Thomas Saudargas, Chair RUSA College Center for Library Automation Karen Coyle RUSA California Digital Library Michael Fox ALCTS Minnesota Historical Society Helen Gbala LITA Ex Libris (USA) Inc. William W. Jones LITA New York University Bruce Rennie RUSA Kansas City Public Library Marc Truitt LITA University of Notre Dame Mitch L. Turitz ALCTS San Francisco State University Martha Yee ALCTS UCLA Film and Television Archive
Wei Jeng-Chu RUSA Worcester Public Library
Alan Danskin British Library Sally McCallum Library of Congress Margaret Stewart National Library of Canada
MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Everett Allgood CC:DA New York University Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group John C. Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Randall K. Barry LC Library of Congress Paul Cauthen MLA University of Cincinnati Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Bonnie A. Dede SAC University of Michigan John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Michael Fox SAA Minnesota Historical Society David Goldberg NAL National Agricultural Library Susan Goldner AALL University of Arkansas at Little Rock/Pulaski County Law Library Rich Greene OCLC OCLC, Inc. Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Gail Mazure MicroLIF Sagebrush Corporation Sally McCallum LC Library of Congress Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Margaret Stewart NLC National Library of Canada
Karen Anspach Karen Anspach Consulting Matthew Beacom Yale University Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester Donna Cranmer Siouxland Libraries Ellen Crosby Consultant Betsy Eggleston Harvard University Cheri Folkner University of California, Los Angeles Linda Smith Griffin Louisiana State University Libraries Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Diane Hillmann Cornell University Robert Hull Concord Free Public Library Charles Husbands Harvard University Harry Kaplanian SIRS Mandarin Kris Kiesling University of Texas at Austin Pat Kuhr H. W. Wilson Elizabeth Lilker New York University John Maier New York University, Institute of Fine Arts Rebecca Marek Brodart Company Giles Martin OCLC Christina Meyer University of Minnesota David Miller Curry College Francie Mrkich New York University Mark Needleman Sirsi Corporation Mary Ann O'Daniel Florida Center for Library Automation Suzanne Pilsk Smithsonian Institute Sueyoung Park-Primiano New York University Jacqueline Radebaugh Library of Congress Regina Reynolds Library of Congress Colby Riggs LITA Board Steven Riel Harvard University Ruth Rin University of Pennsylvania Alice Rhoades Rice University Beth Siers Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gary Smith OCLC Daniel Starr Metropolitan Museum of Art Gary Strawn Northwestern University Duncan Stewart University of Iowa Julie Su San Diego State University Jennifer Sweda University of Pennsylvania Hugh Taylor Cambridge University Robin Wendler Harvard University Susan Westberg OCLC Terry Willan Talis Information Matthew Wise New York UniversityNotes:
AALL - American Association of Law Libraries
ALCTS - Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
ARLIS/NA - Art Libraries Society of North America
ARSC - Association for Recorded Sound Collections
BL - British Library
CC:DA - Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (of ALCTS CCS)
CCM - Canadian Committee on MARC
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
ISSNIC - ISSN International Centre
JSC - Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
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)
NIMA - National Imagery and Mapping Agency
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 25, 2003
Thom Saudargas, 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 (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/an-02.html) were accepted by a voice vote.
Proposal 2003-01: Defining Subfield $2 in Field 022 for ISSN Center Code
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the paper which proposes defining subfield $2 (Source) in field 022 (International Standard Serial Number) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format. It stems from the ISSN International Centre's (ISSNIC) possible migration to a standard MARC 21-based library system. Adding subfield $2 (Source) to field 022 (ISSN) would allow libraries to identify the ISSN center responsible for assigning and maintaining individual ISSNs and related data. The codes used would be either specified from the ISSNIC's list of ISSN centers or referenced from a new source code list.
Currently, the ISSNIC receives bibliographic data from 74 active ISSN centers in a variety of formats, many of which are based on MARC 21. It records ISSN centers in a local 008 configuration that includes subfields. If the ISSNIC migrates to a MARC 21-based system, it cannot use its 008 configuration because ISO 2709 does not allow subfields in field 008. Moreover, using the current MARC 21 field to record this data (CR 008/20) is not acceptable because 74 codes cannot be recorded in it.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) began the discussion by asking Sally McCallum (LC) whether each ISSN is unique without the source code. Sally McCallum (LC) replied yes. Regina Reynolds (LC) explained that each center in the ISSN Network has jurisdiction over its country's publications, however, when a publication moves to another country, the responsibility of the ISSN maintenance is handed over to the new country's ISSN center. Sally McCallum (LC) asked if the ISSN changes after the maintenance responsibility shifts between agencies. Regina Reynolds (LC) answered no. Sally McCallum (LC) then asked whether anyone, besides the ISSN Network members, uses the ISSN source information. Regina Reynolds (LC) stated no.
Bruce Rennie (RUSA) asked whether two different agencies would ever assign valid ISSNs to the same publication. Regina Reynolds (LC) stated that there is only one valid ISSN in field 022, regardless that it is repeatable. Marti Scheel (NLM) asked if adding subfield $2 (Source) in field 022 field would change catalogers' work flows. Regina Reynolds (LC) did not think so.
Rich Greene (OCLC) wondered whether the records containing the present coding for ISSN Center (i.e., field CR 008/20) would become unusable if the proposal passes. Greene predicted that possible problems may develop if systems receive records containing ISSN source information from two different fields. One action that may prevent these problems would be to convert existing records to the new practice and redistribute the authenticated records. Agencies receiving CONSER records from the Library of Congress could then reload all of the records reflecting the new coding. Gary Smith (OCLC) maintained that OCLC would be able to move the 008/20 data into field 022 subfield $2 with relative ease. Mitch Turitz (RUSA), however, reminded the group that an obsolete content designator may continue to appear in records created prior to the date in which it was made obsolete. Joe Altimus (RLG) agreed with OCLC that the field 008/20 data should be moved to the 022 subfield $2 in existing records. Regina Reynolds (LC) maintained that regardless how the library community dealt with legacy data, it is important that the ISSN centers have a place to record source information when they migrate their database to a standard MARC 21-based library system.
If the data in field 008/20 is not converted, however, the meaning of value blank (No ISSN center code assigned) in field 008/20 may become ambiguous. Code blank (#) could either mean that no ISSN center code was assigned, or that the position is obsolete and the ISSN center is indicated in field 022. According to Rich Greene (OCLC), one possible solution is to redefine code z (Other) in field 008/20 to indicate that the ISSN Center code is found in field 022 subfield $c. All existing MARC 21 records would then still be valid so that there would be no need to convert existing records. The proposed changes would not make field 008/20 coding ambiguous because the need to check field 022 would be triggered by code z in field 008/20.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested that subfield $2 in field 022 should also be defined in the authority and holdings formats. Regina Reynolds (LC), however, stated that the ISSN source information would not be maintained in authority or holdings records for the ISSN record originates from a bibliographic entity and thus, maintained only in the bibliographic record. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) suggested that MARBI vote on the proposal as written and consider adding subfield $2 to the 022 fields in the authority and holdings formats when a need arises. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that the paper be amended, however, to make CR 006/03 (ISSN Center) field obsolete to match its corresponding 008 value. The group agreed.
Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) motioned to pass the proposal as amended. Bill Jones (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0.
Proposal 2003-02: Definition of Subfield $u (URI) in Field 538 (System Details Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper which proposes defining subfield $u in field 538 to link a MARC record to a description of technical details concerning the creation of digital resources.
Robin Wendler (Harvard University) described the Digital Library Federation's (DLF) initiative to define requirements for and establish a service that registers the existence of persistent digitally-reformatted and born digital monograph and serial publications. This registry service will allow institutions to share information about resources that have been digitized. As part of the first phase of planning for the registry, a DLF Digital Registry Working Group has developed guidelines describing the functionality of the digital registry. The guidelines detail the MARC 21 data elements that may be used to describe materials that an institution intends to digitize, as well as born digital materials. One of the elements considered essential is information concerning the technical standards used in creating archival master copies. This information may be a description or a pointer to a description that is too lengthy to be included in the record itself. The DLF felt that field 538 (Systems detail note) would be the appropriate MARC 21 field to record this technical information. Subfield $u (Uniform resource identifier), if defined, would allow for linking to an external description of the technical standards used in a digitization process.
Marti Scheel (NLM) questioned whether technical details concerning the creation of digital resources should be included in the bibliographic record. She felt that it may confuse users. Robin Wendler (Harvard University), however, stated that the registry information would be used by catalogers, reference librarians and preservationists and is thus, appropriate for the bibliographic record. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) was also concerned that the information may be difficult to migrate and update in systems if it becomes obsolete. Robin Wendler (Harvard University), however, stated that information recorded in field 538 would be high-level data that should not become obsolete. Examples of information that would be recorded in field 538 are: (1) Benchmarks for conversion of monographs and serials; (2) Project specific specifications; (3) Project minimal requirements.
John Attig (OLAC) suggested that subfields $3 (Material specified), $i (Display text) or subfield $y (Link text) be added to field 538 for use with the display and identification of the materials described in subfield $u. Rebecca Guenther (LC) explained that subfield $y (Link text) is only used in field 856 (Electronic location and access) and thus, may not be appropriate for field 538. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) also wondered if field 538 should be added into the holdings format because the recorded information could relate to an individual copy. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) agreed with her. He also supported RLG's suggestions that the field definition and scope of field 538 be revised to specify the new use of the field. Examples of subfield $u should also be added to the documentation.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as amended. Marc Truitt (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 as amended.
Discussion Paper 2003-DP01: Data Elements for Article Level Description
Karen Coyle (RUSA) introduced the paper which explores bibliographic data elements used to record citation information of journal articles. The idea began with an internal program that loaded records from abstracting and indexing databases which parsed citation data elements that were then lost when loaded into field 773 subfield $g. Although field 773 (Host Item Entry) has been used to link a record to journal citation data, the citation data elements are recorded as free text in subfield $g (Relationship information) and are not parsed into separate subfields. The paper discusses ways to facilitate automated linking from MARC 21 records, such as what is intended in the CrossRef project or the developing OpenURL standard. Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that she did not expect that libraries would create this data in MARC. They may need to exchange it, however.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) reported that many libraries record citation information in field 773 subfield $g and thus, have work routines already in place for it. Bill Jones (LITA) questioned whether citation information should continue to be encoded in field 773 subfield $g if one of the proposed actions passes. Karen Coyle (RUSA) answered that field 773 subfield $g continues to be useful to libraries that generate cataloging from it. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) stated that regardless of a change in the format prompted by this discussion paper, small libraries would probably continue to use 773 subfield $g to create analytics.
David Goldberg (NAL) reported that the NAL uses field 773 subfield $g information regularly. It prefers option 4.5. (Add a variable field that parses the data elements) when subfields are used to indicate levels of chronology and enumeration. Marti Scheel (NLM) stated that NLM prefers option 4.3 (Add one subfield for enumeration and first page) with the date being placed in the 008 field. Rich Greene (OCLC) favored option 4.5. (Add a variable field that parses the data elements). He also maintained that citation information is valuable for indexing.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked if there would be any difficulty in linking field 363 (from option 4.5 (Add a variable field that parses the data elements)) to its corresponding 773 field. John Attig (OLAC) answered that field 773 is repeatable and thus, linking should be possible when coding subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number). Karen Coyle (RUSA) reminded the group that the OpenURL provides linking mechanisms.
John Espley (AVIAC) wondered if option 4.5 (Add a variable field that parses the data elements) should include captions. Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that if captions are included, systems must parse through them. She suggested that subfield $i could follow each subfield to provide captions. Accurate captioning is difficult to accomplish, however, because libraries usually receive data that does not contain clear captioning information. Accordingly, Sally McCallum (LC) warned that generating captions from field 773 subfield $g may cause inaccurate catalog displays. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) suggested that MARBI dismiss the idea of captions all together. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) agreed because captions could be generated by field 773 subfield $g or by the SICI recorded in field 024 (Other Standard Identifier). Mitch Turitz (RUSA) also wondered if the absence of caption information would create retrieval difficulties. Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) suggested that libraries could retrieve using date and enumeration information recorded in the holdings record.
Alan Danskin (BL) reported that fields 363 and 364 were suggested in Proposal No. 2002-14/9 (Defining fields 363 (Trade Price) and 364 (Trade Information)) which was deferred during the annual 2002 ALA meeting. The British Library plans to present a revised proposal for the annual 2003 meeting. Therefore, a different field should be used either for citation data or for trade price.
A straw vote was taken about which approach should be presented in a future proposal. Fourteen people voted for the 4.3 approach (Add one subfield for enumeration and first page to field 773) and seventeen people voted for the 4.5 approach (Add a variable field that parses the data elements). It was decided that both options will be presented in a proposal for the annual 2003 meeting.
Discussion Paper 2003-DP02: Coding Graphic Images in Leader/06 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper which discusses changing the definitions of codes "g" (projected medium) and "k" (two-dimensional nonprojectable graphic) in both the Leader/06 and field 007/00 (VM).
According to John Attig, OLAC agreed that the distinction between moving and still images should be made clearer in the formats. He also found that the current definitions of codes "g" and "k" do not mirror their uses or deal with digital materials adequately. Rich Greene (OCLC) asked Mr. Attig (OLAC) whether OLAC had a preference on how to code Leader/06 and field 007/00 (VM). John Attig (OLAC) answered that OLAC felt that the distinction between moving and still images should be made clearer, however, how to do so required more discussion.
Martha Yee (ALCTS) agreed that a clearer distinction between moving and still images is important to make in the formats. She described how the term "projection" has been out of date for years. The UCLA Film and Television Archive, for example, uses code "g" for video, regardless that video is usually not projected. Rich Greene (OCLC) asked Ms. Yee whether libraries may currently make the distinction between moving and still images using the present coding structure (in particular, coding fields 008/33, 007, 245 $h). She answered yes.
Diane Hillmann (Cornell University) reported that Ken Burns (a movie producer/director) records still images in his films by moving a camera around them. She wondered if Ken Burns' films created by this technique would be coded still or moving in a MARC 21 bibliographic record. Ms. Hillmann (Cornell University) also predicted that there may be other criteria with which to describe these images in the future and thus, prompt MARBI to again change the names of codes "g" and "k" in Leader/06 and field 007/00 (VM). She suggested that MARBI look at a broader range of issues associated with coding images in the MARC 21 formats. John Attig (OLAC) agreed. He also suggested that MARBI create a new convention with which to recognize digital materials.
Robin Wendler (Harvard University) agreed with Rich Greene's suggestion made on the MARC Forum electronic discussion list on January 17, 2003. He wrote:
The [proposed] changes will make all records with value g or k ambiguous; a
receiving system would need to determine whether the Leader/06 is
based on the old definition or the new definition if it is to be indexed or
displayed as intended...One of the primary purposes of Leader/06 values
is to provide a context for interpreting field 008. Redefining values
g and k does not appear to change how field 008 would be coded or
interpreted. Perhaps a better model would be to combine
values g and k into a single code since we are not sure multiple
codes provide any meaningful and useful distinctions, as
described in the paper.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) agreed that distinguishing digital images from non-digital images required more discussion because of the complexities that digital images pose on MARC coding. She also found that coding beyond the Leader codes is usually not consistent in library catalogs. Thom Saudargas (RUSA) stated, however, that the College Center for Library Automation uses Leader values to qualify searches and 007 values to produce labels. Sally McCallum (LC) surmised that labels created from the coded values may not be accurate, however. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) also added that the 008 values are inadequate to bring out information about art artifacts.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) suggested that because there is no community calling for this change, MARBI should study the issues involved before making any concrete decisions. The group agreed that a more in-depth study should be conducted to provide a better understanding of how distinctions between moving and still images are currently made and identify where they might be made clearer in the future. New methods to record the complexities of digital materials should also be explored. Discussion may be held on the MARC Forum electronic discussion list and perhaps then followed by a discussion paper.
Sunday, January 26, 2003
Discussion Paper 2003-DP03: Adding Field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) to the MARC 21 Authority Format
Glenn Patton (OCLC) introduced the paper which discusses adding field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) to the MARC 21 authority format to allow for recording standard identifiers relevant to entities described in authority records. Examples of work and expression level identifiers include the International Standard Text Code (ISTC), International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN), International Standard Musical Work Code (ISWC), International Standard Recording Code (ISRC), and the International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN). Mr. Patton (OCLC) planned to specifically discuss the ISTC.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked Glenn Patton (OCLC) whether the ISTC was a work or expression level identifier. Glenn Patton (OCLC) answered that the ISTC was an expression level identifier. The initial draft of the standard used "work" in its terminology, however, after revision, "work" was taken out of the title and draft standard. Many assignments of the ISTC will occur when the work and expression are identical, however.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked whether several registration authorities will assign the ISTC. Glenn Patton (OCLC) answered that all ISTCs would be assigned out of the same database. The database will provide metadata and will be accessible to organizations assigning ISTCs. The OCLC ISTC Global Registration Service maintains the metadata associated with the identifier. Relating the ISTC to bibliographic and authority records would also be done at OCLC. Susan Goldner (AALL) wondered about which elements were included in ISTC metadata. Glenn Patton (OCLC) replied that the top level elements were: title information, contributor, work origination information (from a controlled list), source work information, language, and information about registration.
Joe Altimus (RLG) asked whether the ISTC will be displayed on items. Glenn Patton (OCLC) answered that there is no mention about display in the latest draft of the standard, however, the working group thinks that publishers would eventually display it on items. Joe Altimus (RLG) suggested that the proposal following this discussion address displaying work and expression level identifiers on bibliographic items.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) maintained that author/title authority records are rarely found in library databases (except in music cataloging). She wondered if assigning ISTCs to records assumes that more author/title authority records would be created in the future. Glenn Patton (OCLC) answered yes. John Attig (OLAC) stated that it was inevitable that authority practices change as the library community continues to integrate the FRBR model into its cataloging practices. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS, NA), however, wondered whether authority records would remain distinctive if they are derived automatically from ISTC information. Glenn Patton (OCLC) thought that yes, they would remain distinctive.
Regina Reynolds (LC) explained that an ISTC could be assigned to a serial to collocate serials having the same content in different formats. Karen Coyle (RUSA) wondered if there would be a method to show to what entity the work and expression level identifier belonged. Bill Jones (LITA) suggested that one could use the linking entry fields with subfield $w (Control subfield) to link to another bibliographic record. Sherman Clarke (VRA) agreed. Paul Cauthen (MLA) suggested that another identifier, besides standard identifiers like the ISTC or ISWC, may be used to link bibliographic and authority data together.
John Espley (AVIAC) acknowledged that the discussion assumes that work and expression level records are authority records. This may not be the case for FRBR is for bibliographic records. Thom Saudargas (RUSA) wondered if the bibliographic record could store the ISTC code, or if an authority record should house it. John Attig (OLAC) stated that the authority record should ideally hold it, however, the bibliographic record may also house it. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that the "Functional Analysis of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats" points out that work, expression and manifestation level information exists in bibliographic records. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) agreed.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that the use of field 024 in the authority record may actually tell catalogers something different than the use of field 024 in the bibliographic record. She suggested that some other field be defined in the authority format to house work and expression level identifiers. Glenn Patton (OCLC) answered that the ISTC working group has considered this, however, there are not enough fields left in the authority number and code fields to do so.
Joe Altimus (RLG) suggested that field 024 remain identical in both the bibliographic and authority formats so that catalogers do not become confused when coding them. Bill Jones (LITA), however, suggested that none of the indicator values be defined in the authority format so that only subfield $2 (Source of number or code) is coded. Most of the participants agreed with him.
A proposal to define field 024 in the authority format will be presented during the annual 2003 meeting. It will propose using only subfield $2 to indicate the source instead of coding indicator values.
Discussion of MARC and XML
Sally McCallum (LC) handed out a packet that included both an illustration of the "MARC 21 Tool Kit for the XML Environment" and printed copies of PowerPoint slides about both MARCXML and MODS.
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that in 1995, NDMSO developed two SGML DTDs that included every data element from all five MARC 21 formats. The DTDs allowed for internal validation of SGML records. A few years later, NDMSO released Perl conversion programs to generate MARC SGML records using the DTDs. In 2001 and 2002, the DTDs were converted into XML DTDs.
NDMSO began to develop MARCXML in late 2001. MARCXML is a framework for working with MARC data in an XML environment. It is intended to be flexible and extensible to allow users to work with MARC data in ways specific to their needs. The framework itself includes many components, such as schemas, stylesheets, and software tools. Interestingly, NDMSO has found that MARCXML files are 2 to 3 times larger than files of MARC ISO 2709 records.
MARCXML uses a "slim" schema that represents the MARC data elements as attributes. The "slim" schema is a "bus" that enables other transformations. The MARCXML Toolkit currently includes the following XSLT transformations:
NDMSO has created a character set converter that transforms MARC-8 records to Unicode and back again. The Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) has made a file of MARCXML records available for testing and experimentation.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) then described MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema) to the group. MODS is a MARC 21 companion, or subset, that is simpler than MARC, but uses MARC 21 semantics. Some of the data from MARC is repackaged in MODS, however. For example, the <genre> element in MODS replaces several genre elements found in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. MODS also uses language-based tags without many coded values.Electronic resources are important targets for MODS. For example, the <relatedItem> structure supports the hierarchy needed for complex digital objects. Several experts working on digital library projects gave important input on the development of MODS. As a result, it includes a digital origin element and several date types specifically used in digital projects. It also includes elements for electronic resource identifiers. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reported that the following MODS elements are not found in the MARC 21 formats:
MODS is useful with Z39.50 Next Generation (ZING). It is also an extension schema to METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) for descriptive metadata and is the recommended format for representing MARC metadata in OAI (Open Archives Initiative). It may also be used for original resource description records and as XML metadata that may be packaged with an electronic resource. MODS is currently used in several Library of Congress projects, such as MINERVA (Mapping the INternet Electronic Resources Virtual Archive), web archiving projects and OAI collections.
Bill Jones (LITA) wondered if the record length in Leader/00-04 is recalculated when MARCXML transforms an XML record into an ISO 2709 record. Sally McCallum (LC) answered yes. Bill Jones (LITA) also asked whether MODS allows for round-trip conversion. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that MODS schema allows only for lossy transformations. Karen Coyle (RUSA) suggested that MODS is more a derivative than a subset of MARC. Rebecca Guenther (LC) agreed.
Karen Coyle (RUSA) expressed confusion about whether MODS is a standard or an experimental metadata format. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied by rhetorically asking the group what exactly a standard is. Without going through the rigorous review period through which most standards go, ONIX, for example, is still considered a standard. OAI is another example of a standard that has not gone through the normal standard channels. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that interested parties join the MODS electronic discussion list to participate in the development of MODS.
Library of Congress Report
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that Update No. 3 (October 2002) to all five MARC 21 formats is available from the Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS). The 2002 online edition to the MARC 21 Concise Formats was also made available in November 2002. The printed edition will be available from CDS in early 2003.
The MARC organization codes will no longer be issued in a printed document. It is now and will continue to be maintained in a searchable online database. Information about this database may be found at: www.loc.gov/marc/organizations/. The 2002 edition of the MARC Code List for Geographic Areas is now available from CDS. Moreover, a new edition of the MARC Code List for Languages will be issued in early 2003.
CDS continues to sell subscriptions to its popular Classification Web product. After only six months of being available to the public, it has accumulated over 900 subscribers. Because of Classification Web's popularity, CDS has discontinued its Classification Plus product.
Finally, the Network Development and MARC Standards Office, along with the Standards and Support Office, National Library of Canada, have signed an agreement with the British Library to harmonize its UKMARC format with MARC 21. Most of the changes to the MARC 21 formats needed to support the harmonization were made in Proposal 2002-14, "Changes for UKMARC Format Alignment."
Marc Truitt (LITA) reported on the program, "Don't be Dysfunctional: How to Put the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic records (FRBR) in Your Future." It will be held during the annual ALA conference in Toronto. The program will be sponsored by ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) CC:DA and cosponsored by MARBI and RUSA. According to Mr. Truitt (LITA), the program will occur on June 22, 2003 from 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM. Information about this program is located online.
Rich Greene (OCLC) reported on the pre-conference about FRBR that MARBI will cosponsor (in name only) with other ALA bodies. The pre-conference will be held during the Thursday and Friday before the annual 2004 conference. The Thursday meeting will provide introductory information and the Friday meeting will provide a more in depth discussion about FRBR.
Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) described the work of the Joint Steering Committee's Format Variation Working Group to facilitate expression-level collocation in online systems. The group is studying about how to adapt the AACR2 chapter 25 (Uniform Titles) to the FRBR model. It is also studying how the GMD (General Material Description) relates to forms and modes of expression. The Joint Steering Committee's Format Variation Working Group will prepare a report about its work for the annual 2003 ALA conference in Toronto.
Members of the audience wondered whether MARBI should hold a joint meeting with CC:DA during the annual 2003 ALA conference. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that no plans be made for this meeting until both MARBI and CC:DA finalize their meeting schedules.
Thom Saudargas (RUSA) also reported that he has attempted to update the ALA MARBI web page. However, because he has been having difficulties doing so, he has decided to simply link the page on the ALA website to the MARC Standards website. Therefore, the Library of Congress may maintain MARBI documents with greater ease and efficiency.
MARBI will meet at its usual times in Toronto:
June 21, 2003: 9:30 - 12:30
June 22, 2003: 2:00 - 5:30
June 23, 2003: 2:00 - 4:00
Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress