The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards

MARC Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List


MARC PROPOSAL NO. 2022-FT02

MARC FAST-TRACK PROPOSAL

DATE: May 3, 2022
REVISED:

NAME: Addition of Subfield $5 to Field 788 in MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

SOURCE: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange; Library and Archives Canada; in consultation with OCLC

SUMMARY: This paper proposes adding subfields $5 (Institution to which field applies) to Field 788 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, to allow institutions to use coded value to mark their descriptions in different languages of cataloging for the same resource.

KEYWORDS: Subfield $5, in field 788 (BD); Institution to which field applies (BD); Field 788 (BD); Equivalent description in another language (BD); Control Subfields (BD)

RELATED: 2021-DP09; 2022-02

STATUS/COMMENTS:
05/03/22 – Submitted to the MARC Steering Group for consideration as a MARC Fast-Track proposal.

05/13/22 – Results of MARC Steering Group review - Approved.


Proposal No. 2022-FT02: Addition of Subfield $5 to Field 788

1. BACKGROUND

English and French are official languages in Canada. It is common to find a publication containing both English and French contents in Canada, especially in government publications. As the national library, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) is subject to Canada's Official Languages Act, and it creates English and French bibliographic records for the same resource when the publication contains both English and French contents. These records are defined as "equivalent records" in LAC’s context. As these "equivalent records" are describing the same resource, LAC attaches holdings data to one language record only. Users need to navigate between the two bibliographic records to find the record in their preferred choice of language, and to locate the record with the holding details in order to retrieve the item in the public interface. To resolve this unique use case and to support the access equity to bilingual/multilingual communities, Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange, Library and Archives Canada, and OCLC proposed a new MARC field 788 in the Bibliographic format to record such relationships in Proposal 2022-02.

In 2022 Midwinter MAC discussions, MAC members pointed out that larger communities could benefit from recording the relationships between descriptions in different languages of cataloging if the scope were to be expanded to both unilingual and bilingual/multilingual publications. MAC approved the expansion of the scope, and recommended a follow up proposal to explore second indicator value(s) to address institutional use cases.

The field 788 Name and Definition and Scope referenced in this proposal are based on Proposal 2022-02 and MAC decisions in the 2022 Midwinter meetings. There could be editorial changes during the MARC documentation process. For discrepancies, follow the text in the official MARC documentation.

2. DISCUSSION

When evaluating options to address institutional use cases with CCM and OCLC, subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) was proposed in lieu of the second indicator value option.

Subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) has been defined in "Appendix A: Control Subfields" in the MARC21 Bibliographic, Authority, Holdings, and Classification formats. In the Bibliographic format, subfield $5 has been included as a control subfield in many fields, i.e., 026, 037, 246, and in a variety of 5XX, 7XX, and 8XX fields. Subfield $5 was not included in Proposal 2022-02.

Subfield $5 provides an option to code the relationships specific to an institution between records in different languages of cataloging for the same resource, in addition to the text option in subfield $i (Relationship Information), in order to support the management of these relationship links in a shared environment. The coded value also facilitates the identification and processing of the data for libraries who create the relationship links and for libraries who do not need or desire the relationship links in their local catalog.

In Proposal 2022-02, Section 2: Discussion, the paper recognized that the new field 788 describes a relationship of different language descriptions, while the 76X-78X Linking Entry Fields are about a relationship between different resources. Therefore, Field 788 subfields were proposed explicitly different from what have been defined in the 76X-78X Linking Entry Fields. Many subfields from 76X-78X Linking Entry Fields were not defined in field 788, as the data can be less important for the same resource, such as $h (Physical description), $m (Material specific details) and others. At the same time, the language of cataloging is essential to identify different descriptions of the same resource; subfield $e (Language of cataloging) was defined in field 788 compared to subfield $e (Language code) in the 76X-78X Linking Entry Fields (775 only). The different subfield structure between 788 field and 76X-78X Linking Entry Fields makes it feasible to propose the subfield $5 in the788 field only, without a further review or update of the 76X-78X Linking Entry Fields.

An option of using a new data provenance subfield was considered, but ruled out in the review: field 788 subfields are primarily taken from those in the related record (except for $i (Relationship information), $n (Note), and $4 (Relationship)). There is no identified use case to record granular data provenance information in subfield $i, $n, or $4 at this time. Should a need arises in the future, the data provenance subfield can be proposed then.

In summary, an addition of subfield $5 to Field 788 in the Bibliographic format allows flexibility to accommodate local, institutional needs, and is proposed in lieu of the second indicator option discussed in the 2022 MAC Midwinter meetings.

3. PROPOSED CHANGES

In Bibliographic field 788 (Equivalent Description in Another Language), define the following subfield:

$5 - Institution to which field applies (NR)
See description of this subfield in Appendix A: Control Subfields.

4. EXAMPLES

Note: The text in subfield $i in the examples is for illustration purposes.  LAC may revise the text in implementation.

Example 1

In the French record:

788 08 $i Notice équivalente anglaise : $a Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Adjudicative Services Branch. $t Annual report, management of the RCMP disciplinary regime $x 2293-2240 $w (DLC)ce2014703332 $w (OCoLC)957054514 $w (CaOONL)20147033322E $5 CaOONL

In the English record:

788 08 $i French equivalent record: $a Gendarmerie royale du Canada. Direction générale des services d'arbitrage. $t Rapport annuel, gestion du régime disciplinaire de la GRC $x 2293-2240 $w (DLC)cf2014703332 $w (OCoLC)957054515 $w (CaOONL)20147033322F $5 CaOONL

Note : a tête-bêche serials publication with English title: Annual report, management of the RCMP disciplinary regime, and French title: Rapport annuel, gestion du régime disciplinaire de la GRC, on inverted title pages. Subfield $w (Bibliographic record control number) taken from Library of Congress Control Number, OCLC Control Number, and Canadian National Bibliography Number in the related record.

Example 2

In the French record:

788 08 $i Notice équivalente anglaise : $t Strength in diversity. $d [Ottawa : Royal Canadian Mounted Police, c1990] $w (OCoLC)1007850007 $5 CaOONL

In the English record:

788 08 $i French equivalent record: $t Strength in diversity. $d [Ottawa : Gendarmerie Royale du Canada, c1990.] $w (OCoLC)1032877092 $5 CaOONL

Note: Title transcribed from the video recording: Strength in diversity = La diversité, notre richesse, in English and French records. Canadian National Bibliography Number was not assigned. Subfield $w (Bibliographic record control number) taken from OCLC Control Number in the related record.

5. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

In Field 788 (Equivalent Description in Another Language) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, define the following subfield:

$5 - Institution to which field applies (NR)


HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
(06/13/2017)
Legal | External Link Disclaimer Contact Us