MARBI Meeting Minutes

ALA Midwinter Conference
Philadelphia, Pa. -- February 4-6, 1995

MARBI Members:

Priscilla Caplan         LITA           Univ of Chicago
James Crooks             RASD           UC Irvine
Shelby Harkin            ALCTS          Univ of North Dakota
William Jones            LITA           New York Univ
Jacqueline Riley	 RASD           Univ of Cinncinnati
Gary Strawn              ALCTS          Northwestern Univ
Flo Wilson               ALCTS          Vanderbilt Univ
Larry Woods              LITA           Univ of Iowa
MARBI Interns:
Josephine Crawford       ALCTS          Univ of Wisconsin
Paul Weiss               ALCTS          Nat. Lib of Medicine
Representatives and Liaisons:
John Attig               OLAG           Penn State Univ
Jui-Wen Chang            RLG            RLG
John Espley              AVIAC          VTLS
Catherine Gerhart        CC:DA          Univ of Washington
David Goldberg           NAL            NAL
Richard Greene           OCLC           OCLC
Robyn Greenlund          MicroLIF       Data Trek, Inc.
Rebecca Guenther         LC             LC, Net Dev/MSO
Karen Little             MLA            Univ of Louisville
Sally McCallum           LC             LC, Net Dev/MSO
Susan Moore              MAGERT         Univ of Arizona
Patricia D. Sesha        ARLIS          Frick Art Ref Lib
Marti Scheel             NLM            NLM
Stuart Spore             AALL           NYU Law
Arlene Taylor            SAC            SAC
Rutherford Witthus       SAA            Univ of Colorado
Young-Hee Queinnec       NLC            NLC
Other attendees:
Joan Aliprand            Research Libraries Group
Hiroko Aikawa            Cleveland Public Library
Virginia Berringer       University of Akron (Ohio)
Diane Boehr              Castabile Associates
Candy Bogar              DRA
Roger Brisson            Pennsylvania State University
Ann Case                 H.W. Wilson Co.
Sherman Clarke           Amon Carter Museum
Marilyn Craig            University of Houston
Carroll Nelson Davis     Columbia University
Emily Epstein            University of Colorado at Boulder
Ching Eue                Houston Public Library
Lori Franz               University of Michigan
Linda Gabel              OCLC
Bob Hall                 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Susan Hayes              New York University
Lynne Haymon             University of California, Riverside
Donna Heist              University of Iowa
Renee Helinas            Getty Trust, Bibl of History or Art
Beth Helsel              Clemson University
Harrietta Hemmasi        Rutgers University
Elaine Henjam            Florida Center for Library Automation
Diane Hillmann           Cornell Law Library
Gail Hodge               NASA Center for Aerospace Information
Elizabeth Geery Holmes   Roger Williams University Law Library
Lee Ireland              DRA
Bruce Johnson            Library of Congress
Coby Johnson             University of Montana
Sherry Kelley            UCLA
Ken King                 University Microfilms Inc.
Jim Kuhn                 University of Akron
Mary Charles Lasater     Vanderbilt University
Sara Shatford Layne      UCLA
Sandra Lindberg          (not supplied)
Dorothy Lourdou          New York Public Library
Winslow Lundy            Bryn Mawr College
Joan Lussky              Technology Horizons
Peggy Mahan              Jenkins Law Library
Bethany Mendenhall       Getty Center
Carolyn Miller           University of Michigan
Catherine Nelson         University of California, Santa Barbara
M. Diane Raines          Retro Link Associates
Debra Shapiro            Chicago Historical Society
Margaret Shen            Cleveland Public Library
Sushila Sheih            Manchester College
Jackie Shieh             University of Virginia
Judy Silverman           Canadian Centre for Architecture
Patricia Sistra          Frick Art Reference Library
Holly Schmidt            Blackwell North America
Judy Silverman           Canadian Centre for Architecture
Sally Sinn               National Library of Medicine
Ann Sitkin               Harvard Law School Library
Gary Smith               OCLC
Steven J. Squires        University of North Carolina
Daniel Starr             Museum of Modern Art
Lennie Stovel            RLG
Jennifer E. Sweda        University of Pennsylvania
Louise Swold             Cuyahoga County Public Library
Millie Della Terza       Houghton Library, Harvard
Cecilia Tittemore        Dartmouth College Library
Belinda Urquiza          Library of Congress
Bob Warwick              Rutgers University Libraries
Robin Wendler            Harvard University
Gregory Wool             Iowa State University
MARBI Recorder:
Josephine Crawford       University of Wisconsin
                        February 4, 1995
Chair Priscilla Caplan welcomed members and guests to the first
MARBI meeting of the 1995 Midwinter Conference.  After introductions
around the table and a review of the day's agenda, the meeting
moved quickly to the first proposal of the day.
PROPOSAL No. 94-10 : "Encoding of Patent Information in the
USMARC Bibliographic Format"
This proposal was introduced by Sally McCallum.  The original
request had come from the LC National Translations Center which
is now closed.  Patent depository libraries have been set up in
each state, and the NASA Library has a strong collection as well.
If the proposal is passed, Sally is looking for a few interested
libraries, in order to work with them and hammer out problem
The descriptive data elements for patents have been standardized
at both the national and international level using an INID
numbering scheme (INID stands for Internationally-agreed Numbers
for the Identification of Data).  Many of these data elements can
be mapped to one or more USMARC fields, but some cannot be mapped
at all.  In order to accommodate all of the bibliographically
significant data elements from the patent document standards,
some new USMARC data elements are proposed in Section 6 of the
John Attig opened the discussion by questioning what is being
described.  Sally responded by stating that the "bibliographic
item" in a patent collection is a patent description with one or
more cover sheets (e.g. both a US and a foreign application).
The cover sheet(s) describe the patent document and its
processing state, such as filing and publication data.  The
patent document itself is a description of the patent.  She went
on to state that the purpose of the proposal is for catalogers to
be able to catalog patent documents added to their collections,
not to convert specialized patent records maintained by the U.S.
Patent Office.
John Attig questioned why the proposed 013 field is repeatable.
Would this be for each cover sheet?  Answer: The field is
repeated when more than one number is assigned to the patent.
Rich Greene suggested changing $n (Number) to $a to be more
consistent with the other number fields.
Sally suggested striking two 013 codes ($c Kind of document code
and $h Country code) because they are already found in the 008
Someone else questioned separate 013 subfields for both $g
country name and $h country code.  Are both needed?  Why not just
the code with a display constant?
Paul Weiss believes that it is important to avoid new content
designation when possible.  For example, the kind of document
code might be handled by a 655 field.  Also, should the $k be
linked with the number?  If not, it would be better in the 655,
that is, if record level.
Someone suggested looking at various alternatives.  For instance,
perhaps a subfield could contain either a name or the matching
code.  Has a standard code list been completed?   Can documents
have either a name or a code?  Is it worth having both in the
USMARC record?  Perhaps require one of the two?
Subfield $g (Country Name) should be parallel with $h (Country
code).  Bill Jones suggested that the last sentence of the $h
description be added to the $g description.
Sally agreed to look further into the $c (Kind of Document code)
by consulting with patent library staff.
It was questioned if the various dates ($d, $e, and $f) are
important for tracking purposes.  The dates relate to the
document as a whole and are very important legally.
The description on page 12 needs more clarification to
distinguish the three date subfields.  Sally will check into
whether the $d is the date published, the date of receipt, or
just whatever date is available.  Larry Woods asked if all the
dates remain on the cover sheet; yes, Sally thought.
It was suggested that a single subfield might work for all three
dates where each date has a qualifier in parentheses.  Priscilla
suggested following the ISBN form where the $d has the date and
the $f has the kind of date or qualifier.  From a programming
point of view (both display and indexing), Karen Coyle prefers
an explicit subfield code for each type of date.
Randy and Sally want to look into using the 008 field for the
language.  They plan to look at various examples first, but they
may delete the $l from the 013 field if they think the 008 fixed
field will suffice.
Young-Hee Queinnec would like to see the note-like data be more
consistent with other notes in USMARC.  For instance, perhaps $i
(Information Phrase) could be placed in another standard field,
like 506, 540, or 037.  There is some discussion about merging
506 and 540 anyway.  There was consensus in the group to use the
appropriate 5xx note field.  Will need to look into linking entry
fields and a linking entry complexity note.
Page 8, INID 71 should read "applicant" and not the plural form.
Priscilla pointed out that the $c description on page 11 contains
a requirement for left justification and this is not normal for
variable fields.
The structure of the number in $n is YY-AANNNNN where YY contains
the last two digits of the calendar year.  Sally expects that we
will need a four digit year code at the turn of the century, and
suggests changing the form now.  Gary Strawn wonders if the
cataloger shouldn't record what is present on the item itself,
two- or four-digit as appropriate.  It was agreed to write a
letter to NISO to ask them to change to all four digits for the
Paul Weiss asked if catalogers would normally follow AACR2?  Where
possible/applicable.  Will a 300 field be included?  Will names be under
authority control?  Will any punctuation rules be followed?  Paul sees a
problem in supplying 7xx indicators.  Sally responded that the
cataloger can use any USMARC tagging that is appropriate, and
that the same issues raised by Paul relate to any records created
where AACR2 is not followed (such as GILS records).
A motion was made by Gary Strawn for LC to rework the proposal
for the June meeting, taking into account the various comments
and questions.  The motion was seconded by Bill Jones and Shelby
Harkin.  The motion was passed.
PROPOSAL 95-1 :  "Changes to Field 856 (Electronic Location and
Access) in the USMARC Bibliographic Format"
This proposal was introduced by Rebecca Guenther.  The title
should be changed to "Bibliographic/Holdings" Format.  There are
several specific purposes in these changes:
     -- want to align $2 with the Internet Uniform Resource
Location (URL) draft standard.  (Lenny Stovel pointed out that
there have been several recent changes and the standard now
exists as an Internet Request for Comments (RFC) document.)
     -- add hours of host computer.
     -- add ability to handle non-Internet resources ($b, $r, $v)
     -- add value "3" to first indicator for dial-up.
Priscilla suggested a discussion strategy:  first, talk about
proposed changes; second, talk about what we don't like about
this field.
Paul Weiss suggested standardizing the form of the phone number
for automatic logon (area code + 7-digit number).  What about
local dialing needs, where a 1 or 9 is needed to get an outside
line?  What about in-house extensions?  For international calls, a
country code is also needed.  Is there any NISO activity to
standardize phone numbers?  Agreed to include this suggestion in
the letter to be sent to NISO in near future.  Bethany Mendenhall
suggested using subfields for country code, area/city code, etc.
But not enough subfields are available unfortunately.
A consensus was reached to begin with the country code, followed
by the other numbers in logical order.  A hyphen will be used as
a separator, and an "X" will be used before the extension.
  Example:  $b 1-213-1234567-X1234
Rebecca agreed to look at the Community Information Format to see
about bringing those phone numbers into consistency with this
In regards to $j (baud rate), highest to lowest syntax was
thought to be confusing.  It was agreed to change $j to "Lowest
BPS - Highest BPS."
In regards to $r (parity), it was agreed to specify all
possibilities in the description:  O (Odd), E (Even), N (None),
S (Space), and M (Mark).
Karen Coyle asked if the $b (access number) could be repeatable?
Because some systems have more than one number.  If the different
access numbers must be correlated to a specific baud rate, than a
new 856 should be used for each.  Agree to repeat the $b only if
all the information in the rest of the field applies.
Rebecca is writing guidelines for LC staff, and she plans to post
them to the bibliographic community.
In regards to $u (Uniform Resource Locator), Bill Jones asked if
the URL label should be used.  Rebecca responded that the
presence of the label complicated access to their Web server.
She is ready to remove it from the example since it is redundant
anyway.  It was requested for instructions to be added for when
it is possible to repeat the $u; it can be repeated if the rest of
the data in the field applies.  Rebecca will also add more
What will happen when other developing Internet standards like
Universal Resource Name (URN) and Universal Resource Identifier
(URI) are ready?  This question will be quite complex, involves
version issues, total remake of MARC, etc.
A motion was made by Gary Strawn to accept the proposal as
amended.  Another member seconded the motion.  The motion was passed.
PROPOSAL 95-5 : "Addition of Subfield $b to Field 154 (General
Explanatory Index Term) in the USMARC Classification Format"
This proposal was also introduced by Rebecca.  LC staff didn't
think a 154 field $b was needed in the original creation of the
classification format.  But, they have now found a need in
limited situations during LC classification conversion.  These
situations are described in the proposal.
It was not clear from the proposal if multiple occurrences of
subfield $b are to imply successive levels of the index term, or
as alternatives at the same level.
The idea of 95-5 is to align classification field 154 with field
753.   Paul Weiss pointed out that in field 753, if you have a $u
you have to also record a $d, which is contradicted by the
example in 95-5.  After brief discussion, it was agreed to reword
the description of the field so that $d is NOT required.
Gary Strawn made a motion to pass the proposal as amended.  Flo
Wilson seconded the motion.  The motion passed.
DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 80 : "Defining a Component Item Entry Field
in the USMARC Bibliographic Format"
This discussion paper was introduced by Lennie Stovel of Research
Libraries Group.  Two RLIN libraries currently use a local field
to contain information about items that are constituent parts or
elements of an item being cataloged.  There are two separate
aspects to the proposal:  description of the constituent parts
and linking to an electronic location. The discussion paper
suggests the creation of a new linking entry field, 774, for the
description.  The 856 field could be used for electronic location
and access, linked to the 774 by a $8.  Alternatives are
described in sections 6 and 7 of the paper.
John Attig suggests another possibility : using the $8 in various
repeating fields for a more complete description.  He worries
about large numbers of 774 fields, creating a monster record.
However, Lennie believes that RLIN hasn't hit any record size
limitations (Sherman added though he knows of one case where the
size of the record caused an artificial separation).  Catalogers
do tend to separate large collections into logical subsets.
Rich Greene mentioned the multi-level description rule in AACR2
13.6A.  The cataloger can create sets of paragraphs, each level
independent.  This is not well implemented in USMARC.
Robin Wendler reported that Harvard is using a local field in the
same way as the other RLIN libraries.  It seems appropriate for
extensive content information.
John prefers separate records with links.  However, if a separate
title does not exist, there is no 245 for the separate record.
Diane Hillmann believes that a range of options are needed due to
the real-life variations present in materials and workload and
system factors.  Priscilla Caplan noted that three cataloging
options have existed to date (added entries, content notes, and
separate analytic records); is a fourth option necessary?  Sally
McCallum stated that the analytic approach is thought to be the
standard approach.
Paul Weiss suggested yet another alternative: use an 844 field in
the holdings format.  May need more subfields for this situation.
One problem though is putting bib information in the holdings
Supporting Diane Hillmann's point of view, Robin Wendler thinks
that the 789 approach works well for certain types of materials
(e.g. drawings in a set).  Several projects independently came up
with the same solution, an argument for its usefulness.
Lennie pointed out that RLIN did not attempt to standardize all
the field's subfields, so that there could be local definition
appropriate for the local collection.
Susan Moore, representing MAGERT, stated that topographical
sheets have been done as analytics. Due to the large number, if
done as multiple 774 fields, would fill up the record real quick.
John Attig pointed out that a 774 field, in the linking block of
fields, is not really a linking field, it is a description, so
another tag would be better.  Sally pointed out that linking
fields can link to a "virtual record."
Although, Sally wondered if linking fields shouldn't have a URL
for the object they are pointing to?  The paper sort of
recommends putting the URL in an 856, rather than use the 774 as
in the RLIN applications, in order to make use of an existing
MARC field.  John doesn't think that we should be too restrictive
in placing URLs in 856 fields only.
It was agreed to flesh out these issues in a second discussion
paper.  "Linking" needs to be better defined in this context.
Paul Weiss volunteered to work with LC staff on the description
issues.  John Attig feels that the component part definition in
USMARC needs to be changed and should be looked at as part of the
second discussion paper.
Larry Woods announced that a Unicode meeting would take place on
Sunday night at 7pm in the RLG Suite at the Marriott.  Have much
work to do.
Sally McCallum announced that a new USMARC specifications
document has been published; now includes Arabic and
Extended Arabic.  Holdings Format Update #2 has been published.
Are working on Bibliographic Update #1 to be published in August; it
will include the 1995 Format Integration changes as well as the June
'94 - Jan '95 approved changes.
Sally asked for advice on republishing the Concise edition.  It
is really out of date now.  Do people use it?  Several copies had
been brought to the conference!  Perhaps an electronic concise is
the way to go, like the Format Integration Concise which was just
posted on Marvel.
What about the Relator list?  It has much description; it is not
yet on Marvel.  There is agreement that an electronic version is
Recent questions have come up regarding language codes.  NISO has
come up with a new list, with all USMARC codes plus some new
ones.  Sally intends to redo the USMARC list to match NISO's, and
also add some other needed Canadian codes.  The ISO list of
language codes is in progress, but this will be a very slow
process internationally.  It is mostly the same as USMARC,
except for about 20 codes which are different based upon
political compromise.
It was announced that Marvel now has WAIS indexing, and the menu
picks were recently reorganized.  Some members would find it
helpful if the USMARC list was archived more often than monthly.
The Phase I Format Integration training has been completed by LC
trainers.  The records will be distributed next month.
Sally announced that the year 1998 has a special significance,
because LC would have been assigning LC card numbers for 100
years!  Some system changeover will be required, so that
1898/1998 and later years do not conflict.  Sally is writing up
this problem which will be posted on the USMARC list as DP84;
she requested input about the impact on various systems.
Priscilla Caplan announced that a special email list exists of
voting MARBI members only.  The first electronic vote occurred
last fall on Proposal 94-17a (New Proposed Field 786: Source of
Data Entry).  Priscilla asked if the vote was allright and if
more electronic votes should occur in the future?  She reported
that ALA may come up with a standard policy on electronic votes
in the future.
Shelby believes that an electronic vote only works on
straightforward issues.  Flo agrees; she finds there is much
value in meeting discussion for complex votes.
                       February 5, 1995
The second meeting was opened by MARBI chair Priscilla Caplan.
About seventy people attended.  Priscilla asked Rebecca Guenther
of LC to introduce the first proposal.
PROPOSAL 95-3 : "Addition of Subfield $6 (Linkage), Field 066
(Character Sets Present), and Field 880 (Alternate Graphic
Representation) to the USMARC Holdings Format."
The purpose of 95-3 is to allow the use of non-Roman data in
holdings fields as needed by libraries; known examples include
captions, notes, parts of call numbers, and the name of the
holdings institution.  The Research Libraries Group has already
seen situations requiring use of the $6 for this purpose.
The proposal seeks to define subfield $6 in all variable fields
of the Holdings Format except 010, 027, and 841 (because the
matching fields for these tags in the Bibliographic Format do not
contain $6).  The proposal also defines Field 066 (Character Sets
Present) and Field 880 (Alternate Graphic Representation).
John Attig pointed out that, when the holdings format was
originally approved, it was explicitly stated that non-roman data
would not be accommodated and that subfield $6 could be used for
linkage.  Rebecca explained why it seems appropriate to change this
earlier decision now.  The impetus of the proposal to change $6 to $8
in the holdings format was the later development of the classification
format; also, the possibility of accommodating non-Roman data in
the holdings format was mentioned in Proposal 91-3 when the
Subfield $6 was changed to Subfield $8.
Larry Woods pointed out that the Unicode implications are still
There was discussion about the 022 field in the bibliographic
format, with general agreement that the 022 should be added to
the list of fields NOT containing a Subfield $6.
Bill Jones made a motion to pass the proposal, with an amendment
regarding the 022 field; a second was made.  The motion passed.
PROPOSAL 95-2 : "Definition of Subfield $v for Form Subdivision
in the USMARC Formats."
This proposal was also briefly introduced by Rebecca Guenther.
Currently form subdivisions are put into Subfield $x (General
Subdivision), even though there are specific subfields for
chronological ($y) and geographic ($z) subdivisions.  The 1991
Airlie House Subject Subdivisions Conference recommended the
creation of a separate subfield code for form subdivisions.  As a
follow-up, the ALA Subject Analysis Committee formally submitted
a request to LC.  There have been two discussion papers (DP 74
and DP 79) preceding this proposal.
Arlene Taylor, representing the ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee,
pointed out that several thesauri make a distinction between form
and topic.  Even though the implementation issues are complex,
Arlene asked MARBI to support thesauri wishing to code a pre-
coordinated subject string with a form subdivision identified as
such.  Historically, MARBI decision-making has followed a
principle that the USMARC formats are responsible for "content
designation" and not the actual content; Arlene requested that
the same principle be applied today.
Lynne El-Hoshy, representing LC Cataloging Policy and Support,
summarized the situation from the point of view of her office.
They have heard from several quarters that separate coding would
be beneficial for pre-coordinated headings.  Subfield $v and the
655 field are both helpful; they are not mutually exclusive; they
complement one another.  LC needs to develop a plan for the use
of the 655 (the fiction project is using the 655 field now).
It is recognized that there are times in cataloging other materials
when a form heading is only appropriate as a subdivision and not
as a 655.  Lynne also reported that, as desirable as implementing
the Subfield $v in 6xx fields is, LC cannot consider retrospective
conversion until the LC system allows for global update.
Josephine Crawford reviewed the results of the MARBI questionnaire
distributed on the USMARC list last fall.  There were 22 responses,
representing a good mix of organizations.  Questions 4-14 dealt
with the issue of whether or not a "minimal implementation" was
feasible; for some organizations, a minimal implementation
involves only a small or reasonable amount of work; however, for
LC Cataloging Service, even a minimal implementation is not
insignificant.  The questionnaire showed that a minimal
implementation is feasible in many systems because a $v can be
treated exactly like the $x in terms of indexing and display.  A
minimal implementation allows new cataloging records to be
created with precise subfield coding.  Only after retrospective
conversion of existing files, does it make sense to take on the
larger system task of treating the $v differently from the $x (in
terms of indexing and display).
Questions 15-23 dealt with the issue of retrospective conversion.
Work needs to be undertaken to improve upon the conversion
algorithm presented in the questionnaire, because respondents
prefer the conversion to be as automatic as possible.  Some
excellent ideas were suggested in the remarks.
Rich Greene opened the discussion by citing the general
desirability of $v, and supported the view that a 655 field
cannot act as a replacement for the $v.  He believes that the
USMARC format should support both, since both are valid
cataloging mechanisms in use by the cataloging community.
John Attig suggested that MARBI discuss the paper recently
distributed by Arlene Taylor on the USMARC list, thereby taking
the meeting right into the implementation issue.  As chair,
Priscilla Caplan decided that this discussion direction would be
Wearing her hat as a researcher who is interested in consistent
and efficient OPAC displays, Arlene worked with a sample of 565
LC records from the OCLC database.  She acted like a conversion
program, comparing each subject heading against a draft list of
dual-functioning headings.  Then, she reviewed the titles for
"aboutness" versus "form."  Only 2% of the headings were wrong,
an acceptable error rate in her view.  She also discovered some
specific patterns which a conversion program could handle.
Priscilla asked for a showing of hands: is defining Subfield $v a
good idea, apart from conversion?  About half the people in the
room raised their hands.  Lennie Stovel said that she was
convinced on the thesaurus side, but not yet on the display side.
Sherman Clarke emphasized the importance of this proposal to the
non-book bibliographic communities.  Diane Hillmann sees it as
the old chicken/egg issue: unless $v is defined, we cannot expect
systems to program it in and make use of it in OPACs.  Paul Weiss
emphasized that the NLM can supply converted records for loading,
since NLM's internal system maintains the distinction.
Priscilla asked for arguments against defining Subfield $v.
The discussion revolved around the cost/benefit issue and what
priority implementation might take.  John Espley maintained that
vendors can do it, although users will need to pay for it
ultimately.  Robyn Greenlund sees it as the cost of doing
business.  Sally McCallum sees overwhelming support in this
meeting, and concludes therefore that libraries will be willing
to pay for both conversion and OPAC enhancements.  Flo Wilson is
not so sure that libraries will put implementing $v as a high
priority.  Robyn pointed out that library directors are not
generally present at MARBI meetings.  Larry Woods did not agree
with Flo.
It was acknowledged that the big impact on systems will hit when
the utilities start supporting the $v.  Bill Jones is
particularly concerned with the implications of record migration,
from utility to system to utility to system, etc.  What do OCLC
and RLG plan to do?  Lenni Stovel spoke on RLG's behalf.  RLG
will add the Subfield $v to its system, if approved by MARBI.
There are no plans to convert.
Linda Gabel spoke on OCLC's behalf.  OCLC staff are supportive of
the principle behind the $v proposal.  Unfortunately, current
OCLC validation programs are based upon subfield coding;
therefore, data validation will not work very well unless
retrospective conversion is done.  OCLC will have to write new
software, if conversion is based upon an algorithm assuming the
form subdivision is the last element in the field.  Implementing
$v for MeSH headings will be much less difficult; it is
worthwhile to pass the proposal for MeSH and AAT.  LCSH requires
more analysis.  Sally Sinn asked how the MARC documentation would
address this?  Perhaps use the phrase "as defined by the
thesaurus being used."
The ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee would like to see a
coordinated, well-planned implementation, with perhaps MeSH and
AAT being the lead thesauri, followed by LCSH on the schedule
acceptable to LC and the utilities, organizations which must by
necessity juggle many competing projects.
Priscilla asked for a straw vote of voting members only, in order
to gauge if discussion of specific proposal details was
appropriate at this time.  Six members voted in favor, and no
members voted against in the straw vote.
Priscilla asked everyone to turn to page 8 of the proposal to
review the specific wording and the applicable fields.
John Attig pointed out that something must be done with the 755
At one point in time, x00 $k was defined for form subheadings; thus,
an editorial change will be needed in the documentation.
In the authority format, Jui-wen Chang asked if the form
subdivision be recorded in a $v or $a?  To be consistent with
current practice, it was agreed to use the $v.  Paul Weiss
suggested that a 185, 485, and 785 would be better than 183, 483,
and 783.  Sally and Rebecca will look into this.
It was agreed to use a Bibliography example on page 11 in place
of the Early Works to 1800 example.  MeSH and AAT examples must
also be added.
Priscilla asked if anyone had any comments to make, for or
against.  John Espley stated that the vendors would very much
appreciate more analysis on display issues.  Arlene agreed that
this is something that SAC will do, in addition to more work on
conversion issues and implementation phasing.  A query could also
be sent to the USMARC list about display issues.
Flo Wilson made a motion to accept Proposal 95-2 with the
following amendments:  add MeSH and AAT examples; use 185/485/585
fields in authority format unless already in use; change the
Early Works example.  Bill Jones seconded the motion.  Six
members voted yes, and one member voted no.
John Attig urged the MARBI Committee to be concerned with the
implementation issues of $v, perhaps through regular reports at
the MARBI business meetings.  Others at the meeting felt that the
ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee would be the best place for
overall coordination to take place (i.e. across all thesauri).
DISCUSSION PAPER #82 : "Merging Field 755 with Field 655 in the
USMARC Bibliographic Format."
Sally McCallum introduced the paper.  Due to the fact that it has
not been possible for catalogers to distinguish form/genre from
physical characteristics in a consistent fashion, it is proposed
to merge the 755 field with the 655 field.  The SAC Subcommittee
on the Nature and Use of Form Data could not come up with a
definition which drew a sharp distinction, and this group
supports the merge. The Library of Congress Graphical Materials
Thesaurus gives instructions on how to use the 755 field, but the
responsible people are happy to drop the 755 field and use the
655 field instead.  There has been some email discussion on the
topic, without a clear consensus emerging.
Rutherford Witthus, representing the Society of American
Archivists, spoke in favor of the merge.  The archival community
has discussed this issue in depth; most agree that it is too
difficult to make the distinction for all materials.  In
addition, no systems index the 755 field separately from the 655
field (others in the audience agreed that they knew of no systems
where the two fields are indexed separately).  Therefore, there
seems to be no real advantage in making the distinction between
form/genre and physical characteristics.
One member of the audience pointed out that there is a need to
describe copy-specific information.  This problem is solved since
the 655 has a $5 with a copy-specific link.
The next step is for a proposal to be generated from today's
discussion.  If this is done, what will be the name of the new
655 field?  Would conversion be undertaken, and what are the
Gary Strawn moved for a proposal to be brought back to MARBI to
make the 755 field obsolete in favor of the 655 field.  His
motion was seconded by Larry Woods.
DISCUSSION PAPER #83 : "USMARC Authority Records for Genre/Form
Rebecca Guenther introduced the paper.  There is a need to
support the authority control of genre/form headings, by adding
to the USMARC authority format.  Two options are discussed in the
paper.  Option 1 would create X55 field for genre/form.  Option 2
would use additional codes in the 008 field to indicate the heading's
use as genre/form.
Rebecca noted it is particularly desirable to provide MARC coding
so that a reference structure across thesauri can be supported
(i.e.  LCSH now uses "Livres a clef" whereas the Guidelines on
Subject Access to Fiction, Drama, etc. use "Romans a clef.").
Rebecca also pointed out that the paper is NOT discussing
authority record changes in support of occupation and function
terms used in 656 and 657 fields in the bibliographic format.
Arlene Taylor, representing the ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee,
came out supporting Option 1 due to the fact that 655 fields are
usually involved and a single database often has headings drawn
from multiple thesauri.
John Attig, speaking on behalf of the ACRL Rare Books community,
believes there is a strong need to distribute thesauri as
authority files.  He has a weak preference for Option 1.
Paul Weiss also prefers Option 1, because the result would
parallel $v authority records.
The Research Libraries Group does not support Option 1, because
there will not be enough tags if later separate tags are
requested for function, curriculum, occupation, etc.  Priscilla
suggested the possible lack of enough free tags be addressed
Apparently, Toni Peterson from AAT questions whether there would
need to be duplicate records in the authority file if Option 1
were used.  AAT has a policy of using the same heading if already
used by another thesauri.  This may result in duplicate validation
if the same term is used for both topic and form.  Paul Weiss said
that the 008 field would tell people.  Sherman Clarke pointed out that
AAT does not try to control use, just the vocabulary form.
Arlene Taylor pointed out that LCSH has some dual terms, and
different X-refs may be necessary; this fact supports the need
for two authority records.
On page 9, the $v is used as a place for the Record Control
Number.  Given that 95-2 was passed earlier, Priscilla said that
it is clear that another subfield is needed.
It was agreed to move the issue to the proposal stage.  The
proposal should use Option 1, with development of 008/18 in
relation to it.  Pros and cons should be discussed.  It was also
agreed that the occupation and function terms should NOT be
considered as part of this proposal.
To everyone's surprise and delight, the meeting ended 45 minutes
                     February 6, 1995
Larry Woods is chairing the MARBI Unicode Subcommittee; other
members include Joan Aliprand (RLG), Randall Barry (LC), John
Espley (VTLS), Robyn Greenlund (MicroLif), Gary Smith (OCLC), and
Paul Weiss (NLM).  Larry reviewed the principles under consideration:
round trip mapping of characters, preserving the identity of
USMARC characters, transliteration tables should remain
unchanged, want to continue to follow the practice of decomposed
characters, and mapping punctuation and numbers to a UCS
repertoire.  The Subcommittee has completed mapping for Basic and
Extended Latin characters sets, and will next tackle Hebrew, Arabic, etc.
Larry wants to set up a schedule for completing the different
parts of the project, and will post a written report on the
USMARC list in the near future.
Sally McCallum brought up the issue of SGML mark-up language and
its relationship to USMARC records:
     1) It might be possible to append USMARC records to SGML
	  documents in some consistent manner.
     2) If electronic books are coded in SGML in a consistent
          fashion in the future, could a cataloging record be
          generated automatically?
LC is looking for funding to pull together experts of both USMARC
and SGML for discussion.
Priscilla Caplan reported that OCLC is hosting an invitational
meeting on "metadata" in early March.  Movers and shakers of the
Internet community, the Text Editing Initiative (TEI), and the
visual imaging community are invited in addition to library folk.
Will try to reach a consensus on how to describe and prioritize
electronic resources, and will deal with the affect on USMARC,
SGML, TEI, etc.  A full report will be prepared for MARBI for
discussion at the June meeting.
PROPOSAL 95-4 : "Merger of the 27X fields in the USMARC Format
for Community Information"
Rebecca Guenther introduced Proposal 95-4.  Recently Field 270
was added to the bibliographic format (see Proposal 94-9).  Would
now like to align the two formats by using Field 270 only in the
Community Information Format and making Fields 271 and 275
obsolete.  Would also add a $r and $z to Field 270 to be
equivalent to the field in the bibliographic format.
Lee Ireland, representing PLA/CIS, pointed out that the needs
between the bibliographic and community information communities
needs are different.  Asked MARBI to examine the concept of
complete alignment to the bibliographic format.  One example is
the following:
     Primary address (a recreation dept)
     10-25 Secondary addresses (parks, branches, auxiliary service
		     points, different mailing addresses, etc.)
Lee is not at all sure if all address needs will be met if the
proposed change occurs.  It must be possible to easily update
addresses.  It must be possible to easily organize like
addresses.  This gets complicated.  One must also take into
account what is already present in the 1xx/245 fields.
Another member of the audience spoke up with display concerns.
Won't it be more programming if the type of address must be
checked for display purposes?  The type of address is buried in
the $i.  If separate fields are not possible, another indicator
would be helpful.
Priscilla Caplan asked if it would help if the indicators were
re-defined from primary/secondary to agency, program, mailing
address, etc.  John Espley replied that both primary/secondary
address coding is needed, as well as type of address like
program, agency, mailing.  The community information people would
like a more flexible approach to address types.
Robyn Greenlund suggested that the mailing address be the
default.  Paul Weiss had a different suggestion:  let the first
indicator be the agency or program, and the second indicator show
if a mailing address or not.
Diane Hillmann pointed out that home/office addresses may be
needed, because a person's name may be in the 100.  She suggested
that specifying at the indicator level may be too restrictive.
Bill Jones asked if the $i should come first, to facilitate its
use (the 246 is a precedent for this).  Larry Woods did not
agree.  And, John Attig suggested that indicators be used
wherever the most computer processing will be done.
Marti Scheel pointed out that the universe of options has not
been covered in the first indicator code.  Priscilla suggested
adding a "blank" to mean "no info available."
The PLA group would like to talk with more people, to come up
with a better proposal.  Perhaps the hours should be in a $v, not
$r.  Definitely want to consider different indicator schemes, and
probably include "blank indicators" to provide more flexibility.
John Attig added that it is nice to be in parallel with the bib
format, but he does not feel that it is always a practical idea.
John Espley added that users would very much like to have input
guidelines, to help them use the CI format more easily.
Priscilla asked a question about the $4 relator code.  What would
this code show a relationship to?  Rebecca responded that the $4
would contain a code for the type of address, whereas the $i
would show the free-text form of the type of address.  Rebecca
further added that relator codes can be added easily to USMARC.
It was agreed to rework the proposal, taking into account the
PLA/CIS group input.  The distinction between primary and secondary
addresses needs to be maintained.  Examples would be very helpful in the
next proposal (probably in missing pages from Attachment A).  LC NDMSO
will rework as a proposal with options after PLA advises.
PROPOSAL 95-7 : "Change of tag 301 to 307 in the USMARC Format
for Community Information."
Sally McCallum introduced the proposal and characterized it as
being somewhat straightforward.  As a result of changes to the
bibliographic format to accommodate online systems and services,
a field was added to the bib format to record hours.  Field 301
was initially suggested, to be consistent with the Community
Information format.  But, this was not possible since 301 had
already been used.  Since obsolete tags cannot be reused with a
different definition, 307 was approved in the bib format.  It is
now proposed to change the provisional 301 field in the Community
Information Format to tag 307.
Sally pointed out that some users want the two formats to mesh
together; this will cut down on systems work, allow a system to
load both types of records in the same file or database if
desired; or support cross-file searching if separate files are
Robyn Greenlund pointed out that not all format alignments will
be worth people's time.
John Espley asked if the proposal had been discussed as of yet by
the Community Information MARC Format Discussion Group.
Gary Strawn made a motion to approve the proposal as is.  His
motion was seconded.  There were six votes in favor and no votes
PROPOSAL 95-6 : "Linking Code for Reproduction Information in the
USMARC Bibliographic Format"
Sally McCallum introduced this proposal by reminding attendees
that the $8 linking technique was approved at an earlier meeting,
with the caveat that specific linking codes will be approved
separately.  If this proposal is approved, it will be the first
instance of a linking code, in this case for reproductions.
The proposal assumes the cloning technique, where the
reproduction record is a clone of the original.  After cloning, a
library would add the reproduction descriptive information to the
second record, marked by the $8 linking technique ($8 followed by
the link number followed by a backwards slash followed by the "r"
link code).
John Attig asked if the expectation is that everyone will code
reproductions in this way, if the "r" code is approved.  Or, is
the expectation that the linking would be optional?  Young-Hee
Queinnec believes that the approach should be optional.  Paul
Weiss agrees; he thinks it should be left up to local
library policy.
Sally McCallum brought up the problem of existing records.  There
are many records with 533 and 007 now for reproductions.  The
grandfathering problem must be addressed, ideally where the new
approach will be as consistent as possible with existing records.
John Attig is looking for a tool where libraries can maintain
separate descriptions.  He wondered if there has been adequate
exploration of all possibilities.  For instance, some people use
the 843 field in holdings records now.
Josephine Crawford explained that this indeed is the approach
used at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.  The public
services staff much prefer a single, master bibliographic record
based upon the original with descriptive information for both
original and reproduction.  The reproduction information is then
put partly into the bibliographic record (series entry, for
instance) and partly into the holdings record (007 and 843 fields
usually).  She believes the linking technique will improve
machine control over the master record, but questioned the
assumption that records would be cloned.  This seems unnecessary
in a local system, if the local preference is for a master
record.  The linking technique will allow input/output programs
to merge or split apart as needed for record communication.
Paul Weiss stated that NLM plans to follow the single record
approach.  The earlier proposal (94-15) had a single record
example.  Apparently, there were different interpretations
because he was surprised to see the assumption of cloning.
John Attig pointed out that there must be a holdings record
attached if a master bib record approach is used, to show both
the original and microform locations and call numbers.  Jo Crawford
indicated that this is done at the Univ of Wisconsin, Madison.
Both Diane Hillmann and Paul Weiss had posted examples to the
USMARC list.  It was agreed that more examples would be helpful.
John Espley spoke up with a concern.  Are we backing off from the
multiple versions decision?  He reminded the audience that many
systems do not support the holdings format yet.  Robin
Wendler reminded participants that separate records had been
agreed upon, after much back and forth.  Larry Woods wondered if
we are stumbling over what we communicate versus what we store in
a local system.  Catherine Gerhart stated that it is not clear at
all, but she prefers local system flexibility.  Rich Greene
pointed out that record exchange is multi-directional.  What
might be good for a local system may not work for the utility.
Priscilla added that research libraries want to do more with less
dollars.  She believes that massive quantities of records will be
accepted in the future with no machine or hand editing.  John
Attig said let's not belabor the two records versus single record
Sally McCallum said that the proposal is trying to accommodate
the CC:DA microform guidelines and the large numbers of 533 and
786 fields in existing records.
Others asked how to handle the 533 and 007 fields, for multiple
reproductions plus the original.  By repeating them?  Already a
messy situation.  Another problem is the GMD in the 245 field.
Priscilla Caplan suggested that the $h GMD be stripped from the
record.  John Attig reported that the CC:DA guidelines has the
original GMD in the 245 field, so the examples are in error then.
Bruce Johnson reported that the guidelines were finalized nine
months ago and are just now in print.  He found that original and
reproduction information has been mixed in the same field.  CC:DA
would like all reproduction information to be pulled together; a
533 field is OK but other fields are needed too.  Would it be
possible to have multiple 245 fields?
Robyn Greenlund suggested putting the 014 field into the bib
format.  The microform record would only have micro information
in it, and the 014 would contain a matching control number.
Systems would merge multiple records for display.  John Attig
believes that MARBI decided long ago to not go with the 014
approach.  Sally wondered if the 786 link to the other record
isn't the same technique.  Others agreed it is.
Should the 533 field be required?  Should all subfields be
dropped except for the $a, or keep the same subfields?  Should
other subfields be added?  Sherman Clarke pointed out that the
CC:DA quidelines show that more than 26 data elements are needed,
so more than 26 subfields are needed.  Others agreed that there
might be display problems if all reproduction information is kept
in the 533.  Also, most systems don't index note fields or don't
index them in the same way.
To try to wrap up the discussion, Priscilla Caplan decided to
take a number of straw votes, asking everyone in the room to
1) Does anyone object to separate records for communicating a
reproduction and an original?  Most voted no, a few voted yes.
2) Is it a good idea to have a way of marking version information
on records?  Yes, a unanimous vote.
3) Is the $8 linking technique a good approach?  Yes, unanimous.
4) Should the $8 be required for all reproduction fields,
including the 533, but making an exception for the 007?  Most say
yes, some say no.
5) Just to be clear, should the $8 be required for the 533 and
776, or assumed as occurs now?  Most say yes, two say no.
Diane Hillmann pointed out that the environment is growing in
regards to reproductions.  To be relevant to our users, we must
deal with this issue.  Sherman Clarke emphasized that we must
find a way to link different reproduction descriptions within a
record.  Catherine asked if $8 is a link, a marker, or both?
How will the $8 work if only a 533 field is present in a record, or if
the reproduction data is represented by a set of fields, or if
there are multiple reproduction descriptions in the record?
Priscilla replied that all three situations will occur.  To her mind:
     -- No need for $8 if only a single 533 field in a record and
it contains the entire reproduction description.
     -- Supply $8 if there is a 533 plus other fields for a single
reproduction description.
     -- Supply $8 if there are multiple reproduction descriptions
in the same record, using the link number as appropriate.
Sally envisions $8 links of different types in the same
bibliographic record.  Must have a link number and a link type
In terms of the 533 subfield issue, Priscilla doesn't think we
can address this at this time.
John Espley asked if a back slash is required, because VTLS uses
this to indicate a subfield.  Yes, it is required, as approved at
last MARBI meeting.
It was agreed that the proposal will be modified for the June
meeting in Chicago, reflecting today's discussion.
DISCUSSION PAPER #81 : "Form of Music Code in Bibliographic
The National Library of Canada has requested new codes.  Some LC
staffers think that these codes are redundant with 6xx form
subdivisions and the 655 field.  The music cataloging community
is not unanimous on the issues of musical codes versus form of
composition codes.  Some music catalogers want to add new codes,
others want to do away with them altogether. Right now the codes
go into the 008/18-19, and field 047 when more than one form of
composition is involved.  The list of codes is incomplete at this
time; LCSH has established new musical forms, but the USMARC list
of codes has not been changed.  If codes are kept, do we want to
have a one-to-one correspondence with LCSH?
John Attig believes that some people see potential value for the
codes.  Karen Little knows that a few local systems use the codes
for access.  She suggested putting a notice out on several lists.
Many think codes should be obsolete, but a handful of systems do
make use of them.
A Music Library Association working group has come up with a list
of 50 potential codes, but they raise many questions.  For
example, why not "lieder" in French and Italian?  The terms are
not consistent unfortunately.  The music thesaurus project may
provide a better textual term list in the future.
Young-Hee Quiennec recently forwarded input from the Canadian
music group to LC. Costs should be considered.  John Attig
pointed out that the balance point between codes and text is
changing; there is a cost to put in codes and it is getting
easier for systems to deal with textual strings.
Priscilla thinks that it might be best to make these codes
obsolete, but it is important to hear from the bibliographic
community first.  Sally really encouraged everyone to discuss and
send input to her office, but especially the Music Library
Association and the Canadian MARC Committee.
There was a general consensus that further investigation is
needed before making these codes obsolete.  If the codes are not
made obsolete, then better maintenance is required.  It was also
agreed that codes need not be added by proposal; they can be
added to one of the existing code lists more quickly.

Go to:

Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk (09/03/98)