MARBI Meeting Minutes

ALA Midwinter Meeting
Washington, DC -- January 13-14, 2001

MARBI members:

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

Sally McCallum                            Library of Congress
Margaret Stewart                          National Library of Canada
MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Karen Anspach             AVIAC           EOS, International, Inc.
John C. Attig             OLAC            Pennsylvania State University
Randall K. Barry LC Library of Congress Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Donna Cramner ALCTS MRC Siouxland Libraries Bonnie A. 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 Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Mark Watson ALCTS CCS CC:DA University of Oregon
Other Attendees:
Jim Agenbroad                             Library of Congress
Joan Aliprand                             RLG
Everett Allgood                           New York University
Elizabeth Ankersen                        Queens Borough Public Library
Diane Bohr                                National Library of Medicine
Ann Case                                  H.W. Wilson
Anne Champagne                            Art Institute of Chicago
Eric Childress                            OCLC
Josephine Crawford                        University of Minnesota
Alan Danskin                              British Library
Renette Daves                             University of Chicago
John Espley                               VTLS
Noriko Grines                             United Nations Library
Shelby E. Harken                          University of North Dakota
Elaine Henjum                             Florida Center for Library Automation                                               
Diane Hillman                             Cornell University
Kris Kiesling                             University of Texas in Austin
Holley Lange                              Colorado State University
John Maier                                New York University
Giles Martin                              OCLC Forest Press
Gail Mazure                               Sagebrush Corporation
Marilyn McCroskey                         Southwest Missouri State University
Linda Miller                              Library of Congress
Sarah Mitchell                            Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mark Needleman                            Data Research Associates
Mary Ann O'Daniel                         Florida Center for Library Automation                                        
Sue Young Park                            New York University
Jackie Radebaugh                          Library of Congress
Sandy Roe                                 Minnesota State University
Jackie Shieh                              University of Michigan
Laura Sill                                Notre Dame University
Gary Smith                                OCLC
Gary Strawn                               Northwestern University
Jennifer Sweda                            University of Pennsylvania
Marc Truitt                               Notre Dame University
Jian Wang                                 Portland State University
Paul J. Weiss                             Innovative Interfaces
Martha M. 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)
CDS - Cataloging Distribution Service (of LC)
CIS - Community Information Section (of PLA)
CCS - Cataloging and Classification Section (of ALCTS)
FCLA - Florida Center for Library Automation
LC - Library of Congress
LITA - Library and Information Technology Association
MAGERT - Map & Geography Roundtable
MLA - Music Library Association
NAL - National Agricultural Library
NDMSO - 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 January 13, 2001

Chair Bill Jones opened the meeting at 9:40 by asking for any additions or corrections to the Annual MARBI 2000 meeting minutes. Michael Fox stated that he should be cited as both an ALCTS representative and liaison to the Society of American Archivists. Likewise, Rhonda Lawrence stated that her zip code should be changed to read "90095." Bill Jones moved and Bruce Johnson seconded the motion to accept the minutes of the 2000 annual meeting in Chicago. The minutes were approved by a voice vote.

The Chair reported that the following people were not in attendance: Joe Altimus (RLG) (Joan Aliprand stood in as his substitute), Ellen Crosby (RUSA), and Barbara Weir (ALCTS).

Proposal 2001-02: Non-MARC Country Codes in Fields 043 and 044

Rebecca Guenther introduced the paper, which proposes that subfield $c (ISO code) in field 043 (Geographic Area Code) be defined to allow for the use of ISO 3166 country codes. The proposal also suggests that subfield $c (ISO subentity code) in field 044 (Country of publishing/producing entity code) be redefined as ISO code to allow for the use of ISO 3166 country codes as well as ISO subentity codes. Because these changes would facilitate mapping to various metadata schemes, such as to Dublin Core, they would assist in the increasing internationalization of the MARC 21 formats by allowing for the recording of codes from the widely-used ISO country code list in MARC 21 records.

Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked the group if one could use a local code in field 044. She also suggested redefining subfield $b (Local subentity code) in field 044 to include both local and ISO subentity codes. Rebecca Guenther stated that it would not be good for retrieval to mix local and ISO codes together.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written and Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) seconded. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 7-0.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP02: Non-MARC Language Codes in Field 041

Introducing this discussion paper, Rebecca Guenther presented four different approaches to using non-MARC language codes in MARC 21 bibliographic and community information records. Ms. Guenther maintained that using non-MARC language codes in field 041 would facilitate mapping and the subsequent conversion from various metadata standards (such as the Dublin Core) to the MARC 21 format and would enhance libraries' participation in the organization of online web products, e-books, and other media that use metadata. One alternative presented in the paper defines subfield $j for non-MARC codes. Another alternative repeats field 041 for each occurrence of a different language scheme used in the field. Likewise, the paper presents eliminating the practice of stacking language codes in field 041 to allow systems to identify and read multilength codes. However, Ms. Guenther stated that because field 041 is used extensively in the bibliographic community, changing its definition, repeatability and coding practices could be very expensive to implement.

Alan Danskin (British Library) stated that subfield $j is used in field 041 of the UKMARC standard for the language of sign languages and thus, defining it for non-MARC language codes could make MARC 21 harmonization more difficult for UKMARC users. The Chair stated that this would be taken into consideration.

John Attig (OLAC) asked about the problems associated with changing the stacking practice for field 041. In response, Marti Scheel (NLM) explained that NLM breaks out the codes in its system to process them and thus prefers option four (the non-stacking alternative) of the paper because it is most inline with its processing practices. Scheel did not think that changing the coding practice would be expensive for libraries to implement for libraries could simply switch to the new coding practices and maintain the old stacked codes with little difficulty. Agreeing with her, John Espley stated that VTLS also favored abandoning the practice of stacking codes in the 041 field. Representatives from several systems also stated that their systems only index the first code in a stacked subfield, and unstacking the codes could thus improve retrieval.

Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that there are millions of records with stacked codes in the 041 field and he wondered what the bibliographic community would do with them if MARBI changed the practice of stacking codes. He added that OCLC would have to deal with the records in its database and predicted in the future that these records must be converted for processing and retrieval reasons. However, Marti Scheel (NLM) maintained that libraries would be able to use the old records even if conversion never took place. Although Rich Greene answered that one would have to deal with both versions of codes to index languages properly, Marti Scheel stated that with unstacked codes, the bibliographic community would gain greater indexing functionality.

Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) added that indexing would be more difficult with different types of codes in the index. However, according to Marti Scheel (NLM) this was a system issue and not one with which MARBI should deal. John Attig (OLAC) stated that this discussion paper allows for the distinguishing of code schemes, but does not limit the type of code used. However, Rich Greene (OCLC) maintained that indexing would be difficult if the codes were combined with other codes of varying lengths. John Attig stated that subfield $2 would indicate which schemes have been used and thus, systems should be able to differentiate between types of schemes used in a record. He agreed with Scheel that indexing is a system-specific issue.

Rebecca Guenther asked the group if one should make the same structural distinctions using the non-MARC codes as is currently made with the MARC codes. Kathy Glennan (MLA) asked if unstacking the codes would require making all of the subfields repeatable. She stated that subfield $h (Language code of original and/or intermediate translations of text) was already repeatable and used that way for music records so that it could be placed next to the subfield that it modifies. She wondered what would happen to that distinction if codes were unstacked. John Attig agreed and added that the order of the subfields would be very important if the codes were unstacked. Sally McCallum (LC) reminded the group that when subfield $h was defined and made repeatable, the MARBI community publicly regretted using stacked codes. She also clarified that the format does not mandate that subfield $h follow its modifying subfields, it only suggests that it may follow them.

NDMSO should keep in mind the importance of subfield order when using option four since subfield $h should follow the subfield that it modifies. Marti Scheel added that NLM would like MARBI to reconsider recording codes in alphabetical order for these subfields. She wondered what would be the purpose of alphabetical order if the codes were broken apart. John Attig (OLAC) answered that if no language dominates, the codes should be in alphabetical order. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) however wondered if there were no order to the codes, how would one indicate the dominant language of a record. Paul Weiss suggested that one could make reference to the dominant language in the notes fields of the record to make the distinction.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) questioned what one would do if one used two different types of language code schemes in one record. Rebecca Guenther told him that one could simply repeat the field. Marti Scheel (NLM) also stated that using multiples of subfield $2 paired with subfield $j as illustrated in the discussion paper is not good form and against the MARC Principles. She suggested that MARBI not consider this alternative.

The Chair reviewed the discussion paper questions.

  1. Is there a need to code non-MARC codes in MARC 21 records? Yes.
  2. Should a new subfield (such as subfield $j) be defined in field 041 to indicate non-MARC codes? Using non-repeatable 041 fields is a cleaner approach.
  3. Would repeating field 041 be beneficial in indicating different language schemes for non-MARC codes? Yes. Or would simply repeating subfield $2 (Source of Code) for each scheme used in field 041 be adequate enough? No. If repeating subfield $2, should it follow its corresponding language code? No.
  4. Would repeating subfields $a-$h be beneficial in coding non-MARC codes? It is necessary. Is there a need to differentiate between different languages used in various aspects of items using non-MARC language codes? Yes, if one makes the distinction with MARC codes, the same distinction must be made with non-MARC codes. If so, would redefining subfields $a-$h be the most effective way to show this distinction? Yes, repeating subfields for non-stacking fields is essential to eliminate parsing of codes.
  5. If using option three or four, is the second indicator needed or is subfield $2 sufficient? Although using subfield $2 without the indicators follows the newest MARC coding practices, indicators may be needed with which to "grandfather" old records. Indicators may also help with sorting.

The Chair clarified what the group's decisions. These included:

  1. Repeat field 041
  2. Repeat the subfields for each code recorded (i.e. no stacking)
  3. Use of the indicator and the non-repeatable subfield $2 to indicate the source of the code
  4. Further discussion should consider impact of changes on legacy data

A formal proposal reflecting the above decisions will be prepared for the annual 2001 meeting in June.

Proposal No. 2001-01: Designating Taxonomic Hierarchies in Field 754

Elaine Henjum from the Florida Center for Library Automation introduced the proposal. It suggests adding subfields $c and $z to field 754 to designate the taxonomic hierarchy of the data in subfield $a and to provide a public note. Likewise, the redefinition of subfield $a to contain the taxonomic name is also proposed in the paper. In her introduction, Ms. Henjum described that one problem with using field 754 as it is currently defined is that labels are embedded within the data fields that cause a lack of flexibility on both display and search mechanisms.

The discussion began with questions about the order of taxonomic hierarchies. Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked Henjum whether a certain order of taxonomic hierarchies is critical in field 754. Henjum stated that combinations of taxonomic data does not begin in the same place. For example, one combination may start at the highest level of the hierarchy and another combination may start at the second highest level.

The indexing possibilities for field 754 was a concern to many in the group. For example, Paul Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) asked Elaine Henjum if she would want to index both field 754 and subfield $c. Elaine Henjum replied yes and added that these date elements should also be repeated if they were indexed. Paul Weiss also asked Elaine Henjum if she would want to keyword index subfield $c. Elaine Henjum answered that the FCLA is currently indexing the entire field, but yes, it may want to index at a more specific level. FCLA would also want to index subfield $z.

Rebecca Guenther then asked if the FCLA links common names to taxonomic names in authority records. Elaine Henjum replied that it did have a thesaurus, but other users may not. Sally McCallum also asked Ms. Henjum if she would use another subfield for the common name instead of the Public Note subfield ($z). Elaine Henjum stated that it would be ideal to use another subfield for the common name, if one were available. Agreeing with the use of a separate subfield, Byron Mayes (LITA) stated that it would be difficult to find the common name if "common" were the first word in subfield $z when indicating it. Diane Hillman (Cornell University) stated that creating a separate subfield for common name would provide what she called a "low rent thesaurus." Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) suggested calling the subfield "Alternative name" to make its use broader. Examples of common names that were mentioned were striped bass and rockfish. Elaine Henjum also stated that subfield $z would be useful even if the common name would be recorded into another subfield. FCLA thought that a subfield $x (Non Public note) in the field might also be useful.

John Attig (OLAC) stated that the group should not define a new subfield without another proposal. According to Attig, there are several ways to define and use the concept of "common names" that were not entirely clear to him based on the current discussion. Likewise, he felt that it was also not clear how the name relates to the heading as a whole. Elaine Henjum agreed with him that yes, some names could be in many taxonomic strings. Elaine Henjum also stated that the common name could apply to several levels in the hierarchy. Diane Hillman suggested that the definition of the new subfield could be made more specific by requiring the common name to be at the lowest hierarchical level.

Paul Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) asked about other communities that use field 754. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) stated that the Minnesota Historical Society uses it for three-dimensional objects, such as furniture. He also added that the structure would be compatible with the art and architecture thesaurus as well. Paul Weiss stated that the linguistics community may also find this field useful for its data.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with the following modifications.

  1. Add subfield $x (Non-Public note) and subfield $z (Public Note) as a repeatable subfields.
  2. Specify that subfield $z will not be used for common or alternative name, but for other types of public notes.
  3. Add another repeatable subfield in field 754 for the Common/alternative name (to be determined by LC).

Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) seconded the motion. The motion carried with an unanimous vote of 7-0.

Discussion Paper 2001-DP01: Recording Narrators in Fields 508 and 511

John Attig (OLAC) introduced the paper. It discusses the possibility of changing the scope of fields 508 and 511 in the MARC 21 bibliographic format to allow narrators to be coded only in field 511. Because there has been inconsistent coding of "Narrator" in both fields 508 and 511, changing the definition of these fields would end confusion and standardize coding practices. Attig also reported that he presented the discussion paper at the latest OLAC meeting and members felt that most catalogers were aware of the distinction between the coding practices for onscreen and offscreen narrators. From that discussion, Attig believed that there is no reason to make the distinction between onstage and offstage narrators in the MARC record. Likewise, the distinction could cause the 508 and 511 fields to be indexed differently, which may jeopardize retrieval. Attig also mentioned that in her message to the MARC list, Verna Urbanski (University of North Florida) stated that this differentiation should be eliminated in favor of putting narrators in the 511 field. Attig added that redefining the first indicator, value 3, "Narrator" is not necessary and does not help with the consistent coding of the 511 field for "narrators." Kathy Glennan (MLA) stated that the music community uses the 511 field extensively for narrator information and has never placed narrator information in field 508.

The Chair reviewed the discussion paper questions.

  1. Is the differentiation between on-stage and voice-over narrators significant? No. Does coding these two types of narrators in different fields provide meaningful and accurate information to library users? No.
  2. Is there a need to alter the practice of listing on-screen narrators in field 511 and voice-over narrators in 508? Yes. Has inconsistent coding of narrators in fields 508 and 511 had a detrimental effect on information retrieval? Maybe.
  3. Would defining only field 511 for narrators reduce inconsistent coding practices and improve retrieval of narrator information in bibliographic databases? Maybe. Is there an impact on existing records? Maybe, this depends on how many records have currently coded narrators in the 508 field. Could this change confuse catalogers further? No, this change should make things simpler.
  4. Is there a need to redefine the first indicator value 3 (Narrators) in field 511 to assist in indicating the narrators' role of participation when differentiating them from cast members in bibliographic records? No. Would it help to ensure consistent coding in field 511? No.

A formal proposal is not required for these changes. NDMSO will alter the MARC 21 documentation to state that narrators are only coded in field 511.

MARBI Business Meeting

Library of Congress Report

Sally McCallum presented the Library of Congress report. Update No. 1 for all of the MARC 21 formats are now available from the Cataloging Distribution Service. The updates will be included in the new issue of Cataloger's Desktop due out in mid-February.

The new MARC XML DTD is now available from the MARC website at:

The MARC organization codes are now online in a searchable database using the Site Search software ( There is also a new paper edition of the MARC Code List for Organizations available from CDs.

A new ONIX to MARC mapping is available on the MARC website at: It includes an ONIX record maker created by OCLC. NDMSO will keep the mapping up-to-date as new updates become available to the ONIX standard. Likewise, NDMSO is working closely with the authors of ONIX to ensure a consistent and useful mapping for the library community.

Sally McCallum also reported that the Library of Congress is now using the new LCCN structure. Moreover, it is in the process of implementing the newly defined MARC characters. According to Joan Aliprand, RLG has already implemented all of the new characters.

Rebecca Guenther (LC) described the new Classification Web pilot program from CDs that provides easy access to up-to-date LC Classification data. Pending the pilot test results, CDs may offer Classification Web as a subscription-based service. More information about Classification Web can be found on the CDs website at:

The Future of Serials Control

Linda Miller (LC) spoke about the Future of Serials Control pre-conference program at the 2001 annual ALA meeting in San Francisco. This summer conference institute will include introductory information about the MARC 21 holdings format, along with information about check-in prediction and current serial holdings standard information. There will be demos of some library systems that support the holdings format and a panel discussion with several system vendors. Miller would like MARBI to cosponsor the event for publicity purposes.

A straw vote was taken to cosponsor the event. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) agreed to speak with ALCTS, Anna Marie Erickson will speak with RUSA and Bill Jones agreed to speak with LITA about the sponsorship.

Joint Meeting with CC:DA

Bruce Johnson asked if MARBI would be interested in doing a joint meeting with CC:DA for the annual meeting. He stated that he could find some ideas for a topic among the recommendations from the bibliographic control conference that was held at LC in November. Bill Jones asked that members send other ideas to the MARC or MAC (MARC Advisory Committee) discussion lists.

UKMARC Harmonization Efforts

John Espley asked about the status of the UKMARC / MARC 21 harmonization plans. Alan Danskin (British Library) stated that a survey was given to UK librarians and the results found that the majority of British librarians want to harmonize with MARC 21.

MARBI Interns

Bill Jones asked that any colleagues in LITA, RUSA or ALCTS who are interested in becoming interns to please contact him.

The Meeting adjourned at 12:15 P.M.

Sunday, January 14, 2001

Discussion Paper 2001-DP03: Types of Dates for Electronic Resources

Rebecca Guenther introduced the paper. It reviews the different types of dates for electronic resources that are used as qualifiers in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set and discusses how they correspond with defined MARC 21 elements. The paper also discusses whether some specific types of dates which do not have an accurate mapping to MARC 21 are important for bibliographic description and if so, alternative fields and subfields should be provided for them. One alternative, according to Guenther, is to use the 046 (Special coded dates) field that is found in both the bibliographic and community information formats to map other dates into the MARC 21 format. Another alternative is to use field 583 (Action note). Rebecca Guenther also stated that MARC maps successfully to the Dublin Core Available and Issued qualifiers.

Diane Hillman (Cornell University) was concerned that the discussion would not be complete if it remained focused on fitting MARC into a mapping. She proposed that the discussion be based instead on how MARC should evolve to fit into new concepts of date. Rebecca Guenther agreed with her and asked the group not to consider the Dublin Core to MARC mapping for the duration of the discussion.

Paul Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) asked if the date modified meant that it was the date that someone last looked at the resource. Rebecca Guenther answered that the place to put the date in the format is totally dependent on how one defines it. Thom Saudargas (RUSA) suggested putting the date modified into the 250 field. He felt that field 250 could be changed to fit non-coded dates. However, Rebecca Guenther stated that modifying the 250 field would not align it with AACR2 practice. John Attig (OLAC) also stated that the date element, "Modified," is not analogous with a new edition.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) suggested that the group find a consistent place to put all date information in the formats. He asked whether they might belong in the holdings fields. Rhonda Lawrence (AALL) stated that dates are also prominent in loose-leaf resources. She suggested broadening the discussion to include all dates in the format and not limit it to only electronic resources. Bill Jones agreed with this sentiment and stated that he imagined that all communities use similar dates. Paul Weiss (Innovative Interfaces) mentioned that dates in loose-leaf resources deal with the management of the resource.

The discussion became more focused on the 046 field. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) suggested that MARBI make the 046 field repeatable. Joan Aliprand (RLG) stated that the subfield $2 and indicator values are needed in the 046 field for it to work with the proposed dates. Rebecca Guenther agreed, but felt that indicators may not be necessary.

John Attig (OLAC) felt that MARBI should investigate the structure of the 046 field before fully adopting it. He felt that some aspects of the field, such as indicator values, should be examined further. Agreeing with Attig, Rebecca Guenther stated that the 046 field in the community information format uses subfields to indicate different types of dates. This is different than in the bibliographic format that uses a code in subfield $a describe types of dates. She felt that MARBI should try to harmonize the two fields together.

Chris Meyer (LITA) stated that a new discussion paper should focus on different types of dates used in the MARC format. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) suggested that it concentrate on the source, syntax, and nature of date. Rebecca Guenther suggested that any specific communities that have other date needs to contact LC.

NDMSO will present a new discussion paper focusing on dates in the MARC 21 formats. The paper will consider what other dates of importance are needed both for electronic resources and in specialized communities. It will also look at how date modified would be applied to loose-leaf materials and study the relationship between field 046 and other data elements, such as fields 008 and 362. Any other comments about the paper should be made to the MARC or MAC discussion lists.

Proposal No. 2001-03: Identification of source in field 015 and field 017

According to Randall Barry (LC) who introduced this proposal, the Russian State Library would like to record the multiple national bibliography numbers from different sources in the same record. Currently these numbers must be recorded in a single occurrence of field 015. Although field 017 can be repeated for multiple numbers from different assigning agencies, it is only possible to identify a number by the assigning agency. The Russian State Library wants to record the resource in which the number appears, however cannot do so with the present structure of the fields. Thus, the paper proposes defining subfield $2 (Source) in field 015 (National Bibliography Number) and field 017 (Copyright Registration Number) to identify the source of the numbers. The paper also proposes making field 015 repeatable for multiple numbers from different sources.

Joan Aliprand (RLG) stated that having multiple ways to record multiple numbers may be confusing for catalogers. Randall Barry stated that there are several fields that utilize multiple numbers for different reasons in the formats. The catalogers should be knowledgeable about how to use the data elements. Barry also felt that this solution was still a better approach than using multiples of subfield $2 in the fields.

John Attig (OLAC) then asked if subfield $2 would be used as the source identifier. He felt that using subfield $2 for source would be a cleaner approach than using subfield $b. Randall Barry answered that in the current environment, users would like to use subfield $2 for source, however subfield $b has been used extensively in field 017 and it should not be changed.

Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) motioned to approve the proposal as written. Thom Saudargas (RUSA) seconded the motion. MARBI voted 7-0 to pass the proposal as written.

Reports of Task Forces

East Asian Character Set Task Force (John Espley)

Mr. Espley presented MARBI with the statistics from the final work on the mapping of the EACC characters and Unicode by type of EACC character. These included:

Total number of mappings (Including mappings to private use values):
CJK punctuation = 26
Components = 36
Ideographs =13,468
Kana = 172
Hangul = 2028
TOTAL = 15,730

Total number of private use values required (to maintain identity of EACC characters in round-trip mapping):
CJK punctuation = 0
Components = 36
Ideographs = 231
Kana = 0
Hangul = 26
TOTAL = 292

Mr. Espley stated that "Components" are lines and combinations of lines that are not part of the CJK writing systems. They are needed for one input method for ideographs.

The 231 ideographs that do not have Unicode mappings fall into four categories:

  1. Simplified characters which were deliberately duplicated in EACC for indexing purposes. There are 38 of these.
  2. Related characters that have been unified in Unicode (the 2:1 issue). There are 155 of these.
  3. Characters that are not in Version 2.1 of the Unicode Standard: 4 are known; there may be others among the unrelated variant forms (category d).
  4. Characters that are unrelated variant forms of characters that are present in Unicode (and which are usually mapped to other EACC characters). There are 34 of these.

Mr. Espley also stated that mappings should be established for the characters being mapped to private use values. It was agreed that the values chosen would be immediately before the starting point that was used by CHASE for its mappings. The highest available character value is U+7FFF hex.

Mapping tables were recently compared to EACC codes from the CJK Thesaurus. This process identified a katakana character still missing from the mapping table (this has been corrected), and revealed the components.

There are two outstanding issues with hangul that have been resolved. One character purports to be a modern hangul, but does not appear in the complete set that is in the Unicode Standard. It has therefore been mapped to a private use value. Two characters appeared to be identical. Jo Oksik of OCLC and Karen Smith-Yoshimura of RLG both recommended that they be unified by mapping them to a single Unicode value.

Mr. Espley reported that all EACC characters have been mapped to Unicode equivalents, either to a specific character or to a to-be-assigned private use value. By the end of February, Gary Smith and Joan Aliprand will assign the values of private use starting with 7FFF hex.

He also stated that the tasks that remain are:

  1. To assign the private use values
  2. To post the mapping tables for general review

Joan Aliprand stated that only controversial mappings will be posted. If anyone would like to see other non-controversial mappings, please contact John Espley. Links to the mappings will be posted on the RLG web site, the MARC web site, and the ALCTS webpage.

John Espley reported that the task force will no longer be meeting. After an extended review of the mappings, the task force will begin a discussion of the mappings during the annual ALA meeting.

John Espley thanked Joan Aliprand for all of her hard work on this project. Likewise, Joan Aliprand thanked members of the Council of East Asian Libraries special committee: Hisako Kotaka and JO Oksik of OCLC, Cora Chang of the Unicode Consortium and to Ho-chun Chin and Karen Smith-Yoshimura of RLG, William McCloy, Robert Felsing and all of the other members of the CEAL review group.

Unicode Encoding and Recognition Technical Issues Task Force (Gary Smith)

Gary Smith stated that there is currently no report available. One should be available by the end of January and will be distributed to the MARC electronic discussion list. A discussion paper may also be presented during the 2001 annual meeting.

Multilingual Record Task Force (JO Crawford)

JO Crawford stated that the task force has been very active. The last meeting on January 12, 2001 was very fruitful and positive. According to Crawford, the group has been currently writing and discussing a series of summary papers about multilingual MARC records. Its goal is to create either a discussion paper or a proposal for the June 2001 meeting, however at this point, she could not give any other definite details to MARBI.

Other Business

Bicentennial Conference for Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium (Bruce Johnson)

Bruce Johnson reported that the Bicentennial Conference for Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium was held at the Library of Congress on November 15-17. One hundred and twenty people participated. The goal of the conference was to bring together authorities in the cataloging and metadata communities to discuss outstanding issues involving improved discovery and access to Web resources within the framework of international standards. The result of the meeting was eleven recommendations to the bibliographic community. These recommendations were created by the eleven topical discussion groups formed during the meeting that addressed major challenges facing the library and publisher communities. The recommendations are found at: According to Johnson, the Library of Congress is determining how it and its partners will go about accomplishing these recommendations. He encouraged all members to look at the conference webpage at: for a complete listing of the paper topics, videos of the presentations and much more.

Meeting times for the annual meeting 2001 were established. Requests will be made for the usual times. These are:

June 16: 9:30-12:30
June 17: 2:00-5:30
June 18: 2:00-4:00

Respectfully submitted,

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

Go to:

Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk ( June 13, 2003 )