2013 Annual Report

PrintEmail

Report of the AALL Representative to the
MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: Patricia Sayre McCoy
University of Chicago D'Angelo Law Library
p-mccoy [at] uchicago.edu

MARBI Meeting, ALA Annual meeting, June 29-30, 2013

Discussion paper No. 2013-DP05: Defining Indicator Values for 588 Source of Description Note in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

This paper discussed defining the first indicator position of the MARC field 588 as a display constant controller to show the correction caption(s) of the note and allow the information in the note to be treated as data elements that could be easily mapper to other formats or used for other purposes. The paper noted that the captions are lengthy, complex and often contain misspellings or variants of the prescribed notes, all of which would be eliminated with the use of a display constant. The paper suggested the following indicators:

Option 1

First indicator
# No display constant generated (used for legacy materials to avoid recoding)
0-Description based on or Identification of the resource based on
1-Latest issue consulted

Option 2

First indicator
# Obsolete
0-Description based on or Identification of the resource based on
1-Latest issue consulted
8-No display constant generated

Several members objected to making an old indicator "Obsolete" and preferred Option 1 for that reason. There was much discussion on the wording of the note and it was noted that the display 1 constant had two suggested wordings, leaving it up to the local library to determine what to use. But there were questions about how that would work with OCLC records-would they have to be edited before or after importing or would libraries just have two notes depending on where the patron saw the record? Other discussion focused on the differences between cataloging serials (which this proposal seemed to address) and cataloging monographs. Serials catalogers frequently combine the source of title note and the description based on note (which requires a date or issue number). Monograph catalogers use the 500 for the source of title note. The source of title note was not addressed in this proposal. Some members objected to the wording "display constant" since it assumes there is a display and so sounds outdated.

Option 1 was agreed upon and a new proposal will be submitted to MARBI Revisited (see later notes for that explanation).

Discussion Paper No. 2013-DP06: Defining New Field 388 for Chronological Terms in the MARC 21 Authority Format.

This will affect law catalogers as it is another new field that was created by the LCGFT headings which do not include chronological subdivisions. This proposal discusses creating a new MARC field for chronological terms representing the date or time period of creation or origin for works and expressions. Formerly these terms were in the subject heading chronological subdivisions, but they are not subjects, but qualifiers or attributes of the work or expression. Since the date of creation of a work or expression (as opposed to the date of the manifestation in-hand, usually the publication date), it was proposed to create this new field. These terms ideally would come from a controlled vocabulary to insure consistency. Although there is no vocabulary yet, the examples used LCSH terms for periods of time and some FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) chronological headings in the examples.

The 046 field does include subfields for date of creation of a work or expression, but are for more precise dates than "eighteenth-century" or "MiddleAges." It was agreed that there was a need for recording the chronological terms for dates of creation in the authority records in addition to whatever was added in the 046, and that it should parallel the use of the 648 field (Subject Added Entry-Chronological Term) in the bibliographic records. It was also agreed that field 388 be used for this purpose.

Common examples of the use of this field would be a sound recording collection made between 1964 and 1979, containing performances of operas from the 18th century, or an anthology of medieval poetry published in 1990. Unlike the parallel bibliographic field 648, this authority field would not include provisions to record the date or time period covered in the work or expression, as this is subject information, which are not included in work or expression authority records.

This field would be used for single works and aggregate works. It was agreed that this field is necessary to hold information that would otherwise not be recorded, and that it should parallel the 648 field in the bibliographic record. Further discussion focused on the need for Best practices for the chronological period for contents of aggregate works since that is where they are mostly needed to describe the date that is really important.

A final question asked if using the first indicator to distinguish the difference between the date/time of creation or origin of a work/expression (including an aggregate work) and the date/time of the creation of the origin of the individual works in an aggregation, but this wasn't clear in the proposal.

It was suggested that a revised proposal be submitted to MARBI Revisited at the ALA Midwinter meeting in January 2014.

Proposal no. 2013-08: Defining Subfield #7 in the 8XX Series Added Entry Fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Record

This proposal was submitted by the German National Library, which does not use the MARC Authority format for series. Instead, series are usually described in an equivalent to a MARC bibliographic record. Because a series can have different bibliographic levels in German-speaking catalogs (a multipart monograph or a continuing resource or monographic series) it is necessary to distinguish in the MARC record for the part whether the field in the 800-830 is for the multipart monograph, or a continuing resource/monographic series. A new subfield 7 in the 76X-78X fields was proposed to hold this information.

The following new subfields in the 80X-83X were proposed:

  • #7 Control subfield
    • /0 Type of record
      • a Language material
      • c Notated music
      • d Manuscript notated music
      • e Cartographic material
      • f Manuscript cartographic material
      • g Projected medium
      • i Nonmusical sound recording
      • j Musical sound recording
      • k Two-dimensional nonprojectable graphic
      • m Computer file
      • o Kit
      • p Mixed media
      • r Three-dimensional artifact or naturally occurring object
      • t Manuscript language material
    • /1 Bibliographic level from leader/07 of related record
      • a Monographic component part
      • b Serial component part
      • c Collection
      • d Subunit
      • i Integrating resource
      • m Monograph/item
      • s Serial

Proposed changes were approved as submitted.

Proposal No. 2013-09: Defining Subfields for Qualifiers to Standard Identifierws in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats

This paper proposes defining subfield #q (Qualifying information) in field 015 National Bibliography Number (BD); field 020 International Standard Book Number (BD, AD, HD), field 024 Other Standard Identifier (BD, AD, HD), and field 027 Standard Technical Report Number (BD, AD, HD) to accommodate qualifiers to the standard identifiers recorded in those fields. In response to Discussion Paper 2013-DP02 MARBI/MAC suggested that a proposal be developed to add the subfield for the qualifier to 020, 024 and 027. It was also suggested that national bibliographic agency numbers (encoded in field 015) should be included since they are treated as standard identifiers and can sometimes include qualifying information in qualifiers.

Current practice is to include any parenthetical qualifying information such as paperback, hardcover, microfiche, etc. in subfield #a. Machine matching of the standard numbers could be improved and be simpler to implement if the actual standard number was encoded separately from the qualifying information. In addition, the improved granularity this offers is consistent with the desire to provide explicit coding for data elements defined independently in RDA.

The proposed changes are to make #q (Qualifying information) repeatable in the 015, 020, 024 and 027 where #q is described as A brief statement of qualifying information concerning the record control number being recorded in subfield #a.Volume numbers or other data that qualify a national bibliography number are recorded in subfield #q following the number and are enclosed in parentheses. The #c in the 020 and 024 would include only the price and/or statement of availability of the item.

The proposal was passed with minor revisions.

New Business

MARBI is officially dissolved as of June 30, 2013. It will be replaced with a new committee, the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) which will continue to revised the MARC format and also work toward the transition to the new Bibliographic Framework. Unlike our role in MARBI, which was strictly advisory, AALL will have a voting member in MAC. Details of the new committee will be sent out later. Proposals and discussion papers will continue as with MARBI.

Patricia Sayre-McCoy
AALL Representative to MARBI
July 2013