AALL MARBI Representative Report
2007-2008

Prepared by: George Prager
New York University Law Library
pragerg [at] juris.law.nyu.edu

Introduction

I attended the MARBI meetings held during 2008 at the American Library Association's Midwinter Conference in Philadelphia and its Annual Conference in Anaheim. Both meetings focused on RDA, internationalization, and series.

Proposals No. 2008-05/1 - 2008-05/4 and related discussion papers are concerned with the mapping of RDA to MARC 21. While the discussions on this topic were extensive at both meetings, most of the decisions have been deferred until the ALA Midwinter 2009 Meeting, several months after the final draft of RDA is due to be published.

Internationalization of MARC 21 continues. Last year, the German and Austrian library communities proposed many changes to MARC 21 to accommodate their conversion from their proprietary format, MAB, into MARC 21. In this past year, two proposals have come from the National Library of Finland and one proposal and one discussion paper from the National Library of Spain. Both libraries are converting to MARC 21.

Series field 440 has been made obsolete! Field 490 and the 8XX series fields have a new subfield $3 for "Materials specified", and the 8XX fields also have a new subfield $x for ISSN.

Lastly, there's now a field in the MARC 21 format to record all facts related to copyright status (See MARC Proposal No. 2008-2 below).

The agenda for the 2008 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings is available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/mw2008_age.html.

The minutes are at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-08.html.

The agenda for the 2008 ALA Annual MARBI meetings is at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2008_age.html.

Minutes for the 2008 ALA Annual MARBI meetings are not yet available as of June 9, 2008.

Proposals No. 2008-01 - 2008-04

MARC Proposal No. 2008-01: Representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System in MARC 21 formats
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-01.html
Changes were approved to the MARC 21 formats to accommodate the conversion of DDC classification data from a proprietary system into the MARC 21 formats. For further background on these proposals, see the discussion of No. 2007-DP-06 in last year's AALL MARBI Representative Report.

MARC Proposal No. 2008-02: Definition of field 542 for facts related to copyright status in the MARC 21 bibliographic format.
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-02.html
This proposal grew out of 2007-DP05, also discussed in last year's report. Field 542 has been defined to allow for the optional recording of detailed information about the copyright status of a work in one field, rather than having to spread out the information over some or all of the following fields: 260 $c, 506, 540, and 017. Status: approved as amended. The first indicator will be defined as "Privacy."

MARC Proposal No. 2008-03: Definition of first indicator value in field 041 (Language code) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-03.html
When working on digitization or retrospective conversion projects, it is not always possible to determine whether or not a resource is or includes a translation. For this reason a new first indicator value (#) was proposed with a definition: "Unspecified/unknown" [whether item is a] translation." This proposal has been approved as amended, with the definition changed to: "Unevaluated/no attempt to code."

MARC Proposal No. 2008-04: Changes to Nature of entire work and Nature of content codes in field 008 of the MARC 21 bibliographic format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-04.html
The National Library of Finland and many other Finnish libraries are now using the Voyager OPAC. They are converting their data from MARC 21-FIN to regular MARC 21. Three new codes have been approved for Nature of entire work and Contents: Books 008/24-27: Nature of contents, and: Continuing resources 008/24: Nature of entire work and 008/25-27: Nature of contents fields:

Also, Code 008/33 literary form for Books code "c" has been used for Comic strips in MARC 21, and this code will now be made obsolete.

RDA: Proposals No. 2008-05/1 - 2008-05/4 and related discussion papers
Proposal No. 2008-05 is subdivided into 4 "sub"-proposals, and has 4 related discussion papers. These all have to do with encoding RDA into MARC 21.

MARC Discussion Paper 2008-DP04: Encoding RDA, Resource Description and Access data in MARC 21
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp04.html

Proposal No. 2008-05/1: Encoding RDA: Introduction and Principles
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-1.html
This paper offers a useful theoretical framework on the issues involved with mapping RDA into MARC 21. Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP04 introduced this topic at the ALA 2008 Midwinter Meeting. An RDA/MARC Working Group was subsequently formed in March 2008 to develop proposals for changes to MARC 21 to accommodate RDA. Because the final draft of RDA has not yet been issued, the Working Group has also developed some discussion papers (2008-DP05/1-3) for those areas where the direction of RDA does not seem clear. In 2008-DP05/4, the Working Group presents several areas where no change to MARC 21 is required to accommodate RDA. These papers were presented at the June 2008 ALA Annual Meeting.

Proposal No. 2008-05/2: Identifying work and expression records in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-2.html
A new field 011 (Entity type) is proposed for the Bibliographic and Authority formats to identify the work, expression, and manifestation level of the record. Lack of field 011 in a record (the default) will indicate that the record is for a manifestation. The Committee decided to reconsider this proposal at the 2009 ALA Midwinter Meeting, when the full draft of RDA should be available. A different tag will be considered instead of "011", as this field has already been used in the MARC format and is currently obsolete.

Proposal No. 2008-05/3: New content designation for RDA elements: Content type, Media type, Carrier type
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-3.html
These three elements will replace the general material designation (GMD) currently used in AACR2. This paper proposes defining Field 336 for content type in both the MARC authority and bibliographic formats, and then presents three options for including information on media and carrier type to be added to the record, also in textual form. (2008-DP 05/3 deals with recording these elements in a coded form). The three options are:

The Committee decided to delay a decision on which option to choose until the full draft of RDA has been issued. A "$3" subfield ("Materials specified"), may also be added to the proposal.

Proposal No. 2008-05/4: Enhancing field 502 (Dissertation note) of the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-4.html
This paper proposes the addition of the following subfields to field 502:

Content designation could be designated through a new second indicator, with values "basic" or "enhanced", like field 505 (contents notes). All information could be put in subfield $a, as it is now, or in the newly defined subfields. An allowable variation would be to use $o "dissertation number," but with all other information in subfield $a.

This proposal passed, with the following revisions: No indicators will be used for level of content designation, as the appearance of the additional subfields should make it clear whether the dissertation note is at the basic or at the enhanced level. (This decision contrasts with the use of basic and enhanced indicators in field 505; many on the Committee thought that these indicators should never have been defined). Also, subfield $o will be named " Dissertation identifier", rather than "Dissertation number."

Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP05/1: Using RDA relators between names and resources with MARC 21 records
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-1.html
This paper covers RDA relators expressing relationships between a resource and persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with it. (Relators which define relationships between different resources will be discussed in a later paper, when the full RDA draft is made available). Although changes to the MARC relator list do not need MARBI proposals, several questions were raised by the DP. Should RDA relators not already on the MARC relator list be added to it, or maintained as a separate list? If on separate lists, do we need to identify the source of the terms? Also, should we add $4 to the MARC 21 Authority Format in the 1XX fields? URIs might also be encoded in this subfield, to identify all terms from RDA's role list.

There was no consensus on these questions at the ALA 2008 Annual Meeting.

Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP05/2: New data elements in the MARC 21 authority format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-2.html
RDA covers recording various attributes and relationships for persons, families, corporate bodies, works, and expressions. These attributes and relationships are derived from the definitions given in Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD). MARC 21 does not currently provide for some of these elements. This DP suggests adding the following:

046 Special coded dates [046 is used with the same definition as in the Bibliographic format]. It would include subfields for birth date, death date, period of activity (both start and end), date of establishment, and date of termination. Some of these subfields would be used for persons, some for corporate bodies, and some for both.
A new block of 62X fields:
621 Additional places
"Additional places" would include such data as place of birth and death for a person, country associated with a person, place of residence of a person, place associated with a family or corporate body, location of conference, location of headquarters of a corporate body, and place of origin (for a work).
Other proposed 62X fields would include:
622 Address
623 Field of activity
624 Affiliation
625 Occupation
626 Gender
627 Additional information about the family
628 Associated language or 041 Language code

This DP may be brought back as a proposal, depending upon RDA's final draft.

Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP05/3: Treatment of controlled lists of terms and coded data in RDA and MARC 21
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-3.html
This complex DP discusses the correspondence of controlled lists of terms and coded data relating to content, media and carriers given n RDA and MARC 21. It is the counterpart of Proposal 2008-05/3, which is concerned with recording the same three types of data in textual form in a record.

Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP05/4: Items not requiring MARC 21 format changes for RDA [issued for reference]
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-4.html
Some highlights include:

2.1 Mode of issuance.
No value will be added to MARC 21 Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) for "Multipart", which is considered an element of Mode of issuance in RDA. The combination of using the existing value "m" (Monograph) in Leader/07, along with Leader/19 (Multipart resource record level), values "a", "b", or "c", should be sufficient.

2.2 Script
Field 546 $b "Information code or alphabet" already exists in MARC 21 bibliographic format, and may be used to give script information.

2.3 Production, Publication, Distribution
No new subfield will be added for Distribution information, currently given in field 260 $b of the MARC 21 bibliographic format.

2.4 Copyright Date
The current practice for recording copyright date will be continued, It may also be given in subfield $g (Copyright date) of the recently defined field 542 (Information relating to copyright status).

2.5 Numbering of serials
RDA element for serials numbering includes separate element subtypes for the designations of first and last issues or parts, and the first and last issue of new sequences. The MARC Advisory Committee had suggested using the recently defined field 363 (Normalized date and sequential designation) for serials numbering. Adding caption information would be necessary. The RDA MARC Working Group decided to record the RDA numbering of serials elements in field 362 subfield $a, with the proviso that this decision may need to be revisited in a few years. I think that using field 363 would have been ideal for machine manipulation of the data and display purposes.

2.6 RDA element labels encoded in MARC 21
Definition of a subfield $i (Display text) was considered for some bibliographic note fields, such as field 511 (Participant or performer note) and field 255 (Cartographic mathematical data). The RDA MARC Working Group eventually decided that no display constants should be required, as the RDA data will be meaningful without them.

2.7 Descriptive cataloging form
Records cataloged according to RDA conventions will use a new code in subfield $e of field 040 for RDA, rather than a new code for descriptive cataloging form or rules in MARC 21 bibliographic and authority 008 fields.

RDA/ISBD records will be identified by a combination of 040 $e rda and use of the pre-existing value 'i" in 008/18.

Proposals and Discussion Papers relating to Series

MARC Proposal No. 2008-06: Adding information associated with the Series Added Entry fields (800-830)
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-06.html

MARC Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP03: Definition of subfield $3 for Recording information associated with series added entry fields (800-830) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp03.html

MARC Proposal No. 2008-07: Making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry--Title) obsolete in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-07.html

MARC Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP02: making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry--Title) obsolete in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp02.html

At ALA Midwinter 2008, CONSER presented Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP02 on making MARC 21 Bibliographic field 440 obsolete for series. (Libraries following the CONSER standard record guidelines do not use 4xx fields, but only 8XX series fields for series added entry).

If a library wishes to transcribe a series, the DP allows use of a 490 field. First indicator value "1" of the 490 field could be changed from "Series traced differently" to "Series traced in 8XX fields," or both indicators could be made obsolete. 8XX fields would be used for series added entries, just like in the CONSER standard record. At the meeting, some committee members were in favor of transcribing the series statement in a new MARC field 445, instead of 490, which would also be made obsolete. Field 445 would nicely parallel field 245, with both being used for transcription. (The idea of using a field 445 was not carried over to the subsequent proposal).

The DP also proposed two new subfields to the 8XX series fields for series ISSNs and multipart ISBNs. (Adding a new field to field 022 to give a series ISSN was discussed, but disallowed, because we were informed that use of the 022 for this purpose would not meet with ISSN Center approval).

The Committee requested that the DP be brought back as two separate proposals, one to make field 440 obsolete, and one to add subfields to the 8XX fields.

At the ALA Annual 2008 Meeting, both proposals were presented, and both passed. Proposal No. 2008-07 makes field 440 obsolete in the Bibliographic Format. Field 490 indicator "1" has now been re-defined as "Series traced in 8XX field." Proposal No. 2008-06 defines a subfield $x (ISSN) in 8XX Series Added Entry fields. It also defines $3 in field 490 and the 8XX series fields for "Materials specified". Subfield $3 will be useful when not all parts of a ongoing publication are in the same series. Angle brackets may be used around dates in subfield $3 to indicate that the exact dates of the series are not known.

Other Proposals and DPs

Proposal No. 2008-08: Definition of subfield $z in field 017 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and addition of the field to the MARC 21 Holdings formats
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-08.html
The National Library of Spain is implementing a new integrated library system, and wishes to switch over to MARC 21 from its adapted version of the MARC21 format called IBERMARC. The national library and other Spanish libraries wish to continue their current practice of recording canceled/invalid legal deposit numbers. This paper proposes a new subfield $z for field 017 (Copyright or legal deposit number) in the MARC 21 holdings format. This proposal was approved without discussion at the ALA Annual Conference.

Discussion Paper 2008-DP06: Coding deposit programs as methods of acquisitions in field 008/07 of the MARC 21 holdings format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp06.html
The National Library of Spain and other Spanish libraries distinguish among "Legal deposit," "Deposit," and "Depository library" in the IBERMARC holdings format, and wish to continue to make these distinctions after they switch over to MARC 21. Items received through legal deposit are free and belong to the library which acquires them. Items received through deposit are resources which are loaned to the library in order to preserve them. Items received through a depository library program come from a non-commercial publisher, and don't belong to the receiving library. Code "d" (Deposit) in field 008/07 of the MARC 21 holdings format identifies items received through deposit programs, but it doesn't make a distinction between these three types. This code has been used differently by different libraries; therefore, it might be problematic to define new codes for "Legal deposit" and "Depository library". Another possibility is to continue to use 008/07 code "d" for all three types, and then to make finer distinctions in Field 541 (Immediate source of acquisition note) "$c". A controlled vocabulary could be used.

The MARBI Committee decided that more analysis was needed; the Library of Congress and the National Library of Spain will work together to come up with a new proposal.

Proposal No. 2008-09: Definition of Videorecording format codes in field 007/04 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-09.html
Two newer digital formats, Blu-ray and HD DVD (High-Definition Digital Versatile Disc) can hold more data than standard DVDs, but require the use of different players. This paper proposes new codes for both. The MARBI Committee approved a new code "s" for Blu-ray, but decided that HD DVDs should remain coded in "other" (pre-existing code "z").

Proposal No. 2008-10: Definition of a subfield for Other standard number in field 534 of the MARC 21 bibliographic format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-10.html
Subfields $x (ISSN) and $z (ISBN) are already defined for field 534 (Original version note). The National Library of Finland has proposed a subfield for other standard numbers, such as the ISMN (International Standard Music Number), which might be useful to record in field 534.This proposal was approved, but with the name changed to: "Definition of a subfield for Other resource identifier in field 534 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format."

MARC Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP01: Identifying headings that are appropriate as added entries, but are not used as bibliographic main entries
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp01.html
Under current cataloguing rules, added entries are not allowed for buildings, parks, etc. in which exhibition, conference, and performances take place. Names of such entities may be established in the subject authority file, but lack corporate identity and so cannot be used as added entries. (Examples: Freedom Hall (Louisville, KY ), and Apollo Theatre (New York, N.Y. : 125th Street)). Added non-topical entry might be useful for such entities, as well as for "tale" headings such as "Cinderella."

This DP discusses three alternatives to identify these headings: Definition of code "c" in authority field 008/14, meaning "appropriate for added entry"; use of authority field 667, or definition of a new 7XX Added entry: Non-topical Venue of Event (756, 757, or 758 are available). While these options are not mutually exclusive, The Committee agreed that use of a code in authority field 008/14 would be best, in order to support machine processing. A new code will be proposed, rather than code "c", since code "c" is currently obsolete (The MARBI Committee tries not to reuse obsolete values with a new meaning). No. 2008-DP01 will be brought back as a proposal.