American Association of Law Libraries Annual Meeting
July 15-20, 2000
The MARC Advisory Committee advises the Library of Congress concerning changes to the MARC formats. The Committee membership includes the nine voting members and three interns from MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information), an interdivisional committee of the American Library Association (ALA): ALCTS (Association for Library Collections and Technical Services); LITA (Library and Information Technology Association; RUSA (Reference and User Services Association) Also represented are national library liaisons from LC, NLM, NAL, and the National Libraries of Canada and Australia. Representatives from OCLC, RLG, ISM and WLN bibliographic utilities are also present. Finally, there are the rest of us--liaisons from various library associations, including the ALCTS Audiovisual Committee, CC:DA and SAC, the Art Libraries Society of North America, the Music Libraries Association, AVIAC, Map & Geography Round Table, MicroLIF, Visual Resources Association, and of course the American Association of Law Libraries.
As usual, MARBI meetings were held at the American Library Association's January 2000 midwinter meeting in San Antonio, and the annual meeting last week in Chicago, totaling three, three-hour sessions per conference. The MARBI meetings follow a fixed agenda, including presentations of prepared discussion papers on exploratory topics, which often develop into specific proposals designed to expand, change, or modify the MARC formats. Formal proposals are also discussed and voted on. These discussion papers and proposals may be prepared by anyone, although most come from LC, MARC Advisory members, or by outside library or vendor groups seeking changes in the formats. If a discussion paper identifies a clear issue for which there seems to be a viable solution within the MARC 21 formats, the presenter is encouraged to return to the Committee with a specific proposal. If the proposal (which may be changed or amended several times by the Committee in a process that can take months or even years to complete) is approved by the voting majority, then LC independently reviews the proposal. While generally LC will approve and implement the proposal that MARBI has passed, in many cases the proposal is not implemented until the next MARC update is released. Often implementation is delayed even further, either by LC or the bibliographic utilities, due to the complexity and the cost of changing codes and tags.
II. Update on Seriality Issues
Following the 1999 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC), Jean Hirons, CONSER coordinator, was charged with preparing rule revisions based on recommendations in the report "Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality." At the January 2000 meeting, Jean Hirons (LC) reported on ongoing efforts to modify AACR2 to reflect a revised view of seriality in Part I of the descriptive cataloging code. Since MARBI's discussion of seriality at ALA Annual in New Orleans, the Joint Steering Committee had met in October and came to some conclusions about the general direction of this exploration. The JSC plans on expanding AACR2 Chapter 12 by the end of 2000 to cover continuing resources (including "integrating resources"). A fully-developed rule revision packet should be ready for consideration by CC:DA at ALA Annual in Chicago. The rule revisions, "Revising AACR to Accommodate Seriality: Rule Revision Proposals" (http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/ch12.htm) were submitted to JSC in February 2000. Three areas that will affect MARC 21 are:
The rule revisions were submitted in February 2000 and are currently under review. While final decisions have yet to be made on a number of issues, it is clear that the concepts of 'continuing' and 'integrating resources' have been firmly embraced by the JSC and other international standards. Thus, the impact of the new model on MARC 21 needs to be considered.
Under the new model, latest issue information will be recorded in a 500 'description based on:' note. There is a lot of interest in getting access to the latest title information and there are few additional 24X fields available. Jean Hirons confirmed that the intent is to further develop all three of the options. Sherman Clarke asked whether Chapter 12 would come out as a chapter or a pamphlet as Chapter 9 did? Jean Hirons replied that the problem is they are not just updating chapter 12; many other chapters are affected. John Attig mentioned that there is also a major revision in the works for Chapter 9. A discussion paper will be prepared for the summer meeting to further develop Leader/07 options and consider making field 260 repeatable.
III. Discussion Papers
A. Discussion Paper No. 119 : Seriality and MARC 21
This paper is a continuation of the issues covered in Discussion paper no. 114, which was discussed at the MARBI meeting in June 1999. In that paper, Hirons outlined issues relating to leader/07 (Bibliographic level) and 008/21 (Type of serial), field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc.), and field 008/34 (Successive/latest entry indicator). This paper further developed these and other issues.
The revisions to AACR2 include a complete revision to chapter 12, which now encompasses all "Continuing Resources." Rules for integrating resources in both print (loose-leafs) and electronic format (updating databases, and Web sites) have been added to this chapter in order to accommodate the seriality aspects of both serials and integrating resources. (Note that for purposes of this document, a Web site is defined as a collection of data, documents, and links to other sites on the World Wide Web that is generally updated over time.) The new category of integrating resources is a major change to the monograph/serial dichotomy that now exists. Both the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Serials (ISBD(S)) and the ISSN Network have also embraced the idea of continuing resources. The ISBD(S) Working Group will recommend that ISBD(S) become ISBD(CR) and the ISSN Manual Revision group is recommending a revised scope that would encompass updating databases and many Web sites.
A continuing resource is defined as:
A bibliographic resource that is issued over time, usually with no predetermined conclusion. Continuing resources include serials and integrating resources.
An integrating resource is defined as:
A bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole. Examples include items that are loose-leaf for updating and Web sites.
A serial is defined as:
A continuing resource in any medium issued in a succession of discrete parts, usually bearing numeric or chronological designations, that usually has no predetermined conclusion. Examples of serials include journals, magazines, electronic journals, directories, annual reports, newspapers, newsletters of an event, and monographic series.
2.2 Current situation.
Most items that would be treated as integrating are currently coded as 'm' (monograph) in leader/07 and are cataloged as monographs. The negative impact of this policy is evidenced by numerous complaints from participants in conference discussions about the duplicate records for loose-leafs in OCLC. When the title of a loose-leaf changes, catalogers tend to create a new record, either because they lack the ability to change the record or do not think about changing it in the way serial records are maintained. There is no equivalent of the CONSER Program for loose-leafs and maintenance of records has not been an emphasis for BIBCO. As more and more records for electronic updating resources are being added to catalogs, it is important that we be able to identify and maintain them appropriately.
Coding the bibliographic level byte in the leader is very important to the identification, retrieval, and control of records in both shared and local catalogs. It can be used to limit searches, identify duplicate records, and validate who can change records. Because of the importance of this byte and the eventual need for large systems such as OCLC to make changes and potentially recode existing records, any change can have a major impact.
It is possible that loose-leafs could be retained as code 'm' if this is the desire of the loose-leaf community; however, it may be desirable to recognize the seriality inherent in the updates. Furthermore, as loose-leafs go electronic, they could become databases and thus, it makes sense to treat these resources similarly.
2.4 Proposal: Defined new code i for integrating resources to be used in conjunction with serials 008 (renamed 'seriality' 008).
2.4.2. Proposal. Define a new code 'i' in leader/07 for integrating resources. Redefine the serial 008 as 'seriality' or 'continuing resources' 008. Treat code 'i' similar to code 's' and use the seriality 008 when type (leader/06) is 'a' (textual material).
While most integrating resources are textual in nature, it is possible that there can be other appropriate formats. If the type code is 'm' (computer file), the computer file 008 would be used with a seriality 006. If it was determined that certain cartographic material were integrating, the cartographic 008 would be used with code 'i' in leader/07 and a seriality 006.
2.4.3. Rationale. By following this option, MARC 21 would embrace the continuing resources model: the use of the same 008 would bring out aspects of the seriality of all continuing resources, while the separate leader codes would express the form in which the seriality is realized.
2.4.4. Pros and cons. The following pros and cons are based in part on articles by Robin Wendler, Robert Bremer and others in a Serials Review "Balance Point" column, edited by Jean Hirons. (See: Hirons, Jean. "The 'ongoing' umbrella: rethinking the redefinition of 'serial.'" Serials Review, 23:3/4 (1998) p. 107-117.)
Retrieval and display:
Cataloging and other library functions
2.5.1. Expand code 's' in leader/07 to cover all continuing resources. This option is not currently favored because the cons outweigh the pros. Some of these are:
2.5.2. Use existing codes 'm' and 's' for integrating resources, as determined appropriate (e.g., Web sites and loose-leafs as monographs; databases as serials). While easier to implement, this option is not currently favored because it negates the seriality of a large portion of integrating resources and is not seen as a good long-term option. Some of the cons associated with this option are:
3.008/18 and 006/01 Frequency; also field 853, 854, 855 in Holdings format
Define code 'k' to indicate an electronic resource that is continuously updated where the updates are seamlessly integrated into the whole. This code could also be used for loose-leafs but since the updates are generally less frequent and more determinable, the existing codes for irregular or a know frequency might be more applicable. Examples of resources that would receive code 'k' are the LC Web site, the OCLC database, an online directory or encyclopedia that is updated on a constant basis.
Field 008/18 currently contains codes that indicate the frequency of issues to serials. There is no code that implies constant updating. A new code could clearly identify an integrating resource whose seriality is expressed by seamless updates unknown to the user (other than by a revision date) rather than a succession of issues or tangible updates.
4. 008/21 and 006/04. Type of serial.
Rename as "Type of continuing resource" and define a new code 'l' (loose-leaf).
Because of the special nature of loose-leafs, it may be desirable to be able to identify them from other types of integrating resources. The codes in this byte identify serials requiring special forms of control. They are:
blank (none of the following) m (monographic series) n (newspaper) p (periodical)
Loose-leafs would fit into this category very nicely as they require a special form of control. It would also make it possible to retrieve the number of loose-leaf services maintained in a library. Code blank, which now encompasses other kinds of serials (e.g., annuals, statistical reports), would also include electronic integrating resources such as updating databases.
5. 008/34 and 006/17. Successive/latest entry indicator
AACR2 is introducing a new form of title change convention, integrating entry, which is very similar to latest entry conventions but is being used in different ways and for different forms of material. Under both latest and integrating entry, a single record is used to record all changes in title, with description based on the latest issue. The difference applications of latest and integrating entry are as follows:
Latest entry (008/34 code '1')
Define new code '2' for integrating entry.
Use of code 008/34. Libraries currently use this code for:
Use of the bibliographic level (leader/07) code 'i' alone would not be sufficient to identify the type of cataloging convention applied. Some electronic journals will not retain earlier titles and will require the use of integrating entry cataloging. To clarify, the term 'integrating resource' applies to resources where the updates do not remain discrete; 'integrating entry' is a convention used when only the current title is retained on the resource. An electronic journal has discrete articles but may not retain its earlier titles. Defining a new code would allow us to still identify all electronic journals as serials (code s in leader/07) while also stating the convention under which they are cataloged (008/34 code 2). It would not be desirable to code these as latest entry records (008/34) and have them included with old records that are being deleted or ignored.
Note: Fields 247 and 547, previously used for latest entry records, would also be used in integrating records to include the former title(s) and this new usage will require some revision to the description of these fields. No coding changes are foreseen.
6. PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (Field 260)
Serials and other continuing resources often undergo a change in publisher and/or place of publication. Current rules are to record the earliest place and publisher in field 260 and give all later changes in notes (field 500). The latest publishing information is needed by acquisitions departments for ordering, claiming, and check-in. The latest information is also more useful to reference librarians. However, the earliest information is needed as a constant identifier for the record for record matching and duplicate detection. For many continuing resources in fact, particularly rare and legal, it may be desirable to have better access to each successive publisher.
The recommendation to the JSC to describe from the latest publisher was rejected; however, they recommended that this be accommodated through the format and displays. Making the 260 field repeatable was discussed in June 1999 and the idea was favorably received. The proposal below reflects the technique that was considered most desirable during that discussion.
Make field 260 repeatable for changes in the publisher. Do not repeat a 260 field for a change in place only. Define the first indicator as "Publisher status" and define values blank, 3 and 4. (Note that prior to 1990 the first indicator was defined as 'presence of publisher in imprint' with values 0 and 1 defined which are now obsolete.) Field 260 with first indicator value 4 would be repeatable; value 3 would not be repeatable. The order of fields should be shown chronologically from first to last.
Define subfield $3 (Material specified) to be used with indicator values 3 and 4 to include the date or enumeration of the subset of materials to which the publisher applies. Give subfield $c beginning and ending dates of publication only in the 260 field with first indicator value blank (i.e., the first 260).
First indicator - Publisher status # Original 3 Current 4 Intervening
As first cataloged: 260 $a Boston, MA : $b Holt, $c 1983- Publisher changes: 260 $a Boston, MA: $b Holt, $c 1983- 260 3 $a New York, N.Y. : $b Pergamon Subsequent change: 260 $a Boston, MA : $b Holt, $c 1983- 260 4 $3 1986-199<6> $a New York, N.Y : $b Pergamon 260 3 $3 1998- $a New York, N.Y. : $b Elsevier Publication ceases: 260 $a Boston, MA : $b Holt, $c 1983-1999. 260 4 $3 1986-199<6> $a New York, N.Y : $b Pergamon 260 3 $3 1998-1999 $a New York, N.Y. : $b Elsevier
Use of code 4 for intervening publishers may not always be desirable. Feedback from the rare serials and loose-leaf communities has indicated a desire to record all publishers in 260 fields; CONSER might prefer to record intervening publishers in a note.
The publication dates in subfield $c and dates recorded in subfield $3 dates need to be kept separate as they describe different things. The publication dates refer to the entire item and need to remain discrete within the record. Keeping these dates together would also keep newly-created records compatible with existing records. The $3 dates specify the subset of the serial published by a particular publisher and would be those now given in a 500 note. Enumeration would be given in place of dates when applicable.
Example with enumeration:
260 3 $3 no. 5- $a Washington, D.C. : $b Brookings Institute
6.4. Questions for discussion
1. Would the use of multiple 260 fields also be used for multi volume monographs?
2. How would this apply to integrating resources, such as loose-leafs, where the rules say to change the publishing statement to reflect the latest? We could interpret this in documentation, such as "add an additional 260 field with indicator value ..." since the rules do not anticipate multiple publishing statements.
3. How would other publishing data, such as the distributor be affected? Would it be repeated with each publisher to which it applies?
260 $a Washington, D.C. : $b Office of Personnel Management ; $b for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., $c 2000- 260 3 $3 2001- $a Washington, D.C. : $b General Services Administration ; $b for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.
4. What are the implications for indexing and display of multiple publishers and dates?
B. Discussion Paper 120: Community Information Format Integration with the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
At the January 2000 meeting, Rebecca Guenther introduced the discussion paper which explores the possibility of integrating the community information format into the MARC 21 bibliographic format, as there is considerable overlap between the two formats. In some cases such as address and hours, community information fields have been defined in the bibliographic format. The distinction between the two formats is not always clear to some catalog users. Some electronic resources could be described as community information or as bibliographic information.
The overlap is also coming up in mapping some Dublin Core data elements to MARC 21. There has been little response to this discussion paper from the community information community. A straw vote was taken to assess the level of interest in pursuing a consolidation of the bib and CI formats. Thirteen were in favor of pursuing this; 30 favored dropping the effort.
A. Proposal No: 2000-01: & Proposal No: 2000-01R: Definition of Subfield $z (Enumeration Scheme)
At the January 2000 midwinter meeting, Rebecca Guenther first introduced the proposal which recommends adoption of a new subfield in fields 853-855 of the holdings format. This came out of the CONSER Publication Pattern Task Force which is working on a project to communicate publication pattern information in coded form. The numbering scheme cannot be fully encoded in the holdings format, and this affects libraries' ability to predict when issues should appear. After discussion about several issues, the proposal was rejected, although Option 2 was preferred. Changes that the Committee wanted to see in a revised proposal included: Ability to indicate script for numerals; Consider breaking out the "lower numeral" and "no case numeral;" Deal with an alphanumeric numbering scheme; Consider indicating symbolic vs. ordinal numbers; Consider having the data in a fixed length; consider not separating upper and lower case.
At the July 2000 meeting, the proposal was revised to take care of most of the suggested changes. After some discussion, the following additions (and others) were made: 1) adding a code for symbols and special characters in the 1st position ($z, position/00) Type of Designation, which would address the "***" designations that Oceana assigns to its loose-leaf volumes; and adding a code for mixed case in the 2nd position ($z, position/01), which would take care of volumes that include alpha/numeric components, e.g, vol. 1A, 2B, etc. The motion to approve carried 8-0, with the chair not voting.
B. Proposal 2000-03: Definition of Subfield $2 (Source of term) in Field 583 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Format
At the January 2000 meeting, the ALCTS Preservation and Reformatting Section, Intellectual Access Committee asked for subfield $2 in the 583 field (Actions Note) to indicate the source of a term if it is a controlled term. They will be working on a standard terminology document. Subfield $2 would not be mandatory if using a non-standard term. LC reported that the committee believes there are four communities (archives, rare book, collection development, and preservation) that might want to use this subfield and so potentially four thesauri. NLM is in favor of this proposal, especially for retention of electronic resources, and would probably define their own codes. The archive community also favors the use of a subfield rather than employing an indicator. There are so many possible other uses of the indicator that it would be like that indicator values would be easily exhausted.
Discussion followed concerning whether different sources could be used in different subfields. The conclusion was that one would use multiple 583 fields. The issue of whether there was a place to indicate 'local' as a source and whether there would there be a place for the library to identify itself, and the local institution could be identified in subfield $5. The motion was approved with no objection. Subfield $2 is non-repeatable; if different sources are recorded, separate fields are used.
C. Proposal 2000-04: Anonymous attribution information
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) introduced this paper which proposed changing the MARC 21 bibliographic, authority, classification, and community information formats to either:
Because it is often impossible to attribute a work of art to a known artist, art historians routinely use qualifiers such as pupil of, follower of, or school of to convey a relationship between an unknown artist and a known artist or group. Discussion Paper 115 (1999) had suggested using subfield $c, but MARBI objected to that because of its long-established use for titles such as sir, dr., etc. Field 720 (Uncontrolled names) was also rejected because it isn't indexed the same way that 1XX and 7XX fields are.
There was some discussion about whether these would be coded AACR2 (general agreement followed that these would not necessarily be). Discussion then ensued about the order of the information on the display, with a consensus that from a user standpoint the order should be names of artists first, then the qualified artists in alphabetical order. This information is a part of the heading and not treated like "editor" or "joint author." ARLIS plans on providing a standardized list of terms that could be used in the subfield. The motion to approve option 2 then carried 8-0, with the chair not voting.
D. Proposal No. 2000-07: Definition of Subfield $y (Link text) in Field 856 in all Formats
This paper proposes the addition of subfield $y in field 856 to record link text to be used in an online display instead of the URL. Field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) has several places to record information to help the public in interpreting a URL. This data may be used by an application such as an online public catalog or commercial search service when generating a display.
The proposed change in field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) in all MARC 21 formats:
There was general support for this proposal, which passed with little discussion.
E. Proposal No. 2000-08: Definition of Additional Subfields in Field 754 in the Bibliographic Format
This paper proposed adding subfields to field 754 to provide different levels of hierarchy to record taxonomic identification. This would be used instead of repeating subfield $a if desired to allow for more flexible searching and display of the data in the field. After some discussion, the Committee voted down the proposal.
V. Joint CC:DA/MARBI Discussion
On Monday July 10th, CC:DA met with the MARBI group to discuss "XML and MARC: A Choice or a Replacement?", led by Dick R. Miller, Head of Technical Services at Stanford's Lane Medical Library.
In Apr. David Dorman cited Lane Medical Library's (Stanford University) XMLMARC conversion software (announced in mid-Feb.) under the header "The End of MARC?" There are indicators of a growing recognition of the limitations of the MARC formats in permitting effective deployment and integration of bibliographic data with other resources on the Web, beginning perhaps as early as LC's literal mapping of MARC to SGML from 1995-1998, followed by work in Hong Kong and Australia and other commercial mapping software. Lane's investigation differs in advocating changes to MARC to take advantage of XML's strengths-- a permanent change to XML rather than another version used as an adjunct to "real" MARC.
Issues that were discussed at the joint meeting:
a. XML's suitability as a universal data format for the Web