on the system vendors." Rhonda Lawrence (AALL) cited that UCLA is currently working on a system implementation that would solve about 90% of the problems discussed in the paper. Jo Crawford (University of Minnesota) also reminded the group that only large series create sorting problems and thus, she did not think that the group should make changes to the format for only 10% of cataloged series.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) described how he worked on a large project of microfilms using music numbers for sorting. The project created a useful algorithm for the sort. He also remarked that it would be more efficient to persuade a dozen vendors to create an algorithm than it would be to change the practices of thousands of catalogers.

Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that the library community create specifications for a series sorting algorithm to share with system vendors. She also suggested that the PCC Working Group on Series Numbering assist in the development of these specifications. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) offered that he could find more information about the microfilm project algorithm to assist in writing the specifications.

Alice Jacobs (NLC) expressed disappointment that MARBI would prefer a systems solution over a format one. She felt that it is librarians' jobs to organize "dirty data" and because the format is a tool for communication, changing it may be the most efficient and useful way to solve the series sorting problem. Rebecca Guenther (LC), however, remarked that even if MARBI agreed to change the format, the system vendors must still implement the changes to improve the automated sorting of series numbering.

Proposal 2001-09: Mapping of EACC characters to Unicode/UCS

John Espley (VTLS) and Joan Aliprand (RLG) introduced the paper that proposes a mapping of characters from the MARC East Asian Character Set (EACC) to Unicode/UCS. The EACC set, used in MARC 21 records for vernacular Chinese, Japanese, and Korean script information, contains 15,728 characters. The Unicode Consortium mapping of 21,204 Unicode ideographic characters to other standards includes mappings to 13,226 of the ideographs in EACC. The Unicode Consortium reviewed and identified 203 changes that were needed. These changes are listed below:

The MARBI task force mapped the remaining 2502 EACC characters to the Unicode standard. In all cases, an effort was made to map with existing Unicode characters. When no mapping could be found, however, characters were mapped to unique codes in the Private Use Area (PUA) reserved in Unicode.

Sally McCallum (LC) asked if the characters defined in the PUA would eventually be added to the Unicode standard. Joan Aliprand (RLG) did not know whether they were included in the latest version (Version 3.1), or whether they will be adopted into future updates of the Unicode standard.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) outlined a maintenance plan for the mapping. She suggested that the RLG and CJK experts of the Unicode Consortium identify further mappings for EACC. These experts will notify LC of any changes made to the UniHan ideographic database. The complete EACC/Unicode mapping table will be coordinated before the changes are announced on the MARC electronic discussion list.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written and to adopt the maintenance plan. He also moved to discharge the task force, and to the thank the entire group (especially Joan Aliprand and John Espley) for its work. Byron Mayes (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7 - 0 in favor of the proposal as written.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP05: Multilingual Authority Records in the MARC 21 Authority Format

Jo Crawford (University of Minnesota) introduced the paper that explores using multilingual authority records. She explained that several different components must work together for authority records to have multi-contextual functionality. These components include: The Unicode standard; Windows 2000 platforms; Browsers; Application software; MARC coding.

To use as an example during the discussion, Ms. Crawford distributed a handout that contained a Hong Kong authority record with 7XX fields linking to AACR2 headings. Sally McCallum (LC) added that there were two facets in the paper on which the group should concentrate: the context marker coding, and using either one or multiple authority records with it.

Matthew Wise (New York University) suggested that the title of the paper be changed to reflect "multi-contextual" headings. The group agreed with him.

Barbara Tillet (LC) reported that the IFLA authorities working group has researched the possibility of creating a virtual authority file that includes the following components:

IFLA's work with Project Author and Project Leaf was motivated by its desire for a virtual authority file. The working group is interested in using the context marker mechanism for its authority projects.

The Chair asked if there were any concerns over the mechanics of the context marker. Diane Hillman (Cornell University) did not agree with the omission of the language code when it is implied in a thesaurus. Paul J. Weiss (Innovative Interfaces), however, explained that there is precedence to this practice in the formats. Sherman Clarke (VRA) also suggested using a code to illustrate that a language code is not used in a record. Marti Scheel (NLM) preferred separating each component of the context marker into different subfields. Sally McCallum (LC), however, reminded her that there were few subfields available in the 7XX fields to use. Ms. McCallum suggested stringing the codes together instead of connecting them with slashes.

Kathy Glennan (MLA) asked about using single or multiple authority records with the context marker. Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) explained that the context marker was defined for multiple records, however, more research must be done on using it in a singular record. Diane Hillman (Cornell University) reminded the group of her comments to the MARC electronic discussion list on June 8. She wrote that the MARC community could "potentially face a much bigger burden maintaining the links between different language forms and contexts in Model B/C than [it] would with Model A, particularly if we had adequate technical assistance from vendors to support the latter."

There was not enough time to complete the discussion, however, a new discussion paper will be prepared that explores using single or multiple authority records for the midwinter 2002 meeting. This paper will also consider how the context marker technique will work with subject authority records.

Task Force Reports

Unicode Encoding and Recognition Technical Issues Task Force - Gary Smith

The task force recently conducted a poll to ascertain whether its original charge continues to be pertinent. This charge was to "develop the specifications for the encoding of Unicode characters in the MARC 21 communications record and to create a method for identifying the use of Unicode in a MARC 21 communications record." The poll indicated that the charge remains important and thus, the task force will prepare a report for the 2002 midwinter meeting.

The Multilingual Task Force - Jo Crawford

The Multilingual Task Force presented its work in Discussion Paper 2001-DP05. Another discussion paper will be prepared presenting the use of singular and multiple multi-contextual authority records for the 2002 midwinter meeting.

The East Asian Character Set Task Force - John Espley

The East Asian Character Set Task Force presented its work in Proposal 2001-09 and has been discharged.

Business Meeting - Bill Jones

MARBI will cosponsor the Regional AACR2 and Metadata Institutes with ALCTS after it receives approval from RUSA. More information about the institutes may be found on the ALA website.

Annamarie Erickson (RUSA) and Barbara Weir (ALCTS Intern) have completed their terms on the MARC Advisory Committee. MARBI thanks them for their work and dedication. Anyone interested in these positions should contact either ALCTS or RUSA.

Louise Sevold is no longer the MARBI representative of the ALA PLA Community Information Section Liaison for USMARC Community Information Format (PLA/CIS). Her replacement will be announced soon.

John Espley (VTLS) will replace Karen Anspach as the AVIAC representative to MARBI.

Meeting times for the midwinter meeting 2002 have been established. Requests will be made for the usual times. These are:

Respectfully submitted,

Jackie Radebaugh
Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress

Go to:

Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk ( 12/16/2003 )