MARBI Meeting Minutes

ALA Annual Meeting
Atlanta, GA, -- June 15 - 16, 2002

MARBI members:

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

MARBI Interns:

Bruce Rennie                RUSA     Kansas City Public Library
Marc Truitt                 LITA     University of Notre Dame

Ex-Officio Members:

Alan Danskin British Library Sally McCallum Library of Congress Margaret Stewart National Library of Canada

MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Joe Altimus               RLG         Research Libraries Group

John C. Attig             OLAC        Pennsylvania State University
Paul Cauthen              MLA         University of Cincinnati
Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Wei Jeng-Chu PLA/CIS Indian Trails Public Library District John Espley AVIAC VTLS 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 Shelby Harken SAC University of North Dakota Maureen Killeen A-G Canada A-G Canada 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 Mark Watson CC:DA University of Oregon

Other Attendees:

Lynda Aldana                          Johns Hopkins University
Rich Aldred Haverford College
Everett Allgood New York University
Karen Anspach Mandarin Library Automation
Jeanne Baker University of Maryland
Matthew Beacon Yale University
Sophie Bogdanski West Virginia University
Bobby Bothmann University of Minnesota
Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester
Tadeja Bresar Institute of Information Science - Slovenia
Lois Chan University of Kentucky
Renettte Davis University of Chicago
Lynn El-Hoshy Library of Congress
Helen Gbala ExLibris, Inc.
Jane Grawemeyer Sirsi Corporation
Ruth Haas Harvard University
Charles Husbands Harvard University
Jane Johnson UCLA Film & Television Archive
George Johnston University of Cincinnati
Arlene Klair University of Maryland
Andrea Leigh UCLA Film and Television Archive
Wen-ying Lu Michigan State University
Mary Menke Northeastern University
Jan Militello Bound to Stay Bound Books
Linda Miller Library of Congress
Sarah Mitchell Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Catherine Nelson University of California, Santa Barbara
Patrick Newell California State University at Fresno
Mary Ann O'Daniel Florida Center for Library Automation
Ed O'Neill OCLC
Jackie Radebaugh Library of Congress
David Reynolds Johns Hopkins University
Bill Russell Geac Computer Corporation Ltd.
Ann Sitkin Harvard University
Julie Su San Diego State University
Robin Wendler Harvard University
Beth Siers Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ann Sitkin Harvard University
Gary Smith OCLC
Lori Smith Bound to Stay Bound Books
Gary Strawn Northwestern University
Julie Su San Diego State University
David Thomas Sirsi Ltd.
Paul J. Weiss University of California, San Diego
Greg Whitney École Polytechnique de Montréal
Matthew Wise New York University
Johan Zeeman The Library Corporation

Saturday, June 15, 2002

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

Proposal 2002-13: Changes for Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) Subject Headings

Ed O'Neal (OCLC) introduced the paper which presents changes that are needed to accommodate the FAST subject heading scheme in the MARC 21 formats.

Marti Scheel (NLM) expressed concern with using value "d" (Deleted) in the Leader/05 (Record status) field and suggested using value "o" (Obsolete ) instead. She maintained that using the same code for different purposes may cause system problems. Because code "d" is a transaction code, it may not load into many systems. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) maintained that using code "o" for obsolete may also help with label displays. Lynn El-Hoshy (LC) also suggested that for the codes to be effective, the differences between obsolete (code "o") and delete (code "d") should be stated in their definitions. Rebecca Guenther (LC) reminded the group that libraries would not load FAST records into their systems since FAST records would remain in the FAST system.

Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) expressed concern that the FAST project would eliminate professional catalogers who are trained to apply LCSH for subject cataloging. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) stated that FAST was created for non-professionals, however, professionals would still be needed to apply the full LCSH standard. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) also reported that CORC users requested a system like FAST. Christina Meyer (LITA) asked Mr. O'Neal if non-professionals would have access to FAST records for she could not imagine that they would be able to interpret subfield $w (Control subfield). Ed O'Neal (OCLC) told her that OCLC would create a user-friendly input display for non-professionals.

John Attig (OLAC) stated that FAST is designed for post-coordinate searching. Ellen Crosby (RUSA), however, replied that she did not think many users would use post-coordinate searching techniques. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) reported to the group that a front-end system would also be developed to aid users when searching with FAST headings. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) also wondered how FAST headings would interface with other systems and how they would display in WorldCat. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) stated that FAST headings would display in the same fashion as other thesauri headings currently display.

Paul Weiss (UC Davis) reminded the group that it is not the role of MARBI to evaluate the utility of FAST. The group should only discuss how the MARC 21 formats can accommodate it.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked if a separate record would be created for each heading. Mr. O'Neal (OCLC) stated yes, however, he also added that single facets of headings would not be contained in separate records. According to Ed O'Neal (OCLC), once a LCSH heading is broken up to create FAST headings, the headings cannot be put back together to create the original LCSH heading. Joe Zeeman (The Library Corporation) asked if an algorithm would be used to break LCSH headings up to create FAST headings. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) stated yes. Sherman Clarke (VRA) questioned if FAST headings would contain subfield $x (General subdivision) after they had been broken up. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) again replied yes. Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked if subheadings would be contained in separate fields of bibliographic records. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) stated yes. Karen Coyle (RUSA) also wondered if the coding in fields 040 (Cataloging source) and 008 would supply the only identification of a FAST record. Ed O'Neal (OCLC) again replied yes.

According to Marg Stewart (NLC), the CCM suggested that instead of defining the X48 fields for chronological headings, X62 may be a better choice since "4" is associated with titles. Rebecca Guenther (LC) also suggested that field 682 (Deleted heading information) may be needed if the 7XX fields (Heading linking entry fields ) are used for both obsolete and current records.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) made a movement to define fields for chronological headings (LC and NLC will decide on the tag range), $w/1 (Replacement complexity) in the 7XX fields and value "o" (Obsolete) in Leader/05. The definitions of values "x" (Deleted; heading replaced by another heading), "s" (Deleted; heading split into two or more headings) and "d" (Deleted) should be revised to emphasize that they are used for headings that have been removed from authority files. Byron Mayes (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0, with one abstention.

Subsequent discussion at LC, in consultation with NLC, resulted in retaining the X48 tags. Likewise, it was later decided not to change the definitions of Leader/05, values "x" (Deleted; heading replaced by another heading), and "s" (Deleted; heading split into two or more headings) since their current definitions sufficiently emphasized that headings have been removed from authority files.

Discussion Paper 2002-DP08: Dealing with FRBR Expressions in MARC 21

Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) introduced the paper which describes the work of the Joint Steering Committee's Format Variation Working Group to facilitate expression-level collocation in online systems. The paper also discusses possible approaches to achieving the collocation using the MARC 21 holdings, bibliographic and authority formats. Ms. Bowen added that the task force is investigating the possibility of using FRBR-related language in chapter 25 (Uniform titles) of the AACR2.

Marti Scheel (NLM) suggested that the questions Karen Coyle posed on the MARC Forum on June 3, 2002 should be discussed. Karen Coyle (RUSA) read the questions to the group. They are:

  1. That we make sure that we have a shared concept of what we mean by "work." Although I have seen it defined in a variety of documents, I often have the feeling that we are not using the term in the same way when we speak. Clarifying this early on in the discussion could be of great benefit. I suggest that examples would be very helpful.

  2. That we have a statement of goals for FRBR, and that we spend some time in particular on what we wish to accomplish for the library and catalog user, which should precede the determination of cataloging and technical services goals.

  3. That we consider the possibility that FRBR and MARC are not compatible. It's a scary thought but I'm also uncomfortable at trying to fit FRBR and MARC together before we really understand what FRBR might mean for us. Will we limit its development if we insist that it be implemented in MARC? Are we open to other possibilities?

John Attig (OLAC) suggested that the group create an operational definition of a work. He also felt that user needs should be addressed during the discussion. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that FRBR was not developed with MARC in mind for it was produced to help library users find information. Likewise, Bruce Rennie (RUSA) felt that FRBR could enhance the connection between circulation and bibliographic records and essentially help users find items easier in libraries. John Espley (VTLS) agreed that users could make a request at the work or expression level and find all of the associated manifestations with more accuracy. He, however, felt that making the distinction between a work and expression was difficult to do. He also stated that VTLS has implemented a FRBR display module in its system.

According to Matthew Beacon (Yale University), librarians should rethink their catalogs on a FRBR level to show relationships among MARC records. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) however, wondered how libraries could distribute records and still maintain FRBR relationships. John Attig (OLAC) envisioned that FRBR could be effective if an algorithm could be created to show these relationships in library catalogs. Joe Zeeman (The Library Corporation) reminded the group, however, that most MARC records are for single works with single manifestations. It is important that there be no adverse impact on them.

According to Matthew Beacon (Yale University), FRBR is the best conceptual model of bibliographic relationships that the library community currently has. Rich Greene (OCLC) replied that many library agencies are trying to move FRBR from a conceptual model to a working one. For example, OCLC is currently trying to "FRBRize" WorldCat. Mr. Greene felt that authority data may express works and expressions better than bibliographic data. Likewise, Everett Allgood (New York University) reported that a CONSER task force is studying how FRBR affects serials. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) felt that the group should look at the authority and holdings formats in the future to ascertain where expressions and manifestations reside in MARC records.

Bill Jones, Chair, reminded the group that the joint meeting with CC:DA on Monday, June 17th was dedicated to FRBR. He suggested continuing the current discussion then.

Proposal 2002-11: Repertoire Expansion in the Universal Character Set for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics

Marg Stewart (NLC) introduced the paper which proposes that the character repertoire permitted in MARC 21 be expanded to include all of the characters from the Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics set. The proposal covers records in UCS/Unicode only. Ms. Stewart reported that if the proposal passes, some documentation changes must be made to the MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure, Character Sets, and Exchange Media (

Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) motioned to accept the proposal. Christina Meyer (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7-1 in favor of the proposal as written.

Proposal 2002-6R: Changes in Field 008 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

Tom Saudargas (RUSA) introduced the paper which proposes adding additional codes to field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) to identify methods of acquisition. The paper also proposes renaming fields 008/08-11 from "Intent to cancel date" to "Expected end date." Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that she endorses the new codes, but is confused by the proposed name for fields 008/08-11, "Expected end date." Tom Saudargas (RUSA) explained that serial subscriptions may not end when acquisition contracts are canceled.

Byron Mayes (LITA) motioned to accept the proposal. Karen Coyle (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as written.

Proposal 2002-12: Levels of Enumeration

Linda Miller (LC) introduced the paper which considers the need to code publication pattern subfields $v (Numbering continuity), $u (Bibliographic units per next higher level) and $x (Calendar change) in fields 853-855 when only one level of enumeration is present. These changes could enhance predictive check-in and eliminate inconsistencies in coding. The proposed changes would result in a coding practice switch and revision of subfield descriptions. They would not, however, change the content designators used.

There have been the following objections to allowing restart at the first level:

  1. It may affect descriptive cataloging records since it varies the order of elements for prediction.

  2. There may be legacy issues involved with changing the definition.

  3. There may be a possible difficulties in compressing records.

Paul Weiss (UC Davis) stated that he also opposed the proposal because he felt that NISO should deal with these issues in the Z39.71 standard. Moreover, according to the Z39.71 standard, allowing restart at the first level has negative implications for display.

Frieda Rosenberg (University of North Carolina) reported that the proposal is not universally supported by all members of the Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings, which sponsored it. She felt that the proposal would redefine subfields $u and $x so that they would no longer relate a lower level to a higher one. In cataloging practice, the year is used as the first level of designation and the repeated numbering is designated at the second level. No repeating values should appear in subfield $a (First level of enumeration). Ms. Rosenberg felt that the problem discussed in the proposal is related to systems' capabilities and not to the specifications outlined in the MARC 21 holdings format. When chronology is used alone in the enumeration subfields, prediction works. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) agreed with Ms. Rosenberg by stating that the problem is purely vendor-specific. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS), however, stated that the real problem is with serial publishers. He felt that MARBI cannot continue to change the MARC 21 holdings format to fit the publishers' diverse methods of numbering serials.

John Attig (OLAC) suggested treating the year as part of the enumeration. Linda Miller (LC) answered that this would force one to repeat the year with multiple levels of enumeration. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that in the ABA Journal example, the chronology is at the first level while the second level remains the same. Therefore, there is one level of enumeration and two levels of chronology. A display problem occurs when there are more levels of enumeration than chronology.

Frieda Rosenberg (University of North Carolina) reported that the second part of the proposal requests that subfield $x be authorized at the highest level of enumeration. Subfield $x now indicates the chronological point when the "next higher level" increments or changes. Since it is not repeatable, there would be no need to use it at more than one level. It applies to all levels. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that LC would look into the wording used in the format and revise it accordingly.

Helen Gbala (ExLibris) stated that from a vendor's point of view, the proposed changes enhance prediction capabilities. She felt, however, that MARBI should decide whether the MARC 21 holdings format will support display or prediction for both cannot be accommodated in it. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) suggested taking Proposal 2002-12 to the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging for review. Helen Gbala (ExLibris), likewise, suggested that it be sent to the Serials Standards Committee.

Bruce Johnson moved to reject the proposal and refer it to the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging and the Committee for Serials Standards for review. Michael Fox seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0.

Proposal 2002-15: Defining field 065 (Other Classification Number) in the MARC 21 Authority Format

Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the paper which proposes adding field 065 (Other Classification Number) to the MARC 21 authority format to record classification numbers that come from schemes not accommodated in other classification number fields. The classification numbers are those related to the 1XX heading in established heading records.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as written.

Library of Congress Report

Sally McCallum (LC) reported that Update No. 3 for all five formats and the 2002 edition of the MARC Code List for Languages will be issued in the fall of 2002. The 2002 edition of the MARC Code List for Geographic Area Codes will be released in late summer.

Ms. McCallum also told the group that ClassWeb is now available ( from CDS. Pending successful migration to ClassWeb, ClassPlus may be discontinued. The print schedules will continue to be printed.

Web Authorities, which will provide access to LC authority data via the Web, will be available on a trial basis beginning July 1, 2002. Name, subject, and title authority records, (including series authority records) will be available to search, display, and download at: Not included in this release are Z39.50 functionality, the full MARC 21 character set for display and download of authority data, and approximately 2,300 subject subdivision records in the Library of Congress Subject Heading file. LC will collaborate with Endeavor Information Systems to add Z39.50 functionality and the other features in future releases of Web Authorities.

MARCXML was just released by NDMSO ( Its framework 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, style sheets, and software tools.

NDMSO has also released the "Metadata Object Description Schema" (MODS). The target for MODS is the description of electronic resources using a MARC compatible and resource compatible schema. MODS is intended to carry selected data from existing MARC 21 records, as well as to enable the creation of original resource description records. It includes a subset of MARC fields and uses language-based tags rather than numeric ones. In some cases, MODS also regroups elements from the MARC 21 bibliographic format. Information about it is located at:

Business Meeting

Bill Jones, Chair, reminded the group of the joint meeting with CC:DA on June 17th. He also reported that there will be a joint meeting with CC:DA at next summer's meeting in Toronto. A joint committee is currently planning the program. MARBI may also sponsor a pre-conference program during the 2004 annual ALA conference.

Mr. Jones reported that the following MARBI members' terms are completed following the annual 2002 meeting:

  Ellen Crosby (RUSA)
Bruce Johnson (ALCTS)
Bill Jones (LITA)
Byron Mayes (LITA)
Christina Meyer (LITA)

He wished them the best of luck and thanked them for all of their hard work during their tenures. The next chair will be Tom Saudargas (RUSA).

Marti Scheel (NLM) reported to the group that Sally McCallum (LC) has received the LITA/Gaylord Award. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) also presented Bill Jones with a certificate of appreciation for his role as MARBI chair.

Sunday, June 16, 2002

Proposal 2002-14: Changes for UKMARC Format Alignment

Proposal No. 2002-14/1: Revision of 008/22 (Target audience) values in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the paper which proposes the revision of field 008/22 (006/05) (Target audience) values. Rich Green (OCLC) pointed out that the proposed definitions of codes "c" (Pre-adolescent) and "d" (Adolescent) overlap. To fix this discrepancy, Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that value "c" (Pre-adolescent) end with age 13.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) asked if the new definitions were advantageous for libraries in Canada. Marg Stewart (NLC) answered that yes, the new definitions would work better for Canadian libraries than the previous ones.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with the suggested amendment to the definition of code "c" (Pre-adolescent). Tom Saudargas (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.

Proposal No. 2002-14/2: Definition of value in 008/20 (ISSN Center) for United Kingdom in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the paper which proposes reinstating value "2" (United Kingdom) in serials field 008/20 (006/03) (ISSN Center). John Attig (OLAC) suggested that MARBI either support the request or find another method to represent the entire list of ISSN Centers in the bibliographic format. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) told the group that although there are 73 different ISSN Centers, there is currently only one request to represent a particular ISSN Center. The group should address the specific need now and look at supporting all of the ISSN Centers when the need is acknowledged. Sally McCallum (LC) added that most ISSN Centers currently use an older version of the MARC formats. If they update their systems in the future, they may request a method to identify individual ISSN centers.

After Rebecca Guenther (LC) pointed out that most ISSN Centers use variable fields for identification, Tom Saudargas (RUSA) suggested adding a subfield to field 022 (International Standard Serial Number) to identify ISSN Centers. John Attig (OLAC), however, pointed out that adopting the proposed code in field 008/20 would not affect any other community's cataloging efforts.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal. LC should consider how to extend the character position since there are many more ISSN Centers than codes available. Ellen Crosby (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.

Proposal No. 2002-14/3: Definition of 008/21 (Music parts) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the paper which reinstates field 008/21 (006/04) (Music) for music parts. John Attig (OLAC) stated that OLAC had no objections to the proposal. Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that MLA also had no objections.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.

Proposal No. 2002-14/4: Definition of 008/33 (Transposition and arrangement) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the proposal which defines character position 008/33 (006/16) (Music) for transposition, arrangement and pitch information. John Attig (OLAC) stated that OLAC had no objections to the proposal. Paul Cauthen (MLA) stated that MLA also had no objections.

Rich Greene (OCLC) reported OCLC would probably code the position fill (|) for it is difficult to know whether a piece of music has been transposed. He also asked how one would code music that has not been transposed. Alan Danskin (BL) answered that such music would be coded blank.

John Attig (OLAC) suggested adding "all or part of" to the description of the field to show that all or some portion of the work has been arranged and/or transposed. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal with the change to the field definition proposed by John Attig. Michael Fox (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.

Proposal No. 2002-14/5: Definition of value in 008/24-27 (Nature of Contents/Nature of Entire Work) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the paper which adds code "u" (Standards/specifications) in character positions 008/24-27 (Nature of Contents/Nature of Entire Work) for books and serials. He added that the British Library is a major contributor to SIGLE (System for the Identification of Grey Literature in Europe), not SICKLE, as it appears in the proposal.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) requested an example of a serial standard. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered that the MARC 21 formats are examples of serial standards. Karen Coyle (RUSA) also asked if "standard" was a genre subdivision in LCSH. John Attig (OLAC) replied, yes. Karen Coyle (RUSA) then asked if legacy data would be a problem if the proposal passed. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) doubted that legacy data would be a problematic because he could not imagine people using the byte for retrieval.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written. Ellen Crosby seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.

Proposal No. 2002-14/6: Definition of field 038 (Record Content Owner)

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the proposal which defines field 038 (Record content owner) to record the property rights to data found in MARC records. There was some concern expressed from the group that the British Library would add field 038 to records that it received from other agencies. Alan Danskin (BL) assured the group that the BL would not append field 038 to records originating from other libraries.

Sherman Clarke (VRA) read the following statement from the PCC Steering Committee: "The PCC Steering Committee is concerned that the assertion of intellectual property rights through the use of field 038 could have a chilling effect on record sharing and cooperative cataloging. If this proposal is passed, the steering committee will recommend to the PCC Policy Committee that field 038 is not to be used in CONSER or BIBCO records." John Attig (OLAC) praised the statement for preserving the U.S. and Canadian values of record sharing, while setting usage policies outside of the MARC 21 formats. He did, however, wonder if it was appropriate to record rights information in the 0XX block. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS), however, stated that there is currently no place to enter the data other than in the 0XX block.

According to Rich Greene, OCLC is concerned that it may have to build a rights management system to record the contents of field 038 and negotiate distribution rights with each of its users if the proposal passes. It may also choose not to load records containing field 038 at all. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) warned that the field could begin a trend of not sharing records and also asked about Z39.50 restrictions if the proposal passed. Marti Scheel (NLM) suggested adding a note field to explain the use of field 038. The participants, however, felt that a note field would not sufficiently solve the concerns voiced by the participants. Byron Mayes (LITA) suggested that MARBI could add the field as it is currently proposed, and then revise it at a later date, if needed.

Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that one could use field 038 to signal that a record was in the public domain. Karen Coyle (RUSA) stated that she has seen some A&I vendors place proprietary rights on abstracts in MARC records. She felt that these A&I vendors may find field 038 useful. Christina Meyer (LITA) also pointed out that most libraries keep track of records that they can and cannot circulate. She felt that having a standard field to record circulation restrictions would be helpful. She also suggested that "Record distribution restriction" may be a better name for the field. John Attig (OLAC) suggested that the field be named, "Record rights owner," while Alan Danskin (BL) suggested that the field be named, "Record rights licensor." Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) asked for clarification about the words, "licensor" and "owner." Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) stated that a license is an agreement between two bodies. An owner may not be bound by a contract or licensed agreement. Mark Watson (CC:DA) suggested that all references to "owner" should be changed to "licensor" in the field description.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal with the following amendments: The field will be named, "Record content licensor,"and all references to "owner" in the field description should be changed to "licensor" to ensure that the field would only be used when there is a contract or license in place. Byron Mayes (LITA) seconded the motion.
The vote was 8-0.

Proposal No. 2002-14/7: Definition of field 026 (Fingerprint Identifier)

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the proposal which adds field 026 (Fingerprint identifier) to the bibliographic format for identifiers unique to rare books. John Attig (OLAC) wondered if the UNIMARC structure breaks the fingerprint identifier up into subfields. He also wondered if doing so would cause parsing problems in systems. Joe Altimus (RLG) answered that UNIMARC uses a single subfield for the identifier, along with a source code for rule identification. He also added that parsing depends upon both the fingerprint rules and system that one uses.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written. Ellen Crosby (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.

Proposal No. 2002-14/8: Definition of field 563 (Binding Information)

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the proposal which adds field 563 (Binding information) in the bibliographic and holdings formats. Elizabeth O'Keefe asked if the field was meant for copy-specific information for rare book librarians have expressed interest in using it. John Attig (OLAC) answered that the field could include both copy-specific and non-copy-specific data. Karen Coyle (RUSA) reminded the group that librarians are currently placing copy-specific data in bibliographic records. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) added that copy-specific information is also held in holdings fields. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS) however, stated that bibliographic records contain tracings for access. Holdings records do not accommodate tracings.

Sherman Clarke (VRA) mentioned that the field may also be useful for artists' books. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) questioned whether the field could also be used for binding information. Sally McCallum (LC) wondered if a description of a dust jacket would be appropriate for this field. Subfield $u could then be used to link the field to an image of a dust jacket or trade binding. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) stated, however, that the field is not intended to be used for serials that are bound together for storage purposes. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) suggested that the phrase, "intended primarily for use with antiquarian materials, rare books and other special collections" may be too restrictive since so many communities have expressed interest in it. Alan Danskin (BL) reported that the BL does not object to a broader use of the field. He suggested that examples could be created in the documentation to show how the field may be used. John Attig (OLAC) also suggested that subfield $3 (Materials specified) should be added to the field for identification purposes.

Gail Mazure (MicroLIF) asked if a textual note subfield may be needed to accompany subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier). Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that in the past, indicator values and subfield $y (Link text) have been used to provide context to the URI. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that the link text could be provided in the display.

Bruce Johnson (LC) motioned to amend the proposal by adding subfield $3 (Materials specified) to field 563. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7-1 in favor of the proposal as amended.

Proposal No. 2002-14/9: Define fields 363 (Trade Price) and 364 (Trade Information)

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the proposal which adds fields 363 (Trade price) and 364 (Trade information) to the bibliographic format. He explained that field 037 (Source of acquisition) was not proposed to hold trade information because substantial editing would be required to accommodate it. Karen Coyle (RUSA) remarked that because UK book vendors may require to display trade data together, using field 037 for trade price and field 364 for trade information may hinder such a display.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) envisioned that the fields may provide a bridge between MARC and ONIX. Mitch Turitz (ALCTS) however, questioned the utility of the fields, especially when they are not regularly updated. Mr. Danskin stated that the BL updates trade information in its system. Mr. Turitz then asked about updating the fields when they are distributed to other databases. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that libraries may delete the fields if they do not find the information useful. Marti Scheel (NLM) concurred by stating that NLM would not retain the information in its database.

Karen Coyle (RUSA) questioned the validity of the first indicator, value 0 (Domestic price) and value 1 (Foreign price) of field 363 (Trade price). She felt that "domestic" and "foreign" have subjective meanings. Alan Danskin (BL) explained that the point of view of these terms is that of the book vendor. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) suggested using subfield $h for the country code to which the price applies. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) suggested repeating the field for each country represented. Sally McCallum (LC), however, suggested simply repeating subfield $h. Karen Anspach (Mandarin Library Automation) also asked for clarification of subfield $d (Unit of pricing) in field 363 (Trade price). She wondered if it is a mandatory subfield. The first two examples in the paper, however, do not contain instances of subfield $d.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) stated that MARBI may not be ready to vote on the proposal. Rich Greene (OCLC) asked Mr. Danskin about any possible repercussions if the proposal is presently deferred. Alan Danskin stated that it may affect the UK book vendors, but not the British Library for it does not distribute trade information. Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) suggested that anyone who has other concerns with the proposal should contact LC directly to incorporate into a revised proposal.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) moved to defer the proposal. Ellen Crosby (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0.

Proposal No. 2002-14/10: Add Euro and Eszett to MARC character set

Alan Danskin (BL) introduced the proposal which suggests expanding the MARC 21 Extended Latin Character Set to include the Euro sign and Eszett character. John Attig (OLAC) asked if any of the utilities would implement the new characters. Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that OCLC could not presently implement the new characters, but may be able to do so in the future. Until then, OCLC would probably map the Eszett character to "ss."

Gary Smith (OCLC) stated that because the MARC-8 positions "BB" and "BE" have been used in the past, positions "C7" and "C8" should be used for the new characters. Joe Altimus (RLG) stated that RLG does not export "BB" and "BE" characters, but it has seen them used in records. Maureen Killeen (AG-Canada) concurred, stating that AG-Canada also does not export "BB and "BE."

Susan Goldner (AALL) suggested that the section character be added to the Extended Latin Character Set, however, the participants stated that there is currently no proposal for adding it. Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested that the examples be changed in the proposal for they do not reflect U.S. cataloging practices. Alan Danskin (BL) stated however, that since MARC 21 is an international standard, its examples do not have to reflect U.S. practices.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to amend the proposal so that the MARC-8 character positions "C7" and "C8" be used instead of "BB" and "BE." "C7" will be the Eszett and "C8" will be the Euro sign. Tom Saudargas (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0.

Proposal No. 2002-10: Defining URI Subfields in Field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note) and Field 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper which proposes adding subfield $u (URI) to fields 506 (Restrictions on access note) and 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) to provide a link to electronic files containing information on access restrictions, use and/or reproduction of materials. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) stated that the archival community would find the proposed subfield very beneficial. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS) stated that the museum community would also find it useful for bibliographic description.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Michael Fox (ALCTS/SAA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.

Proposal No. 2001-10R: Definition of Additional Codes in Field 007/10 (Type of Material) for Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

Jackie Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper which proposes expanding field 007/10 to describe additional materials used in the manufacture of sound recordings. Paul Cauthen (MLA) asked if a code for cellulose materials should be added. Jackie Radebaugh (LC) suggested that LC further investigate the possibility of adding a code for cellulose materials to the field.

Marg Stewart (NLC) pointed out that there was a typo under code "r" ( Paper with lacquer or ferrous oxide). The heading includes "lacquer," but the description currently does not.

Bruce Johnson (ALCTS) motioned to accept the amended proposal that adds the word, "lacquer," to the description of code "r" and a code for cellulose materials, if needed. Ellen Crosby (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.

Respectfully submitted,

Jackie Radebaugh
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress

Go to:

Library of
Congress Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk ( 10/20/2010 )