Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Reports

Annual Reports

MARBI ceased to exist in 2013. The MARC Advisory Committee took on the responsibility of continuing MARBI’s mission to foster open discussion about the MARC standard and to review and vote on proposed changes to the MARC formats at the semiannual ALA conferences.

• 2013

  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

• 2012

  REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
  MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MARBI)
  2012 ANNUAL REPORT

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

  July 30, 2012

  The Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI) is an interdivisional joint committee of the American Library Association and meets with the MARC Advisory Committee, which is the voting body for the MARC format. MARBI is primarily responsible for the development of the MARC 21 formats. MARBI holds meetings twice a year, during ALA’s annual and midwinter conferences. MARBI consists of nine voting members, who make up the MARC Advisory Committee, and three interns. The meetings are also attended by ex-officio representatives of national libraries and OCLC, and several dozen non-voting liaisons from ALA units and from non-ALA organizations with an interest in library automation standards.

  At the meetings, the MARBI decides on actions to take on the discussion papers and proposals that have been presented to them. The discussion papers are the first step to suggesting changes in the MARC21 format and explain the need for a new field or subfield and then indicate which new or revised fields should be added to the MARC format. The Committee decides whether to request a proposal based on the discussion papers for the next ALA meeting. The Committee then votes on the proposals and either rejects them, requests revisions which will then be reconsidered, approves them or approves them as amended. If a proposal is approved, the changes will be included in the MARC21 revision to the online version, which is usually published annually.

  The previous representative, George Prager, attended the ALA Annual meeting in June 2011, held in New Orleans. I took over as representative to MARBI at the ALA Midwinter meeting held in Dallas January 21-24, 2012.

  MARBI MEETING ALA MIDWINTER MEETING JANUARY 21-24, 2012

  Proposal No. 2012-01: New Data Elements in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats for Medium of Performance
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-01.html

  This was the only proposal discussed at the meeting. This proposal addressed the need for more specific encoding for medium of performance in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats, beyond the data that is currently recorded in subject headings and is of most use to music catalogers. It was proposed to expand the MARC field 382 to add greater specificity, add an indicator to indicate whether the data is complete or partial, and add subfields for soloists, doubling instruments, and number of performers. Because of the different terminology and granularity of RDA and the expanded field, it may be necessary to repeat the field for the separate vocabularies and usage requirements. The proposal was approved with amendments that defined the indicator values and renamed some subfields to be more in accord with other subfields for similar information elsewhere in the MARC record.

  Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP01: Identifying Titles Related to the Entity Represented by the Authority Record in the MARC21 Authority Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-dp01.html

  The proposal relates to the 670 field in the Authority Record, which is used to record the source of information about the entity represented by the authority record. It is usually a bibliographic citation, although other information such as phone calls and personal communications are also recorded in this field. It is also used to note that the entity is NOT the author of some other title when it would otherwise appear to be. Thus the 670 contains a mixture of data elements and it was proposed that they be separated into multiple fields. Part of the discussion centered on whether only titles related to the author should be included or if subject relationships could also be added (and how to distinguish them), whether all FRBR levels (work/manifestation/expression/item) should be included or only records for works; the former was preferred. Titles that dealt with Romanized/vernacular pairings and journal article titles are also problematic and may be included in authority records. The MARC Advisory Committee suggested that the paper be turned into a proposal for the meeting at ALA Annual meeting in June.

  Most of the second session was a discussion of the future of MARBI and of its relation to the development of a new bibliographic environment, commonly referred to as the “replacement of MARC.” The new bibliographic environment will include more than just MARC and include information on permissions for use of materials and preservation information, as well as bibliographic description and holdings information. The Resource Description Format (RDF), which the new bibliographic environment will be based on, emphasizes linked data instead of individual cataloging records. One of the issues discussed is that MARBI is really a subgroup of the MARC Advisory Group which was formed to advise the Library of Congress on changes to the MARC21 formats. As such, expanding the scope of the group is problematic and the future of MARBI is unclear. It was decided that for now members should participate in the development of the new bibliographic environment as individuals. MARBI will continue to work on supporting MARC until the transition to the new bibliographic framework and there will be a continuing need to develop new fields and subfields as new needs emerge. At some point, MARC will be a legacy system.

  MARBI MEETING, ALA ANNUAL MEETING, JUNE 23 AND 24, 2012

  The agenda for the summer MARBI meeting was very long and not completed in the two meetings scheduled. The first item on the agenda was an announcement from ALCTS saying that although they recognized the importance of the work of MARBI, the close collaboration with the MARC Advisory Committee had diverted its attention from other aspects of its charge. With the move to a new bibliographic framework, there is less need for this kind of work and MARBI will be dissolved at the end of the 2013 ALA Annual Meeting. A joint ALCTS-LITA Metadata Standards Committee (with liaison from RUSA) will be formed at that time. The charge for the new committee is basically the same as MARBI’s. Representatives from other library organizations will work with their organizations to review their status.

  PROPOSALS DISCUSSED

  Proposal No. 2012-02: Identifying Titles Related to the Entity Represented by the Authority Record in the MARC21 Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-02.html

  This proposal called for creating a new field, 672, to list titles that are related in some way to the entity represented by the authority record, and also titles known not to be related to it. The proposal assumes that most of this information would be used to assist programs and operators to identify titles and not recreate a bibliography. The titles would only be added as they were discovered and there would be no requirement or encouragement to make an exhaustive list. This information was previously included in the 670 but having it in a separate field makes it easier to manipulate by a program. So a 670 note that said “author of [title]” would now have a 670 for that title. Much time was spent discussing the need for subject information in this proposal but enough people thought the purpose of the subject information was not clear and not necessary and should be removed. It was decided to revisit this proposal at the ALA Midwinter meeting in 2012.

  Proposal No. 2012-03: Data Provenance in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-03.html

  This proposal discussed documenting the data provenance of classification in the bibliographic record, limited to Dewey classification. The proposers wanted to document the source of classification numbers-either machine-generated or assigned by a cataloger, and some indication of the confidence of the assigning agency regarding the classification number. One option was to add subfields to the 082 (Dewey Classification Number), and the other was to create a new field, 883, for Data Provenance, that would be repeatable and linked to other fields using #8. The new 883 field would not be limited to Dewey classification, but could be expanded to include other fields such as 6XX fields. A modified version of the second proposal to create a new 883 field was approved; the modifications included #u for URI, #a for Process name of other process (ie, machine-generated) and #c for the confidence value. It was unanimously approved.

  Proposal No. 2012-04: New Data Elements in the MARC21 Authority Format for Other Designation Associated With Person and Title of Person
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-04.html

  This proposal discussed how information on the title of a person was recorded only in the #c in the 100 field and not recorded in a separate field. There is also inconsistency in the format of the #c-sometimes the term is parenthetical and sometimes not. Nowhere is this information explicitly recorded. The proposal suggested broadening field 368 (Other Corporate Body Attributes) to include both corporate body attributes and designations relating to persons. There were two proposed changes and the one that was approved required the field name to be changed to “Other Attributes”, #c to be redefined to include other designation associated with a person, and adding the new #d “Title of the person.”

  Proposal No. 2012-05: Making the 250 Field Repeatable in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-05.html

  This proposal addressed the need for a repeatable 250 field to accommodate edition statements for music. The proposal focused on music cataloging but did note that a repeatable 250 might be useful for cataloging other resources in RDA. With RDA some data that was recorded in the 254field will now be recorded in the 250 field. The 254 field (Musical presentation Statement) is now considered edition information in RDA, according to the proposers, and so different types of information will be included in the 250. Having only one 250 field will make it crowded and hard to interpret. Some discussion focused on whether the Musical Presentation Statement really did contain edition statements or information about different versions. If this is version information, it does not belong in the 250. The Committee decided that the presenters had not proved their case for the repeatable 250 and requested that a new proposal or discussion paper be resubmitted addressing these concerns.

  Proposal No. 2012-06: Defining Subfield #c (Qualifying information) in Field 028 (Publisher Number) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-06.html

  This proposal called for adding subfield c to include qualifying information to publisher numbers such as (set) or (disc. 1), or the publisher name of materials with two publisher numbers-one from the label and one on the container. The proposal was amended to change #c to #q and was passed as approved. Expanding this subfield to the 020 was suggested as a Midwinter 2013 proposal.

  Proposal No. 2012-07: Defining New Code for Vocal Score in Field 088/20 (Format of music) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-07.html

  This proposal was limited to vocal scores and actually proposed new subfields for different types of scores. It was approved as proposed.

  DISCUSSION PAPERS

  Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP02: Authority Records for Medium of Performance Vocabulary for Music
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-dp02.html

  This paper discussed the options for new controlled vocabulary consisting of medium of performance terms for music. This vocabulary is currently being developed. Field 382 has already been defined in the bibliographic and authority records. This proposal suggests a new set of fields be defined for medium of performance authority records because the 382 does not work in the same way as other controlled fields such as the bibliographical format 100 or 650. Multiple terms can be valid in the 382 in repeatable subfields and there are questions about how well matching programs would work on the 382. Currently subject headings (650s) containing medium of performance are not required to have authority records. The proposal suggests that having these terms under authority control is a good idea and suggested using the 142 or 152 fields. As a discussion paper, no action by MARBI was required.

  Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP03: Chronological Aspects in the MARC21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-dp03.html

  This discussion paper proposed some possibilities for recording chronological aspects of musical works, specifically the date or period of origin or creation. This information was previously included in subject subdivisions that will become obsolete with the adoption of the music form/genre terms that are being developed. The 045 field is not useful because it can’t include all the information about the creation date that is necessary. It was decided that the 045 field could be used for date or period of creation and not just the chronological period of the material being cataloged and that the 045 and 046 (special coded dates field) will be clearly distinguished. Any changes to the 046 in the bibliographic record would also be made for the authority record. Best practices for use of the 046 and 648 (subject added entry chronological terms) will be written. As a discussion paper, no action by MARBI was required.

  Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP04: Recording Audience Characteristics of Works and Expressions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-dp04.html

  This discussion paper proposed adding a new 3XX Field in the bibliographic and authority records to provide information on the audience of the work or expression. Sometimes this information is included in current subject headings or subdivisions, sometimes these terms are combined with genre terms in subject headings and sometimes the audience is only implied in a subject heading. Currently audience is out of scope for inclusion in LCGFT but it will continue to be necessary to include this information somewhere in the record. The 022 (Target Audience) in the bibliographic record is limited to 8 terms that are limited to broad audiences, often by age group (preschool, adult) or are too broad (general, specialized), and there is no place to record this information in the authority record, although it will be useful in works records. The proposed 3XX field would include the category of persons for which a resource is intended and is not limited to age terms. It could include nationality terms, intellectual level of the material, explicit terms for people with disabilities, or other special interests or groups. A straw vote indicated approval of the idea to add a repeatable 3XX field. Although the 521 field was discussed, it does not include controlled vocabulary and would not be good for machine retrieval. Best practices could be developed to aid catalogers with vocabulary terms which would not need to be in LCSH form. Since this was a discussion paper, no action by MARBI was required.

  Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP05: Recording Creator/Contributor Group Categorizations of Works, Expressions and Persons in the MARC21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-dp05.html

  This paper discusses adding a new 3XX field for the group category of a creator/contributor, some of which are now included in subject headings or subdivisions, is a free-floating subdivision, or is implied in the heading. Geographic terms to represent nationality or country of residence of the creators are also included as geographic subdivisions. All of this information may be lost when genre/form terms are used because subdivisions are not used and categories of persons will not be included in LCGFT. Since it will still be useful to collate works by persons who share particular characteristics, a new field is necessary to contain some of this information. Existing 6XX fields, such as the 656 (Index Term-Occupation) are meant to be used for the occupations reflected in the resource, not those of the creator. Also the proposers feel that it is better to record this information in the one authority record for the creator instead of in all the bibliographic records linked to that creator. Some of the 3XX fields in the Authority record contain some of this information, such as the 370 for Associated Place which can already include place of birth, place of residence, associated country, it could be expanded to include nationality/regional group information. Other existing fields, such as the 371 (Field of Activity) are less useful because they use terms that do not imply personhood, such as the name of a discipline. Field 374 (Occupation) is recorded in the singular which patrons would probably not look for (the subject headings are usually plural). But these fields in the authority records are defined for attributes of a person or corporate body and not categories of persons, so a new field is proposed, a repeatable 3XX field for Creator/Contributor Group Characterization. It was agreed that such a field would be useful. Since this was a discussion paper, no action by MARBI was required.

• 2011

  REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
  MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MARBI)
  2011 ANNUAL REPORT

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

  July 6, 2011

  HIGHLIGHTS

  The Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI) is an interdivisional joint committee of three units within the American Library Association. It is primarily responsible for the development of the MARC 21 formats. MARBI holds meetings twice a year, during ALA’s annual and midwinter conferences. MARBI consists of nine voting members and three interns. The meetings are also attended by ex-officio representatives of national libraries and OCLC, and several dozen non-voting liaisons from ALA units and from non-ALA organizations with an interest in library automation standards. As the AALL representative to MARBI in 2011, I attended the MARBI meetings in San Diego held during ALA Midwinter on January 8-9, 2011, as well as the meetings held in New Orleans on June 25-26, 2011, during the ALA Annual Meeting.

  Many of the proposals and discussion papers related to the mapping of RDA into MARC 21. Proposal No. 2011-02added a new field 264, with indicators to differentiate production, publication, distribution, copyright, and manufacture statements, as these are all separate elements in RDA. Field 260 will remain valid to accommodate legacy data, and for cases in which it is unnecessary to distinguish between the four types of imprint statements. No action was taken on Proposal No. 2011-03, dealing with copyright dates, as copyright dates were included in the version of No. 2011-02, as amended at the June 2011 MARBI meetings. Proposal No. 2011-04 broadened the definition of field 377 (Associated language) in the Authority Format, to include not just language of person and corporate body, but also language of family and expression. Proposal No. 2011-05 broadened field 373 (Affiliation [of a person]) in the Authority Format to include institutions and groups associated with a corporate body. Proposal No. 2011-06 added a new field 378 to the Authority Format for fuller form of a personal name. Information in this field may be useful for distinguishing one personal name from a similar name or names in the case of conflicts. Proposal No. 2011-07 approved a new field 368 for use in the Authority Format, which will contain additional corporate body attributes (type of corporate body, type of jurisdiction, or other designation). Proposal No. 2011-08, relating to the Bibliographic Format, expanded field 340 (Physical medium), and added new fields 344 (Sound characteristics), 345 (Projection characteristics of projected media), 346 (Video characteristics), and 347 (Digital file characteristics). These characteristics relate to Chapter 3 of RDA, and had previously only been mapped to coded values in MARC 21 fields Leader/06, 007/00, and 007/01.

  No. 2011-DP05 discussed additional means of identifying medium of performance in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats. Medium of performance terms are currently incorporated as part of subject headings, but have been recognized as a separate facet, distinct from subject headings and genre/form terms. This DP will be brought back as a proposal at ALA Midwinter 2012.

  The agenda for the 2011 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings is available at:
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/mw2011_age.html

  The minutes for the 2011 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings are available at:
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-11.html

  The agenda for the 2011 ALA Annual MARBI meetings is available at:
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2011_age.html

  Minutes and updated cover sheets for the 2011 Annual ALA MARBI meetings were not yet available as of July 6, 2011.

  Summaries of all the 2011 discussion papers and proposals are given below, with links to the full papers. I have also included any changes made to the papers during the MARBI meetings, and subsequently by the Library of Congress’ Network Development and MARC Standards Office. All proposals may be changed slightly until the time when they are incorporated into the MARC 21 documentation. Following a summary of all the 2011 MARBI papers, I have discussed several other news items related to MARC 21.

  My term as AALL Representative to MARBI will conclude after the AALL Meeting in July 2011. It has been my pleasure and privilege to serve AALL in this role. I am pleased to report that Patricia Sayre McCoy, Head of Law Cataloging and Serials at the D’Angelo Law Library, University of Chicago, has been appointed as AALL’s new MARBI representative for 2011-2013. I am sure that Pat will be a more than worthy successor.

  SUMMARIES OF 2011 MARBI DISCUSSION PAPERS AND PROPOSALS

  Proposal 2011-01: Coding for Original Language in Field 041 (Language Code) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-01.html

  In the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, field 041 $h is defined as “Language code of original and/or intermediate translations of text.” This subfield is used to record not only the original and/or intermediate languages of main works, but also for recording the original and/or intermediate languages of librettos and accompanying material such as liner notes. Although each 041 $h is supposed to follow the subfield with which it is associated, automated parsing based solely on order can be problematic. In this paper, Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. (OLAC) proposed the following:

  1. Redefining subfield $h so that it will contain only the language code of the primary original text/soundtrack regardless of whether the resource is a translation. It would not be required to supply the original language if the resource is not a translation. Since the majority of existing 041 $h represent the original language of the primary work, only a modest amount of database maintenance should be required.
  2. Defining new subfields for language code of intermediate translation and language code of the original language of subsidiary materials. Alternately, separate subfields could be defined for the original language of different types of subsidiary materials. The desire is for the coding to enable users to search by original language– especially useful information in the case of moving image materials.

  This proposal passed at the MARBI Midwinter meeting:

  1. $h has been redefined as “Language code for primary content of original.” Optionally, original language may be recorded, whether or not the resource is a translation.
  2. $k has been defined as “Language code of intermediate translations.”
  3. $m has been defined as “Language code of original for accompanying materials [other than librettos].”
  4. $n was later selected for “Language code of original for librettos.”

  For further background information on this proposal, please refer to my discussion of Discussion Paper No. 2010-DP05 in my MARBI report for 2009/2010, or to the discussion paper itself, available respectively at:http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/representatives/2010/marbi2010.htm
  and: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-dp05.html.

  Proposal No. 2011-02: RDA Production, Distribution and Manufacture Statements in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-02.html

  and:

  Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP01: Changes to the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to Accommodate RDA Production, Publication, Distribution and Manufacture Statements
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp01.html

  and:

  Proposal No. 2011-03: Encoding Date of Copyright Notice in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-03.html

  MARC 21 bibliographic coding does not differentiate between statements of production, publication, and distribution: 260 $a and $b are defined as Place of publication, distribution, etc., and Name of publisher, distributor, etc. (Manufacturer already has separate subfields). There is also no separate field or subfield for date of copyright notice, which may appear in 260 $c by itself, or with other dates, such as date of publication. However, these are all separate elements in RDA. During the testing of RDA, some catalogers found it difficult to properly apply RDA in this area, due to a difference in granularity between RDA and MARC 21. The discussion paper presented several options for distinguishing these separate RDA elements in MARC 21. These options included:

  Option 1. Add a second indicator to field 260 for function of statement (#-3). Separate 260 fields would be used for publication, distribution, production, and manufacture statements. A value of “blank” would apply for unspecified statements (primarily legacy data).

  Option 2. Add separate subfields for each function in field 260 for place, name and date of production, publication, and distribution. Subfields $a, $b, and $c would remain for legacy data, and for cases when the cataloger cannot distinguish which function is involved.

  Option 3. Define new fields (264, 266, 267-268). Field 260 would be retained for legacy data, and cases when the cataloger cannot distinguish which function is involved.

  A new field or subfield was also proposed for date of copyright, depending upon which of the above options were chosen,. (Field 542, defined in 2008, would not be suitable: its purpose is to give information on whether or not a resource is legally protected by copyright. The RDA copyright element serves a different purpose, as it is simply a statement of copyright notice on the item itself). If a new field were to be defined, it would be something in the 2XX block of MARC fields.

  At the MARBI Midwinter 2011 meetings, there seemed to be support for both Options 1 and 3; Option 2 was not popular. The preference of the MARBI Committee seemed to be for Option 3, with some in favor of a new fourth option: Adding one new field to accommodate these statements, with each function marked by an indicator value. This discussion paper was brought back as Proposal No. 2011-02 at the 2011 ALA Annual Meeting.

  The proposal presented two options: Adding a new field 264 with an indicator to distinguish the functions (the new Option 4 above), and Defining four new fields (Option 3 above). In either option, field 260 would remain valid, both to accommodate legacy data as well as for content standards that do not make a distinction between the functions. The paper also discussed the impact on 008 coding, and suggested a new definition under 008/06 (Type of date publication status) that would be in accord with the proposed changes to the imprint fields. Date “1” would be determined by arranging the types of dates in precedence order and choosing the first one available, with the goal of always providing a date in Date 1 whenever possible. For published resources, the precedence order would be: 1 Publication; 2 Distribution; 3 Copyright; 4 Manufacture. For unpublished resources: 1 Production; 2 Copyright.

  Proposal 2011-02 generated lengthy discussion at the June 2011 MARBI meetings. Eventually, the MARBI Committee approved the option to add only one new field: 264, with an indicator to designate the function. The proposal was amended to incorporate copyright information (only copyright date) into this field (using 2nd indicator “3”, and moving “Manufacture” to 2nd indicator “4”). Therefore, no action was taken on Proposal No. 2011-03 on Copyright, which had presented 3 different options to record copyright date. Here is the new field, as approved:

  • Field 264 – Production, Publication, Distribution, Copyright, Manufacture Statements (R)
    • Indicators
      • First – Sequence of statements
        • # – Not applicable/No information provided/Earliest
        • 2 – Intervening
        • 3 – Current/latest
      • Second – Function of entity
        • 0 – Production
        • 1 – Publication
        • 2 – Distribution
        • 3 – Copyright
        • 4 – Manufacturer
    • Subfield Codes
      • $a – Place of production, publication, distribution, manufacture (R)
      • $b – Name of producer, publisher, distributor, manufacturer (R)
      • $c – Date of production, publication, distribution, copyright, manufacture (R)
      • $3 – Materials specified (NR)
      • $6 – Linkage (NR)
      • $8 – Field link and sequence number (R)

  Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP02: Additional Elements to Support RDA in the MARC 21 Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp02.html

  Proposal No. 2009-01/1 and No. 2010-04 previously defined new attributes for Group 2 FRBR entities (persons, families, corporate bodies) and Group 1 FRBR entities (work, expression, manifestation, item), respectively. These attributes can be recorded as part of the heading, but are separate elements in RDA that may also be recorded separately even if they aren’t currently needed in a heading. It is useful to record each such RDA element in its own field or subfield, in case it later becomes necessary to differentiate the heading from another one that is otherwise identical. For example, field 046 $f may contain birth date, such as 1946 or 19460101. This information may or may not also appear as part of the authorized access point (1XX) on the authority record.

  No. 2011-DP02, presented at the January 2011 MARBI meetings, discussed several additional RDA data elements that are not well accommodated in the MARC 21 Authority Format.

  All four parts of the DP were brought back as separate proposals at the June 2011 MARBI meetings (Proposals No. 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, and 2011-07).

  Proposal No. 2011-04: Adding Field 377 (Associated Language) for Language of Expression in the Authority and Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-04.html

  Language of expression (RDA 6.11) is a core element when needed to differentiate an expression of a work from another expression of the same work. In our current database models, this information usually appears in authority records, not in bibliographic records. Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP02 (section 2.1) presented two options: Field 041 might be defined in the Authority Format, or Authority field 377 (Associated language) might have its definition broadened to include Language of the expression. (It currently includes only Language of the person and Language of the corporate body). It might also be helpful to add a subfield for the recording of language terms, rather than just codes. Field 377 could more easily accommodate both language codes and language terms. (Language codes are currently used in Bibliographic field 041, but not language terms). The Committee’s preference was to broaden field 377, rather than to use field 041. This part of the DP was brought back at the June 2011 MARBI meetings as Proposal No. 2011-04.

  Proposal No. 2011-04 presented two options:

  Option 1: Revise the definition of field 377 to also include Language of family and expression, but keep the subfields as they are.

  Option 2: Revise field 377 as above and add subfield $b for Language term. (Language terms would be used more often for the name of a specific language when the language code is a collective code. For example, “cau”, “Caucasian (Other)” is the collective code assigned for any of 18 different Caucasian area languages).

  Option 2 was approved by the MARBI Committee, with the substitution of $l (the letter “L”) for Language term, rather than $b.

  Proposal No. 2011-05: Broadening field 373 (Affiliation) for Associated Institutions in the MARC 21 Authority Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-05.html

  “Associated institution” (RDA 11.5) is a core element for conferences in many cases, and sometimes for other corporate bodies as well. No. 2011-DP02 (section 2.2) suggested that field 373 (Affiliation [of a person]; RDA 9.13) be broadened to encompass Associated institution. (Field 373 was previously defined in the MARC 21 Authority Format with Proposal No. 2009-01/1). Field 510 would not be an option, because RDA requires that the data is in the form as found on the resource. (Field 510 is a controlled field, defined as “See also from tracing–Corporate name). The MARBI Committee decided at the ALA Midwinter 2011 meetings to broaden the name and definition of this field, as well as the scope of its subfield $a. This DP was brought forward at the annual meeting as Proposal No. 2011-05.

  The proposal passed as written. The Library of Congress will broaden the name of the proposal to include groups, and the definition will be revised accordingly (exact wording to be worked out).

  Proposal No. 2011-06: RDA Fuller Form of Personal Name Attribute in the MARC 21 Authority Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-06.html

  “Fuller form of name” (RDA 9.5) is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name. This information, if included in a heading, is given in $q of the access point, i.e.: 100 1# $a Smith, John A. $q (John Allen). It might be useful to record this information in a discrete field, regardless of whether it is needed at the time that the heading is created. No. 2011-DP02 suggested a new field 378 for this purpose. This DP was brought back at the June 2011 MARBI meetings as Proposal No. 2011-06.

  The proposal passed as amended. Rather than using $a for Fuller form of personal name, subfield $q will be used instead (making life easier for catalogers). The documentation will specify that this field is nonrepeatable, and applies only to the heading in the 1XX (not to 4XX fields). Coding for the new field is shown below:

  • 378 – Fuller Form of Personal Name (NR)
    • Indicators
      • First – Undefined
        • # – Undefined, contains a blank
      • Second – Undefined
        • # – Undefined, contains a blank
    • Subfield Codes
      • $q – Fuller form of personal name (NR)
      • $u – Uniform Resource Identifier (R)
      • $v – Source of information (R)
      • $6 – Linkage (NR)
      • $8 – Field link and sequence number (R)

  Proposal No. 2011-07: Additional Corporate Body Attributes for RDA in the MARC 21 Authority Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-07.html

  Type of jurisdiction (RDA 11.7.15 and 11.13.1.6) is added to the name of a government other than a city or town when needed to differentiate between access points for two or more governments with the same name. Example:

  Preferred name: Cork (Ireland : County)
  Type of jurisdiction added as an element: County

  Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP02 (section 2.4) suggested the addition of a new field to the Authority Format for Type of jurisdiction. This part of the DP was brought back at the June 2011 MARBI meetings as Proposal No. 2011-07.

  The proposal also treats two other categories of attributes covered by RDA 11.7 in addition to jurisdiction (11.7.1.5): Names not conveying the idea of a corporate body (RDA 11.7.1.4), and: Other designation (RDA 11.7.1.6). An example of “Other designation” would be the designation “Seventh Day”, for the heading “Church of God (Seventh Day).” While RDA allows all three categories of designations to be added to authorized access points, a new field to include this information would be useful as well. Proposal No. 2011-07 offers two options for a new field 368:

  Option 1: Define a new field 368 (Other Corporate Body Attribute) with an indicator to identify the type of attribute.

  Option 2: Same as above, but using different subfields instead of indicators to identify the type of attribute.

  Option 2 was approved as written, and appears below.

  • Field 368 – Other Corporate Body Attributes (R)
    • Indicators
      • First – Undefined
        • # – Undefined, contains a blank
      • Second – Undefined
        • # – Undefined, contains a blank
    • Subfield Codes
      • $a – Type of corporate body (R)
      • $b – Type of jurisdiction (R)
      • $c – Other designation (R)
      • $0 – Record control number (R)
      • $2 – Source of term (R)
      • $6 – Linkage (NR)
      • $8 – Field link and sequence number (R)

  Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP03: Identifying Work, Expression, and Manifestation records in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp03.html

  and:

  Report on the RDA/MARC Working Group Discussion of Identifying Entity Types in MARC Records
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/WEMI_report.html

  Several earlier discussion papers and proposals have offered ideas on how to identify FRBR Group 1 entities in the MARC 21 formats (2008-DP04, 2008-05/1, 2008-05/2, and 2009-02/3, available from the MARC Development Web page: http://www.loc.gov/marc/development.html).

  The identification of FRBR entities did not seem vital for the initial implementation of RDA. However, since the major testing of RDA has been completed, the Library of Congress would like to revisit the issues. Clear identification of type of Group 1 entity should assist in the design of better displays and the support for user tasks, as well as facilitating more analysis of record content.

  While most institutions are currently using authority records for works and expressions, and bibliographic records for manifestations and items, it is likely that in the future, authority, bibliographic, and holdings records will be used to support more varied configurations. Therefore, the DP proposes that a new field 883 (Entity type) be defined in all three formats. Subfield “a” would be used for Primary entity type term (work, expression, manifestation, or item ), $b for Primary entity type code (“w” (work), etc.), $n for Cataloger’s note, and $2 for Source of term (frbrgroup1). Bibliographic records lacking 883 fields would by default be considered manifestation records; holdings records lacking 883 fields would be considered item records. A note field could be included for the cataloger to explain exceptional circumstances.

  Bibliographic records for manifestations would include 245 fields. Bibliographic records for works or expressions would contain a 130 or 240 field, but no 245 field.

  At the 2011 Midwinter meetings, this paper generated much spirited discussion. John Attig (Penn. State; audience) advised that we should only use the coding when it can be done cleanly. Our current bibliographic records are broader than just manifestation level (for example, they usually contain some work level information, such as subject headings). Sally H. McCallum (Chief, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress) reminded the group that the fields wouldn’t be mandatory; their use would be as structural metadata that would hopefully support experimentation; the fields are not meant to be displayed or used directly by searchers. John Espley (AVIAC representative from VTLS) added that the VTLS OPAC has been using local fields for these levels for a long time; defining values in MARC 21 for this information would be beneficial. A straw poll indicated that the MARBI Committee and the audience were in favor of having this DP brought back as a discussion paper or a proposal at the 2011 ALA Annual Meeting.

  After the 2011 Midwinter meetings, the RDA/MARC Working Group had several discussions on this DP, but couldn’t come to agreement on whether this paper should be brought back as a proposal. Several of us in the group (myself included), wanted to bring back the DP as a proposal, but others thought it would be too difficult to correctly assign the codes at this time. Also the ideas in the paper had been presented in several earlier discussion papers, without becoming successful proposals. Therefore, it was decided not to bring it back again. Instead, a report was written for discussion: Report of the RDA/MARC Working Group Discussion of Identifying Entity Types in MARC Records. The report distinguishes between strict and loose entity type definitions, and the problems of both approaches. It suggests that next year, as more use is made of RDA, systems experiment with a “local field”, perhaps field 883. Based upon the results of the experimentation, it may become feasible at some point to add this field to the MARC 21 formats, possibly with revised definitions. The report was on the agenda for the June 2011 annual meeting, but it wasn’t discussed at the meeting.

  Proposal No. 2011-08: Treatment of Controlled Lists of Terms for Carrier Characteristics in RDA in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-08.html

  and:

  Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP04: Treatment of Controlled Lists of Terms for Carrier Attributes in RDA and the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp04.html

  Carrier attributes are given in the new MARC fields 336-338 as either terms or codes (or both). These attributes are mapped to Leader/06 (Type of record), 007/00 (Category of material), and 007/01 (Specific material designation). Prior to RDA implementation, it was decided to use the coded data fields in MARC rather than establish new fields or subfields for the carrier attributes. However, based on experiences during the testing of RDA, the Library of Congress has suggested that it might be clearer to assign specific MARC fields or subfields for each of the carrier attributes listed in RDA (Chapter 3). No. 2011-DP04 presented the following suggestions at the 2011 Midwinter meetings:

  1. Field 340 Physical Medium (expansion of field; to be renamed: Carrier Characteristics): New subfields could be added for the RDA elements: Generation, Layout, Book format, Font size, and Polarity.
  2. Field 344 Sound Characteristics (New)
  3. Field 345 Projection Characteristics of Motion Picture Film (New)
  4. Field 346 Video Characteristics (New)
  5. Field 347 Digital File Characteristics (New)

  Other notes pertaining to carrier attributes currently map to MARC 500 notes. This DP suggests that subfield $i could be added for the attribute name.

  Example: 500 ## $i Mount: $a Mounted on starched linen.

  2011-DP04 was brought back as Proposal No. 2011-08 at the June 2011 MARBI meetings. One option presented the same fields as in the DP above (although 345 has been renamed: Projection Characteristic of Projected Media). Another option suggested using a new 34X field with subfields for each of the detailed characteristics. A problem with this option is handling growth in the number of characteristics. Additional suggestions included making 300 $b repeatable, and adding “$i” (Display text) as a new subfield in the 500 field.

  The MARBI Commitee approved Option 1, adding new fields 344-347, as well as adding new subfields to field 340 as above. Subfields $6, $8, and $0 (not in the actual proposal) will also be added to 340 and to the new fields 344-347. The other suggestions were not approved.

  Proposal No. 2011-09: Identifying the Source of Thematic Index Numbers in Field 383 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-09.html

  Field 383 was previously defined in Proposal No. 2010-04. It provided for the coding of a serial number, opus number, or thematic index number to help distinguish a work from others with the same title. Sometimes different indexes for the same composer use different serial and opus numbers to represent the same composition. For additional clarification, No. 2011-09 proposes $d (Thematic index citation code), $e (Publisher associated with serial or opus number), and $2 (Source code). $2 will be especially useful, as the Music Library Association has recently developed an authoritative compilation of citations for thematic indexes, entitled: Thematic indexes in the Library of Congress/NACO Authority File. This proposal passed as amended, the most notable change being that $e will only be for publisher associated with opus number, not also publisher associated with serial number.

  Proposal No. 2011-10: Geographic Codes in Classification Records
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-10.html

  This Paper proposes adding fields 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) and field 043 (Geographic Area Code) in the MARC 21 Classification Format to characterize geographic headings. Both fields would be useful to provide access to classification records. These fields already exist in the Bibliographic and Authority Formats. This proposal passed as amended, with $0 also added.

  Proposal No. 2011-11: Addition of Indicator Value 7 (Other edition specified in $2) in DDC Number Fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority and Community Information Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-11.html

  Currently, fields 082 and 083 only contain values for full and abridged editions of the Dewey Decimal Classification. These values are not applicable to some editions of DDC, such as Norwegian DDK 5, a translation not directly derived from the English language standard edition. Therefore, a means to record other values is needed. This proposal was approved as written at the June 2011 MARBI meetings.

  Proposal No. 2011-12: Defining Subfield $q for an Assigning Agency in Field 084 (Other Classification Number) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-12.html

  This new subfield was proposed in order to distinguish the assigning agency of a particular 084 field when more than one 084 field has been assigned to the same record, as is sometimes the case with records emanating from the German National Library. At the June 2011 MARBI meetings, this proposal was approved as written.

  Discussion Paper No. 2011-DP05: Additional Means of Identifying Medium of Performance in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp05.html

  Many Library of Congress subject headings for music combine medium and genre/form terms.

  Example: Sonatas (Flute and piano).

  It is now recognized that medium of performance is an facet of musical works that should be separate from both subject headings and from genre/form terms. Therefore, when genre/form terms for music are implemented, LCSH headings with medium terms in them will no longer be valid to assign to music. Medium of performance terms will need to be contained elsewhere in the MARC 21 record. This DP presents three possible MARC fields that might be suitable for medium of performance. The 048 field (a coded field, already in the Bibliographic Format, but not yet in the Authority Format), 382 (Medium of performance, currently used to differentiate expressions), or a new 6XX field in the Bibliographic Format (requiring also a new 1XX field in the Authority Format). Each of the fields would have advantages and disadvantages. During discussions at the June 2011 MARBI meetings, there was little support for the 048 option, but no clear preference expressed for the other two options. This DP will be brought back as a proposal, with links provided to examples.

  OTHER MARC NEWS

  Transforming Our Bibliographic Framework

  Deanna B. Marcum, LC’s Associate Librarian for Library Services, will be leading a new initiative “to analyze the present and future [bibliographic] environment, identify thecomponents of the framework to support our users, and plan for the evolution from our present framework to the future–not just for the Library of Congress, but for all institutions that depend on bibliographic data shared by the Library and its partners.” Two issues in the initiative are directly related to the future of the MARC 21 formats:

  • Determine which aspects of current metadata encoding standards should be retained and evolved into a format for the future.  We will consider MARC 21, in which billions of records are presently encoded, as well as other initiatives.
  • Explore approaches to displaying metadata beyond current MARC-based systems.

  The initiative was announced in the statement: Transforming our Bibliographic Framework: A Statement from the Librry of Congress (May 13, 2011). The full text is available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-051311.html

  Report and recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee

  On June 20, 2011, the above report was made publicly available. One of the recommendations of the report was to “Demonstrate credible progress toward a replacement for MARC” within an 18-24 month timeframe. The report is available at: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf

  MARC 21 Update No. 12 Available Online

  MARC 21 Update No. 12 (October 2010) was made available in late 2010 from the MARC Standards home page (http://www.loc.gov/marc/). Changes to the documentation resulted mainly from MARBI proposals that were approved at the ALA Midwinter and ALA Annual Meetings in 2010. The update has been integrated into the documentation for each of the online full and concise formats that are maintained on the MARC website. The changes to the formats are indicated in red. Appendix G of the Bibliographic Format, and Appendix F of the Authority and Holdings Formats, give a list of all the changes made in Update 12. The major change to the Bibliographic Format was the introduction of a new code “c” in Leader 18, used for “ISBD Punctuation only”, and the change in definition and description of code “i” “ISBD punctuation included”, also in Leader 18. Another significant change in several formats was the change in definition of $0 from “Record control number” to “Authority record control number or standard number.”

  RDA in MARC

  The document RDA in MARC continues to be regularly updated with approved and proposed changes to MARC 21. It is available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC29.html (last updated June 14, 2011).

• 2010

  REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
  MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MARBI)
  2010 ANNUAL REPORT

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

  July 7, 2010

  HIGHLIGHTS

  The Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI) is an interdivisional joint committee of three units within the American Library Association. It is primarily responsible for the development of the MARC 21 formats. MARBI holds meetings twice a year, during ALA’s Annual and Midwinter conferences. MARBI consists of nine voting members and three interns. The meetings are also attended by ex-officio representatives of national libraries and OCLC, and several dozen non-voting liaisons from ALA units and from non-ALA organizations with an interest in library automation standards. As the AALL representative to MARBI in 2010, I attended the MARBI meetings in Boston held during ALA Midwinter on January 16-17, 2010, as well as the meetings held in Washington, D.C., on June 26-27, 2010, during the ALA Annual Meeting.

  Several proposals and discussion papers relate to the mapping of RDA to MARC 21. Proposal No. 2010-03 added new subfields to bibliographic fields 033 and 518 for recording place and date of event. Proposal No. 2010-04 added new fields and subfields to both the Bibliographic and Authority formats for works and expressions: new subfields to 046, as well as the new fields 380-384. This proposal complements last year’s proposal No. 2009-01/1, which added the new fields 370-377 to the Authority Format, for RDA attributes relating to persons, families, and corporate bodies. Discussion Paper No. 2010-DP02 related to Encoding URIs for controlled values in MARC records, but will not be brought back as a proposal.

  Several MARBI papers relate to the encoding into MARC 21 of new or draft international standards used in global identification systems. 2010-DP03, 2010-DP04, and Proposal No. 2010-06 discuss the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) and the International Standard Text Code (ISTC).

  International participation in MARC by non-English speaking countries continues to grow. The German and Spanish MARC communities have been sending representatives to the MARBI meetings for several years. The German National Library presented a discussion paper and a proposal relating to ISBD punctuation in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, 2010-DP01 and Proposal No. 2010-07. Several revisions were approved to the codes used in Leader/18 Descriptive cataloging form.

  New fixed field codes have been approved in the MARC Bibliographic Format to differentiate between online and direct access electronic resources, chiefly in Form of item 008/23 and 008/29 and related 006 fields (Proposal No. 2010-01).

  The agenda for the 2010 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings is available at:
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/mw2010_age.html

  The minutes for the 2010 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings are at:
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-10.html

  The agenda for the 2010 ALA Annual MARBI meetings is at:
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2010_age.html

  Minutes and updated cover sheets for the 2010 Annual ALA MARBI meetings are not yet available as of July 7, 2010.

  Summaries of all the 2010 discussion papers and proposals are given below, with links to the full papers. I have also included any changes made to the papers during the MARBI meetings, and subsequently by the Library of Congress’ Network Development and MARC Standards Office. Following a summary of all the 2010 MARBI papers, I have discussed the 2009-2010 releases of Updates no. 10-11 to the MARC formats, and the latest OCLC, LC, and PCC plans for implementation of new MARC fields and subfields. “(R)” means that a field or subfield is repeatable; “(NR)” means that it is non-repeatable. The examples are given in MARC 21, except that extra spaces are added for legibility.

  SUMMARIES OF 2010 MARBI DISCUSSION PAPERS AND PROPOSALS

  Proposal 2010-01: Defining codes for online and direct access electronic resources in 008/23 and 008/29 (Form of item)
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-01.html
  This proposal originated with the PCC Provider-Neutral E-Monograph Record Task Group, a group which I co-chaired. It began life as 2009-DP-04, discussed at the 2009 ALA Annual Meeting, and summarized in my 2008/2009 AALL MARBI Representative Report. The proposal passed as amended at the 2010 ALA Midwinter Meeting. (The Maps and Visual Materials formats use 008/29 for Form of item; all other formats use 008/23; see also #3 below).

  1. Code “o” is defined for “online.” This code will be used only on a record representing the online resource. It should not be used on a record for the print version that contains a link to the online version.
  2. Code “q” is defined for “direct electronic.”
  3. “Form of item” 008/23 has been added to the Computer Files format.
  4. Code “s” “electronic” has not be made obsolete, but remains in the format, for those institutions that do not wish to make coding distinctions between types of electronic resources. Records coded as “pcc” should use the new codes. OCLC will convert code “s” to the appropriate new codes, both on a retrospective and ongoing basis.
  5. Codes “o” and “q” have been added to byte 008/22 in Form of original item, Continuing Resources.
  6. Codes “o” and “q” have also been added to the corresponding Form of item and Form of original item in field 006, Fixed length data elements – additional material.

  Proposal 2010-02: Addition of $5 (Institution to which field applies) in the 80X-830 Series Added Entry Fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-02.html
  This paper proposes the addition of $5 in series added entry fields for use in recording the name of a digital collection as a series in records for local and regional digital preservation projects, and projects of wider scope such as the Registry of Digital Masters (RDM). The proposal passed at the 2010 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

  Proposal No. 2010-03: Recording Place and Date of Capture in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-03.html
  Background: See discussion of 2009-DP06/2 in my 2008/2009 MARBI Representative Report. This proposal passed as amended.

  033 – Date/Time and Place of an Event. Data in this field was formerly only in coded form, as a counterpart to the uncoded information in field 518. A new subfield has been added for Place of event, to accommodate specific locations such as recording studios, concert halls, etc. This data may be in controlled or uncontrolled form. The new subfields are:

  $p Place of event (R)
  $0 Record control number (for $p only) (R)
  $2 Source of term (for $p only) (R)

  518 – Date/Time and Place of an Event Note. Data in this field is eye-readable, but its content wasn’t previously parsed into subfields. The data may now be parsed into the newly defined subfields (to help satisfy RDA requirements), or left unparsed.

  If parsed subfields are used, the data may be in a controlled or uncontrolled form. Subfield “o” (the letter) will be used for Other event information (rather than $i for an introductory phrase). The changes made to field 518 are similar to the changes that were made in 2008 to field 502, Dissertation Note. The new subfields are:

  $d Date of event (R)
  $o Other event information (R)
  $p Place of event (R)
  $0 Record control number (for $p only) (R)
  $2 Source of term (for $p only) (R)

  Example: 518 $o Broadcast $p Colorado Convention Center, Room 601-603, Denver, Colo. $d 2010 July 12, 4:00-5:15 pm. EST

  Proposal No. 2010-04: New data elements in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Format for works and expressions
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-04.html
  Background: See discussion of 2009-DP06/3 in my 2008/2009 MARBI Representative Report.

  The following new data elements have been approved in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats (see exception in #2 below). Until work and expression level records are created in the Bibliographic Format, these fields will be used only in the Authority Format.

  380 – Form of Work (R)
  Example (Bibliographic or Authority Format):

  380 $a Play

  046 – Special Coded Dates (R)
  This field already existed in the Bibliographic Format, and most of the subfields were added to the Authority Format with the approval of Proposal No. 2009-01/1. Proposal 2010-04 adds two more subfields to 046 in the Authority Format:

  $k Beginning or single date created (NR)
  $l Ending date created (NR)

  These new subfields will be used to help differentiate one work from another work, or one expression from another expression. The same information will still be seen in headings in authority and bibliographic records, especially in parenthetical qualifiers.

  381 – Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression (R).
  Example (Authority Format — Work):

  130 #0 $a Working paper series (New York University. Salomon Center)
  381    $a New York University. Salomon Center

  “Other distinguishing characteristics” is deliberately a general term, which can encompass various sorts of information, dependent upon the nature of the resource cataloged. Such information is sometimes needed to break conflicts between headings, and is often lacking from the 670 field of authority records. It may be useful to add this information to the 381 field at the time the authority record is created, regardless of whether or not an actual conflict exists with the title of another work or expression.

  382 – Medium of Performance (R)
  Example (Authority Format):

  382 $a soprano $a alto $a mixed voices $a orchestra

  383 – Numeric Designation of a Musical Work (R)

  384 – Key (NR)
  A first indicator is defined for Key type: “#” Relationship to original unknown; “0” Original key; “1” Transposed key.

  Proposal No. 2010-05: Adding $3 (Materials specified) to field 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-05.html Approved as written. Since field 034 may now be added to Geographic name authority records by NACO participants, some of us may have occasion to use this subfield. Proposal No. 2010-08 also discusses field 034.

  Proposal No. 2010-06: Encoding the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-06.html
  and:
  Discussion Paper No. 2010-DP03: Encoding the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) and the International Standard Text Code (ISTC) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-dp03.htm

  The ISNI is a draft ISO Standard (ISO 27729). Its scope is “the identification of Public Identities of parties: that is, the identities used publicly by parties involved throughout the media content industries in the creation, production, management, and content distribution chains.” The ISNI Registration Authority will be responsible for allocating public identity to an ISNI, and managing and maintaining the ISNI database. ISNI is at the Draft International Standard (DIS) stage, and received 100% approval in March 2010. The standard is expected to be published prior to April 2011.

  One of the ways that libraries will get ISNIs is through publishers’ bibliographic metadata, so ISNIs will need to be recorded in MARC bibliographic records. Recording it in both the bibliographic and authority records will assist in the rights management process. “ISNIs can be assigned to any entity that is or was either a natural person, a legal person, a fictional character, or a group of such entities.” (www.isni.org; last viewed July 5, 2010). In the MARC Bibliographic Format, ISNIs would be appropriate in main entry fields, subject access fields, added entry fields, and series added entry fields. In the MARC Authority Format, ISNIs could be used in “See also from” tracing fields (4XX), Heading linking entry fields (7XX), and Other standard identifier (field 024). It was clarified at the June 2010 MARBI meetings that ISNIs would not be used in the Authority heading fields (1XX fields); field 024 would be used for that purpose. To record ISNIs in authority fields 5XX and 7XX, $0 would be used. It would be difficult to record the ISNI in a consistent manner in all of the above fields, since few alphabetical or numerical subfields are available.

  The discussion paper and proposal recommended using and augmenting the definition of $0 Authority record control number in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats so that ISNIs could be given in this subfield. Code “isni” was suggested for inclusion in the list of Standard Identifier Source Codes (available at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/standard-identifier.html; last viewed July 5, 2010). The code “isni” should be given in parentheses and precede the standard number recorded in $0. The proposal was approved at the 2010 ALA Annual MARBI meeting.

  Some examples of ISNIs:

  (Bibliographic Format): 100 1# Rendell, Ruth, $d 1930- $0 ISNI 8462 8328 5653 6435

  In the Authority Format, field 024 could be used to record an ISNI to help identify the entity recorded in a 100, 110, 111, 150, or 151 field. Code “isni” needs to be added to the MARC Code List for Relators (available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators; last viewed July 6, 2010). Example:

  024 7# $a ISNI 8462 8328 5653 6435$2 isni
  100 1# $a Rendell, Ruth, $d 1930-

  The International Standard Text Code was only briefly discussed at the January 2010 MARBI meetings, because some issues regarding how best to record it in bibliographic and authority records remained unresolved. A further discussion paper was written on the ISTC. (See below under Discussion Paper No. 2010-04).

  MARC Proposal No. 2010-07: ISBD Punctuation in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-07.html and:
  Discussion Paper No. 2010-DP01: ISBD punctuation in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-dp01.html

  Germany and Austria have recently joined the MARC 21 community. They previously used the MAB format, which omitted ISBD punctuation when content designation identified an element type. They wish to continue this practice in their MARC 21 records as well. In support of this practice, institutions that implement RDA will not need to follow ISBD punctuation conventions, since ISBD punctuation is optional for record displays in RDA. As a result of the discussions at the 2010 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings, it was decided to narrow the use of Leader/18 to ISBD punctuation conventions. In conjunction with this change, it was also decided to make “040 $e (Description conventions)” repeatable. This has already been done, since a repeatable 040 $e was needed for RDA testing.

  The subsequent proposal was brought forward at the June 2010 MARBI meetings. A new code “c” has been added:

  c – ISBD punctuation excluded when redundant

  The label for code “a”, currently “ISBD/AACR” will be changed to “AACR”, and the scope note will be revised.

  The scope note for “i – ISBD” will also be revised; this code will only indicate that ISBD punctuation conventions are being followed. (the preexisting definition was “Descriptive portion of the record is formulated according to the descriptive and punctuation provisions of ISBD …”).

  A record cataloged according to RDA and using ISBD punctuation would use: 008/18 “i” and 040 $e rda.

  A record cataloged according to RDA not following ISBD punctuation conventions would use: 008/18 “#” and 040 $e rda.

  MARC Proposal No. 2010-08: Encoding Scheme of Coordinate Data in Field 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-08.html
  This field has been used in both the MARC Bibliographic and Authority formats for cartographic mathematical data, such as scale, projection, and coordinates, which are given in coded form. Different methods are used to express coordinates, but the particular method has not been given in this field. This paper proposes a new $7 (Coordinate encoding scheme). The code used would be from Coordinate Scheme Source Codes. The proposal engendered a great deal of discussion at the 2010 ALA Annual MARBI meetings. Several technical issues regarding the proposal came up that could not be resolved. For this reason, the proposal was not approved; it may be brought back as a revised proposal at a future meeting.

  MARC Proposal No. 2010-09: Addition of Subfield $u to Field 561 (Ownership and Custodial History) to the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-09.html
  Field 561 includes information about the ownership and custodial history of the resources described “from the time of their creation to the time of their accessioning”. This information may be quite lengthy, and may be available from an external source or sources. Subfield “u” has already been added to many other 5XX Bibliographic fields, and would be useful here as well. The proposal passed as amended at the June 2010 MARBI meetings, with the only change being that the new $u was made repeatable.

  Discussion Paper No. 2010-DP02: Encoding URIs for controlled values in MARC records
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-dp02.html Background: See discussion of No. 2009-DP01/1 and 2009-DP06/1 in my 2008-2009 MARBI Representative Report. This DP proposes recording Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for controlled values and headings in the subfield appropriate to the value itself, distinguished by angle brackets around the Uniform resource identifier (URI). URIs would most likely not be keyed into records, but added via automation. This discussion paper will not be brought forward as a proposal. Rather, the Library of Congress and perhaps some other institutions or individuals will experiment with URIs by using some of the techniques described in this paper.

  Discussion Paper No. 2010-DP04: Encoding the International Standard Text Code (ISTC) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-dp04.html
  The International Standard Text Code (ISO 21047) is “a global identification system for textual works that is primarily intended for use by publishers, bibliographic services, retailers, libraries and rights management agencies to collocate different manifestations of the same title under a work-level record … The standard was formally published in March 2009 and the International ISTC Agency has started implementing the standard.”

  The discussion paper presents several options in how the ISTC should be recorded in the MARC 21 formats “so that the potential benefits of the ISTC can be tested and exploited.” It is hoped that other standards of a similar nature that identify the content rather than the carrier, such as the International Standard Work Code (ISWC), can also be handled in the same manner in MARC 21.

  A major distinction is made in the ISTC standard between the concepts of “original work” and “derivations” or “derived works”. Eleven types of derivation are defined, including abridged, annotated, critical, excerpt, etc.

  In all likelihood, the ISTC will be imported into MARC records through the conversion of ONIX for Books product descriptions to MARC-the main reason why ISTCs need to be recorded in the Bibliographic Format, not just the Authority Format.

  The discussion paper presents several options for recording ISTCs in MARC 21. Option 2 was supported by MARBI at its June 2010 meetings. It requires no changes to the format:

  Record ISTCs for works contained in the manifestation in bibliographic field 024 – Other standard identifier and record ISTCs for source works not contained in the manifestation in bibliographic field 787 subfield $o Other item identifier. 787 subfield $i Relationship information could be used to record introductory text. There may be a preference not to display the 787 because the ISTC may not be resolvable and there will be no additional descriptive metadata. … This option would be extensible, through the use of $i Relationship information and/or $4 Relationship code, should the type of relationship become explicit in future.

  If the type of the relationship is known or becomes known, other linking fields may be more appropriate than 787 $i, such as field 765 “Translation of”.

  Here is one of the simpler examples from the DP:

  An adaptation of Animal farm:

  024 7# $a 0A42010111177788 $2 istc [ISTC for the work “George Orwell’s Animal farm”]
  100 1# $a Wooldridge, Ian.
  245 10 $a George Orwell’s Animal farm / $c adapted by Ian Wooldridge.
  700 1# $a Orwell, George, $d 1903-1950. $t Animal farm.
  787 18 $i Related source work $o ISTC 0A3200912B4A1057 [ISTC for the work “Animal farm”]

  Discussion Paper No. 2010-DP05: Language Coding for Moving Images in Field 041 of the MARC Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2010/2010-dp05.html
  This paper considered what changes could be made to the MARC format that would improve access to the various types of language information found on videos and other moving image materials. It suggests the following revisions to the coding of these materials:

  1. Creating a distinction between spoken/sung/signed versus written language in fields 008/35-37 (Language) and 041 $a and $j. The current distinction is between “main” language and “subsidiary” language (such as subtitles and captions). This distinction is problematic for DVDs because sometimes 008/35-37 and 041 $a contain the “main” spoken language, and sometimes they contain subsidiary alternate soundtracks.
  2. Distinguishing between original language and language of intermediate translations. Both are currently coded in subfield 041 $h.

  At the 2010 ALA Annual MARBI meetings, it became readily apparent how complicated it would be to make all the desirable distinctions in language coding. Questions on the implications of this paper for other formats were also raised. This DP may come back as a proposal.

  OTHER MARC NEWS AND EVENTS

  MARC 21 Update No. 10 and No. 11 available online
  MARC 21 Update No. 10 (October 2009) was made available online in mid November 2009 from the MARC Standards home page (http://www.loc.gov/marc/; last viewed July 6, 2010). Changes to the documentation resulted mainly from MARBI proposals that were approved at the ALA Midwinter and ALA Annual Meetings in 2009.

  Although the MARC updates are usually issued annually in October or November of each year, Update No. 11 (February 2010) was made available in early March 2010, in anticipation of the upcoming testing of RDA. That documentation included changes resulting mainly from MARBI proposals that were approved at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in January 2010. Both updates have been integrated into the documentation for each of the Online Full and Concise formats that are maintained on the MARC website.

  The changes are indicated in red in Update 11. Update 10 changes have also been kept in red. Appendix G of the Bibliographic Format gives a list of all the changes made in Update 10, as well as a separate list for Update 11. Appendix F of the Authority Format gives separate lists of all the changes made in Update 10 and in Update 11. Update No. 12 will most likely be published in October or November of 2010, and will not involve major changes to the formats.

  RDA in MARC (May 2010)
  “RDA in MARC” is a list of all changes which have been approved to the MARC formats to support RDA. Hotlinks are provided to MARC 21 descriptions of all the fields that have already been added to the formats. This list has been compiled by Sally McCallum. (available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC29.html; last updated May 24, 2010; viewed July 6, 2010).

  OCLC -MARC Format Changes in 2010
  On May 23, 2010, OCLC implemented most of the changes related to the OCLC-MARC Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats Update 2010. This included MARC 21 Update No. 10 and most of Update No. 11, MARC Code List changes since July 2009, and user and OCLC staff suggestions. A detailed list of the changes is given in OCLC Technical Bulletin 258 (available at: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/258/default.htm).

  Here are the major changes to the Bibliographic 21 Format:

  • Form of item (008/23 & 006/06): new codes “o” online; “q” direct access.
  • 490 Series statement, $x is now repeatable, to enable recording of ISSNs for both main series and subseries.
  • 588 Source of description note (LC and PCC will not use for simple Source of title notes, preferring to continue using 500 in these cases).

  Changes specifically for RDA:

  • New 040 subfield $e code “rda” (repeatable)
  • 336-338: RDA phrases and codes for content, media, and carrier (replacing $h GMD in RDA records)
  • 518 and 033: Date/Time/Place of an Event; new subfields
  • 700, 710, 711, 730: New subfield $i for Relationship information
  • 76x-78x Linking entry fields: New subfield $4 Relationship code; subfield $i renamed: Relationship information (formerly: Display text)

  Changes to the Authority Format:
  All the MARC changes to the Authority Format described above have been implemented by OCLC. However, LC and the PCC have asked all NACO participants not to use the new authority fields and elements until October 1, 2010, the date on which the RDA test begins.

  MARC Formats Interest Group (MFIG) Meeting June 26, 2010
  The topic of the meeting was: How Have the MARC 21 Formats Been Adapted to Accommodate RDA and How Is This Being Implemented?

  First Richard Greene, OCLC, spoke about OCLC’s recent implementation of MARC 21 changes to accommodate RDA and to support the testing of RDA. He reported that OCLC’s recent implementation of MARC/RDA changes involved 129 pages in OCLC documentation. Each MARC update is reviewed by about sixty people.

  OCLC has issued “OCLC Policy Statement on RDA Cataloging in WorldCat for the U.S. Testing Period” (available from” http://www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/policy.htm; last viewed July 6, 2010). Catalogers may start adding RDA bibliographic records, once they are familiar with the content and use of RDA rules. As of June 26, 2010, a few RDA bibliographic records had already been added to OCLC. RDA records in OCLC may now be searched in a new index called Descriptive conventions (code dx); use “rda” in the search. This index searches codes found in 040 $e.

  Rebecca Guenther of the Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress, then discussed the RDA-related MARC 21 format changes and their implementation in LC’s Voyager Integrated Library System. During the RDA test, The Library of Congress will use relator terms $e in headings’ fields, but will not use relator code $4 in headings or in linking fields. It will also not use $0 (“zero’) for adding authority control numbers to headings’ fields, but will wait until systems can supply them automatically. National libraries will be allowed to use $0 in 7XX linking authority fields during the RDA test.

  These informative talks were followed by a question and answer session. Then the current chair of the MFIG group, Gene Dickerson, asked for a volunteer to take on the chairing of the MARC Formats Interest Group, as his term has ended. Unfortunately, no one else volunteered to become the new chair of the group, so the fate of the MFIG is uncertain. It would be a shame if it dissolved, as its meetings are quite informative.

• 2009

  REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
  MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MARBI)
  2009 ANNUAL REPORT

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

  INTRODUCTION

  The Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI) is an interdivisional joint committee of three units within the American Library Association. It is primarily responsible for the development of the MARC 21 formats. MARBI holds meetings twice a year, during ALA’s Annual and Midwinter conferences. MARBI consists of nine voting members and three interns. The meetings are also attended by ex-officio representatives of national libraries and OCLC, and several dozen non-voting liaisons from ALA units and from non-ALA organizations with an interest in library automation standards. As the AALL representative to MARBI in 2009, I attended the MARBI meetings in Denver held during ALA Midwinter on January 24-25, 2009, and also the meetings held in Chicago, Illinois, on July 11-12, 2009, during the ALA Annual Meeting.

  Several proposals and discussion papers relate to the mapping of RDA to MARC 21. These include: Proposals No. 2009-01/1, 2009-01/2, 2009-01/3, 2009-06/1, 2009-06/2, and 2009-06/3, and Discussion papers 2009-DP01/1, 2009-DP01/2, 2009-DP06/1, 2009-DP06/2, and 2009-DP06/3.

  Internationalization of MARC 21 continues. The National Library of Spain and the Czech National Library both presented proposals to accommodate their conversion into MARC 21.

  A new bibliographic field has been approved for cataloger’s notes: field 588. Subfield $x of the MARC Bibliographic 490 field has been made repeatable, so that ISSNs for both a series and a subseries may be transcribed in the same 490 field. Discussion papers on significant changes to the MARC 21 formats have been favorably received at the ALA Annual Meeting, and will be brought back as proposals at the 2010 ALA Midwinter. Two of the most noteworthy changes being considered are: Adding new fixed field codes to differentiate online resources from direct access electronic resources, and making the Cataloging source code (MARC Bibliographic 008/39) obsolete.

  The agenda for the 2009 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings is available at:http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/mw2009_age.html

  The minutes for the 2009 ALA Midwinter MARBI meetings are at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-09.html

  The agenda for the 2009 ALA Annual MARBI meetings is at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2009_age.html

  Minutes and updated cover sheets for the 2009 Annual MARBI meetings are not yet available as of July 22, 2009.

  Summaries of all the 2009 Discussion papers and Proposals are given below, with links to the full papers. I have also included any changes made to the papers during the MARBI meetings, and subsequently by the Library of Congress’ Network Development and MARC Standards Office.

  Following a summary of all the 2009 MARBI papers I have discussed the October 2008 release of Update no. 9 to the MARC formats, and the latest OCLC plans for implementation of new MARC fields and subfields.

  Proposal No. 2009-01/1: New data elements in the MARC 21 Authority Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-01-1.html

  New data elements will be needed in the MARC 21 Authority format to accommodate Resource Description and Access (RDA). This proposal defines new data elements for attributes relating to FRBR Group 2 entities: persons, corporate bodies, and families as defined in RDA.These attributes are sometimes also needed in the access point for the entity. Those institutions which implement RDA in MARC 21 will need to decide whether or not to include the data element in the access point only, or also to record the information in one of the newly defined fields or subfields as well. The following new fields were proposed for the Authority format: field 046, and 621x fields 621-628.

  Field 046 is already available in the Bibliographic format for Special coded dates, but many of the subfields are not appropriate for the Authority format. But since the data will be broadly similar in the two formats, it was decided to use field 046 but to choose different subfields. The dates include birth, death, and period of activity dates for persons, date of establishment or termination for corporate bodies, and any significant date for families. It is recommended that dates used in field 046 be encoded in a structured way, using an ISO 8601 compliant format.

  The proposal for field 628 was approved with no changes at the ALA Midwinter Meeting. For the other 62x fields, the proposal was amended during and after the Midwinter Meeting to replace a single “Dates” subfield ($d or $t) with $s (Start date) and $t (End date), to provide more controlled searching. Also, at the meeting it was decided to add three more subfields to most of the new 62X fields: $0 (linking to another authority record), another subfield (value as yet undetermined), for source of the information, and subfield $u for link to a source of information.

  As a result of discussion of No. 2009-DP-06/3 at the ALA Annual Meeting, the field tags were changed from the 62X range to the 3XX range. Proposal 2009-01/1 was updated in July 2009 to reflect the change in field names. The new fields include:

  • 046 — Special coded dates
  • 370 (originally proposed as 621) — Associated place
  • 371 (originally proposed as 622) — Address
  • 372 (originally proposed as 623) — Field of activity
  • 373 (originally proposed as 624) — Affiliation
  • 374 (originally proposed as 625) — Occupation
  • 375 (originally proposed as 626) — Gender
  • 376 (originally proposed as 627) — Family information
  • 377 (originally proposed as 628) — Associated language

  Proposal No. 2009-01/2: New content designation for RDA elements: Content type, Media Type, Carrier Type in the MARC 21 Formats.
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-01-2.html
  Three new fields have been proposed: Field 336 (Content type), 337 (Media type), and 338 (Carrier type). These fields are intended to replace the General material designation (GMD), defined in AACR2, and used in Bibliographic field 245. This proposal has been approved as amended: “Content type” will be used in the Bibliographic and Authority formats; “Media type” and “Carrier type” will be used in the Bibliographic and Holdings formats. The following subfields have been defined for all 3 fields: $a Content type term, $b Content type code, $2 Source MARC code, $3 Materials specified, $6 Linkage, $8 Field link and sequence number. Also, new values for “Carrier type” were proposed and have been approved for addition to the Bibliographic 007 field; no new values were deemed necessary for Content or Media type. Other carrier characteristics are also discussed in Proposal 2009-06/3 below.

  Proposal No. 2009-01/3: Identifying work, expression and manifestation records in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-01-3.html
  Field “883”: “Entity type” was proposed to identify FRBR type 1 entitles: Work, expression, manifestation, and item. This proposal was rejected by the MARBI Committee. A major problem is that clean mapping of FRBR levels is difficult in our current bibliographic records, most of which contain manifestation information (such as publication information) and work information (such as subject headings), and sometimes expression level information as well (such as many uniform titles). Subsequent review by the Library of Congress (LC), Library and Archives Canada (LAC), and the British Library (BL) concurred with the MARBI decision.

  Proposal No. 2009-02: Definition of new codes for legal deposits in 008/07 (Method of Acquisition) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-02.html
  The Biblioteca Nacional de España has proposed new codes for legal deposit. This proposal was approved as amended: Code “d” will be renamed as “Deposit (Unspecified)”, and the definition will be revised. Code “l” (the letter) will be added for “Legal deposit” for institutions which require that level of description; Proposed Code “v” for “Depository program” was not approved; depository programs should go under code “d”. (For more background on this proposal, refer to the section on Discussion paper 2008-DP06 in my 2007-2008 Representative’s Report).

  Proposal No. 2009-03: Definition of field 080 in the MARC 21 Authority Format 
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-03.html
  The Authority format has separate fields for many other classification scheme numbers, all of which are also valid in the Bibliographic format. The Biblioteca Nacional de España has proposed the addition of field 080 for a Universal Decimal Classification number, to be used in name, series, and subject records. This field already is used in the Bibliographic format. Status: Approved.

  Proposal No. 2009-04: Addition of Codes for Map Projections in 008/22-23 (Maps) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-04.html
  The National Library of the Czech Republic has proposed two new fixed field codes for map projections. Status: Approved.

  Proposal No. 2009-05: Adding subfield $u for Uniform Resource Identifier to field 510 (Citation/References note) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-05.html
  Use of subfield $u has grown in recent years to include many note fields, such as MARC Bibliographic fields 505, 520, and 545, and MARC Authority field 670. This subfield offers users access to online information that may be more current and more easily maintained outside of the MARC record. This proposal was approved. A recommendation will be added that the URI follow immediately after the citation. Although this proposal originated from the Bibliographic Standards Committee, ALA/ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, the usage will not be restricted to rare books and manuscripts, so examples will be added for citations to other types of material.

  Proposal No. 2009-06/1: Accommodating Relationship Designators for RDA Appendix J and K in MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-06-1.html
  and:
  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP01/2: Relationship Designators for RDA Appendix J and Khttp://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp01-2.html
  Appendix J lists possible relationships between the Group 1 FRBR entities (resource to resource): works, expressions, manifestations, and items. Appendix K lists possible relationships between the Group 2 FRBR entities (name to name): persons, families, and corporate bodies. This Discussion paper recommends that subfields $e, $4, and $u be added for use in linking entry fields of the Bibliographic format. It also recommends that subfields $4 and $e be added to 5XX fields in the Authority format wherever they are not yet authorized. The paper was discussed at the ALA Midwinter Meeting, but because the final texts of RDA were not yet available, no decisions were made at that time. It was brought back during the ALA Annual Meeting as Proposal No. 2009-06/1. The following changes were proposed in No. 2009-06/1:

  1. Adjust the definition of subfield $i in bibliographic linking fields (767-78X) to accommodate Appendix J (resource to resource links) relationship designators in textual form. It also suggests defining $i in bibliographic fields X00, X10, X11, X30 for Appendix J relationship designators and adjusts the $i definition in the 5XX fields of the Authority format for both Appendix J and K (name to name links) relationship designators.
  2. Define subfield $4 in bibliographic linking fields 76X-78X for Appendix J relationship designator codes.
  3. Rename Bibliographic field 787 (Nonspecific Relationship Entry) “Other relationship.”

  At the Annual Meeting, the proposal passed as amended. The most significant changes were: Subfield $4 will also be added to 4XX and 5XX fields in the Authority format. The name for $i will be changed from “Reference instruction phrase.” “Relationship designator” will get into the MARC description of $i. Field 787 will be renamed “Other relationship entry”, rather than “Other relationship.”

  Here’s an example from the paper of how $i could be used in a 500 field of an authortiy record:

  100 1 $a Snodgrass, Quintus Curtius, $d 1835-1910
  500 1 $a Clemens, Samuel, $d 1835-1910 $i real identity

  Proposal No. 2009-06/2: Transcribing Series and Subseries ISSNs
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-06-2.html
  When both a main series and a subseries each have an ISSN, AACR2 instructs us to transcribe only the ISSN of the subseries. RDA allows for the recording of both (this change to RDA was approved in March 2009). Currently, subfield $x for ISSN in the series statement is not repeatable in the MARC Bibliographic format. No. 2009-06/2 redefines subfield $x as repeatable. The proposal was approved at the ALA Annual Meeting.

  Proposal No. 2009-06/3: New coded values for RDA media carriers in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-06-3.html
  RDA associates a group of carrier types with each media type. In April 2009, several new carrier types were added by the Joint Steering Committee to the description of RDA carriers. This proposal suggests that new coded values be added to field 007/01 and field 338 subfield $b of the Bibliographic format for these new carrier types. (The format already allows the name of the carrier to be given in subfield $a of field 338). This proposal passed without any changes. Other carrier characteristics are also discussed in Proposal 2009-01/2 above.

  Proposal No. 2009-07: Definition of field 883 (Source of description, etc. note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-07.html
  and:
  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP02: Definition of field 588 for metadata control note in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp02.html
  The CONSER Standard Record-MARC Working Group recommended the definition of a new field for data connected with the creation or updating of a bibliographic record. By assigning this field a unique MARC tag, the field could be readily distinguished from other notes on a record of interest to public online catalog users. The information contained in this note would be primarily of interest to catalogers creating or maintaining records in a cooperative database such as OCLC. Typical notes would be for Source of the description, Description basis, Latest part consulted, Source of title, and Date viewed. While such notes appear most often in serial records, they also are used in records for multiparts and for all types of integrating and electronic resources. At the MARBI Midwinter Meeting, it was suggested that the field be renamed, narrowed in scope, and made more structured, with possibly a value added to allow suppression of the field upon a case by case basis. Subfield “i” was also suggested for introductory text, as well as a $5 for institution to which field applies. Additionally, first indicators were proposed for Blank: Free text; 0: Source of title; 1: Description based on; and 2: Latest issue consulted. Using these indicators for common messages of this type will minimize keying, lessen spelling errors, and provide useful information in a language neutral manner.

  This DP was brought back at ALA Annual as Proposal No. 2009-07, but prior to the meeting, the field tag was changed in the proposal’s name from 588 to 883. After much spirited discussion during the ALA Annual Meeting, the proposal passed as amended. Field 588, the original field suggested in the DP, will be used, not field 883. The field will be called “Cataloger’s note” rather than “Source of description, etc. Note”. Many members of the MARBI Committee thought that there was insufficient justification for adding multiple subfields for different types of notes, so only subfield $a (repeatable) will be used for this type of information. Subfields $5 (Institution to which field applies), $6 (Linkage), and $8 (Field and sequence number), will also be added. Subfield $i was not added, nor was an indicator for suppression of the field.

  Proposal No. 2009-08: Changes to field 257 (Country of Producing Entity) for use with non-archival materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-08.html
  and:
  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP03: Changing field 257 (Country of producing entity for archival films) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to include non-archival materials
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp03.html
  Despite widespread interest in access to information about the country of production for non-archival films, this information can only be given in MARC Bibliographic field 655 (Index Term—Genre/Form), with a subfield $2 for the source of the term coded as “local.” (LC’s current position is that geographic subdivisions are not allowed after form/genre headings unless they are coded in such a manner). The Online Audiovisual Catalogers Group (OLAC) has proposed that field 257, currently restricted to information on the country of production for archival films, be broadened to include information about non-archival films as well. At the ALA Annual Meeting, this proposal passed as amended. Field 257 will be added to the format as a repeatable field, with subfield $a repeatable as well. When a bibliographic record describes multiple films, each film will have its own 257 field. If multiple countries are involved in the co-production of a film, each country will be entered in its own $a.

  Proposal No. 2009-09: Adding new codes to Music 008/18-19 (Form of composition) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-09.html
  The National Library of Spain has proposed adding codes for four musical forms of composition in field 008. These codes may also be used in field 047 (Form of musical composition) subfield $a. Codes for zarzuelas, flamenco, villancicos, and lyric theater music were approved, with the name of the last mentioned changed to “Teatro lyrico.”

  Proposal No. 2009-10: Adding subfield $3 to field 534 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-10.html
  This proposal also originated from the National Library of Spain. Field 534 is used for an “original version note” when the main portion of a bibliographic record describes a reproduction. A subfield $3 in this field would indicate the part of the original version from which the reproduction recorded in the main body of the record was made. It would parallel the current use of this subfield in field 533. The proposal passed without changes at the ALA Annual Meeting.

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP01/1: Encoding URIs for controlled values in MARC records
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp01-1.html
  and:
  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP06/1: Encoding URIs for controlled values in MARC 21 records
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp06-1.html
  LC’s Network Development and MARC Standards Office is working on a registry for controlled lists (such as the MARC Code List for Languages), and establishing uniform resource identifiers (URIs) both for the list itself and for each value on the list. Other agencies are also developing URI lists. 2009-DP 01/1, presented at ALA Midwinter, proposes a new subfield “l” (the number “1”), for coding URIs in place of, or in addition to, using terms from a controlled vocabulary. While both $1 and $u may contain a URI, they differ in use. Subfield “1” links to a vocabulary value; subfield “u” most commonly links to a bibliographic entity that is the resource described, a related resource, or supplemental information.

  This DP was brought back again at the ALA Annual Meeting as 2009-DP06-1. The later paper also presented an option of using MARCXML attributes to carry a URI for controlled values, in addition to “classic” MARC 21 (technically known as MARC 2709). During the Annual Meeting, it was stressed that while “RDA-compliant” records can be created without URIs, it would be worth exploring just how the URIs might be used in systems. One problem with the proposal (as expressed in both DPs), is that systems must depend upon the order of subfields to make the URI subfield meaningful. After much discussion during ALA Annual, it was decided not to bring forward 2009-DP06-1 as a proposal. Several people on the MARBI Committee felt that a new DP was needed, to explore what is the best way of doing experimentation in MARC.

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP01/2. See above under: Proposal No. 2009-06/1

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP02. See above under: Proposal No. 2009-07

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP03. See above under: Proposal No. 2009-08

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP04: Adding codes for “online access” and “direct access” in 008 for Form of item in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp04.html
  This proposal originated from the PCC Provider-Neutral E-Monograph Record Task Group, a group which I co-chaired. Soon after we began our work on the task group, it became apparent to us that records for online electronic resources are not clearly distinguished from records for direct access electronic resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format. The paper discussed the limitations of fields currently being used in the format to indicate that the record represents an electronic resource, a resource with electronic aspects, or is accompanied/supplemented by an electronic resource. MARC fields which will be used in RDA for this purpose were also discussed. We presented three options for Form of item codes, with the first option being the preferred one:

  Make code “s” (electronic) obsolete in the Form of item fields across all formats. Define new codes “r” or online and “d” for direct access.

  Question 1 of the paper asked if field 008/23 should be added to the Computer File format (Leader 06 “m”), since this is the one Bibliographic format where there is no field for Form of item. Adding this field would help to more clearly mark records for online resources such as numeric data or fonts.

  At the ALA Annual Meeting, there was a discussion about how networked CD-ROMs should be coded. Most Committee members felt that electronic resources should be coded for how they have been issued, not for how they are being used by an individual institution. In bibliographic utilities or union catalogs, CD-ROMs should be coded as “direct access”; in an OPAC, networked CD-ROMs might be coded however the institution wishes, either as direct or online access.

  This DP will be brought back as a proposal at ALA Midwinter 2010. The MARBI Committee preferred the first option, and was also in favor of “Form of item” being added to the Computer File format. Codes “o” for online and “p” for direct access will be proposed, rather than codes “r” and “d”, which are not available across all formats.

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP05: Making 008/39 (Cataloging source) obsolete in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp05.html
  This code is defined in both the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats as a “one-character code that indicates the original cataloging source of the record.” However, when PCC participants authenticate a bibliographic record which was not created at the national level, they change the Cataloging Source code from its existing value (usually “d” for “other”) to “c” (cooperative cataloging programs) or “#” (national library agencies). There is a resulting disconnect between the definition of the code in the MARC format and its actual use: it ends up reflecting the authoritativeness of the record in respect to national level cataloging rather than the cataloging source. Since code 040 and 042 are more reliable indicators of the source and the authoritativeness of the record, this DP proposes to make 008/39 obsolete. There was some discussion at the ALA Annual Meeting as to whether the code should be made obsolete, or a fill character should be used instead. This Discussion paper will be brought back as a proposal at ALA Midwinter 2010.

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP06/1. See above under: Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP01/1

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP06/2: Enhancing Field 033 and Field 518 for Place and Date of Capture in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp06-2.html
  The MARC/RDA Working Group has assessed all instances where the granularity of data in RDA and the MARC 21 formats are not in alignment. One such area is fields 033 and 518, which map to two separate RDA elements, Place of Capture (7.11.2) and Date of Capture (7.11.3). Field 033 provides more granularity and is controlled and structured; field 518 is in note form. Field 033 allows for place of capture up to and including the city level, but does not usually allow for specificity beyond this level. Such information may be given in the eye-readable 518 field: Recorded at New York University Law School, New York, July 2009. Field 518 does not reflect RDA’s separation of date and place of capture, since it gives both RDA elements together in the same subfield. DP-06/2 proposes that the following subfields be added:

  Field 033 $d Name of place [beyond what can be specified in the codes]
  Field 518 $d Date of capture; $i Introductory phrase; $p Place of capture

  The German National Library would also like $0 and $2 added to field 033 to control the newly proposed $d Name of place. These control fields would link to an authority file. This Discussion paper will be brought back as a proposal at ALA Midwinter 2010.

  Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP06/3: New data elements in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Format for works and expressions
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2009/2009-dp06-3.html
  This paper offers definitions of new data elements for attributes of works and expressions as defined in RDA. Not all the elements are needed for MARC 21 RDA records; some of them are intended to be used at first for FRBR experimentation, such as creating bibliographic records at the work or expression level. Like the elements defined in Proposal No. 2009-01/1 (above), some of these elements may also be needed in the access point for the entity. The new data elements needed in the Authority and Bibliographic formats include: Other distinguishing characteristics of the work [or] expression, Medium of performance, Numeric designation of a musical work, and Key. Form of work is also needed for the Authority format, and its placement in the Bibliographic format needs to be determined (field 653 or 655 could be used). In this Discussion paper, the fields for these new elements are indicated by letters, such as “AAA” for Form of work; the consideration of which MARC fields to use was deferred to the MARBI meetings at ALA Annual. At that meeting, the Committee voted to define the new authority fields in the 33X range. (As a related change, the as yet unimplemented 62X authority fields approved in Proposal No. 2009-01/1 will be changed to the 37X range). Fields 653 or 655 will be proposed for the Authority Form of work when this DP returns as a proposal at ALA Midwinter in 2010. Other RDA elements will be considered for inclusion into the Authority format, such as Signatory to a treaty, Title of a person, Fuller form of name, etc.

  MARC FORMATS INTEREST GROUP (MFIG) MEETING JULY 11, 2009

  This meeting consisted of two very informative presentations. The first speaker was Reinhold Heuvelmann, a MARC Advisory Committee liaison from the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, who gave a fascinating presentation entitled “The German and Austrian Version of MARC 21 : Standard Compliance, Flexibility, and Implementations”. The second speaker was Richard N. Leigh, audiovisual cataloger at the University of Maryland and chair of the MFIG, who spoke on “Fun with Crosswalks : the Challenges (and Joys?) of Crosswalking out of MARC Formats”.

  MARC 21 UPDATE NO. 9: FULL AND CONCISE AVAILABLE ONLINE

  As announced on the MARC listserv on Oct. 31, 2008 (6:11 pm), Update No. 9 (October 2008) has been made available on the MARC website (www.loc.gov/marc/). It is fully incorporated into the documentation for each of the online Full and Concise formats — the Bibliographic, Authority, Holdings, Classification, and Community Information formats. The documentation includes changes made to the MARC 21 formats resulting from proposals which were considered at the MARBI Meetings in 2008.

  The changes are indicated in red. Format changes for each of the five formats are listed in separate appendices. Users are cautioned not to begin using the new features in the format until 60 days from the date of the announcement. For background information on the changes enumerated in the appendices, see the AALL MARBI Representative Report for 2007-2008 at: http://www.aallnet.org/sis/obssis/reports/Marbi2008.pdf

  MARC 21 FORMAT CHANGES TO ACCOMODATE RDA (DRAFT)

  LC has posted new documentation listing all the MARC 21 format changes related to RDA since the MARC 2008 Update (No. 9) at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/formatchanges-RDA.html. As of July 22, 2009, this document has not yet been updated to indicate that the 62X authority fields were changed after the ALA Annual Meeting to 37x fields. The proposed subfield $1 mentioned in the document for value URIs was not approved at the recent MARBI Meeting. Information on the new fields will be published as part of the MARC 2009 Update (No. 10) later this year.

  OCLC-MARC FORMAT CHANGES IN 2009

  As announced on the OCLC-CAT listserv on July 22, 2009 (9:38 AM), “On August 16, 2009, OCLC plans to implement the changes related to the OCLC-MARC Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats Update 2009. This will include MARC 21 Updates No. 8 (October 2007) and No. 9 (October 2008), MARC Code List changes since July 2008, and user and OCLC staff suggestions. OCLC Technical Bulletin 257, which presents the details, is now available at http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/257/default.htm.” The most significant changes include:

  • Linking ISSNs (ISSN-L) in bibliographic, authority, and holdings fields 022.
  • Implementing the repeatable 260 field. (For more information on how the repeatable 260 fields should be used, refer to the draft document of June 11, 2009 entitled: LC/PCC guidelines for MARC 21 repeatable 260 field. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/260-repeat-2009-June11.pdf). OCLC recommends not using the repeatable 260 field until the draft version of the PCC guidelines are finalized and the revised Library of Congress Rule Interpretation 1.4 is issued. It will be interesting—to say the least, to see how and when the repeatable 260 field is implemented by our OPAC vendors.
  • Making field 440 obsolete and converting appropriate 4XX/8XX combinations. (For information on PCC series policy, see: Series policies and practices 2006-2009 at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/seriesPCC.html).
  • Defining new subfields in field 502 for dissertation details (degree, school, date, etc.).
  • Implementing new field 542 for Information Relating to Copyright Status.
  • Implementing subfield $0 (zero) for the Authority Record Control Number in 28 bibliographic fields and three authority fields. OCLC does not want $0 used in the master records (the control headings function should be used instead). Local authority identifiers may be entered in subfield $0 locally.

• 2008

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2008 Annual Report

  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:

  • “3” for Calendar [example: Georgia O’Keeffe Wall Calendar]
  • “y” reinstated for Yearbook [This value had been made obsolete in the MARC 21 format in 1988, because it was found difficult to apply consistently]
  • “6” for Comics/Graphic Novels [The Proposal called for “4”, but this value has already been used in Canadian MARC, so “6” was decided upon].

  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:

  • Option 1: Define field 336 (Content, media and carrier type).
  • Option 2: Define field 337 (Media and carrier type).
  • Option 3: Define field 337 (Media type) and field 338 (Carrier type)

  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:

  • $b Degree type
  • $c Name of granting institution
  • $d Year degree granted
  • $o Dissertation number
  • $g Miscellaneous information

  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.

• 2007

  [content migration in process]

• 2006

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2006 Annual Report

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

  Overview

  I attended my first MARBI Meeting this past January 21-22, 2006 at the American Library Association Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio. I also most recently attended the ALA Annual Meeting in New Orleans, where MARBI meetings were held June 24-25, 2006. MARC proposals and discussion papers for 2006 reflect the increasingly international nature of the interchange between MARC 21 and other metadata communities. I begin with summaries of all approved 2006 MARBI proposals, followed by MARBI proposals approved in part. Discussion papers related to specific 2006 proposals are discussed with the relevant proposal/s, after which I summarize the newer 2006 discussion papers which haven’t yet resulted in proposals. The last section is devoted to MARC news.

  Texts of all the papers are available online via links on the MARC Development section of the MARC Web site: http://www.loc.gov/marc/development.html

  MARBI Minutes of the Jan. 2006 ALA Midwinter Meeting are available directly at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-06.html

  MARBI Minutes of the June 2006 ALA Annual Meeting are not yet available.

  MARBI Proposals (Approved)

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-01: Changes to accommodate IAML form/genre codes in field 047 in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-01.html)

  IAML [International Association of Music Libraries, Archives, and Documentation Centres] code list for form/genres contains more than 550 codes, compared to about 70 in MARC. For example, MARC has just the one code “rc” (Rock music), which has to represent not only rock music, but also reggae and many other types of world music. The IAML code list offers 16 codes covering the same genres of music as covered by the one MARC code. Most IAML codes are 3 letters, but MARC codes are 2 letters. As the MARC bibliographic field 008/18-19 offers only 2 character positions, this proposal recommends the use of MARC field 047 rather than the 008 field, and some other related changes which would be necessary in coding of the 008/18-19 when only IAML codes are used. This proposal was approved, with some revisions.

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-02: Adding subfields for relator terms to X11 fields in the Bibliographic and Authority formats.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-02.html)

  An earlier proposal presented by the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) and Visual Resources Association, Proposal No. 2005-06: Addition of Subfields for Relator Terms/Codes for Subject Access to Images, approved subfield $e in fields 630 and 651 and subfield $4 infields 630, 650, and 651 in order to use relator codes and terms to improve the retrieval of visual materials. Use of these codes and terms would also differentiate “of-ness” from “about-ness” (in the terms of the 2005 proposal), in the same way that form/genre headings and subfields differentiate what something “is” (MARC field 655 and 6xx subfield $v) from what something is about (MARC fields 600, 610, 611, 650, 651, etc.). No. 2005-06 also recommended that a relator term subfield be defined in field 611, which was the genesis of the 2006 proposal. The 2006 proposal offers 2 options: Option 1: adding Subfield “j” (relator term), and Option 2: redefining either subfield $b or subfield $e in X11 fields. Option 2 violates a longstanding MARBI tenet, namely, that an obsolete field or subfield should not be reused, so Option 1 was approved.

  An example in the Proposal: 611 20 $a Derby (Horse race), $j depicted.

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-03: Standardized terminology for access restrictions in field 506 of the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-03.html)

  Field 506 is used to state that materials are unrestricted, or that they are restricted, or some variation thereof. To aid machine processing, it would be useful to have the basic distinction between restricted/unrestricted explicitly indicated by some kind of coding in the field. This paper proposes defining a first indicator marking as follows:

  • # No information provided
  • 0 No restrictions
  • 1 Restrictions apply

  It also adds a subfield “f”, which could be used whenever the note gives data about access restrictions from a standardized list, and a subfield “2”, giving the code for the name of the list. The originators of this proposal, the DLF [Digital Library Federation]/OCLC Digital Registry Working Group, gave an example of some possible values for a controlled vocabulary:

  • Never online accessible
  • Online accessible with authorization
  • Open access
  • Soon to be accessible
  • Not specified

  Because restrictions on access usually apply to local holdings or copies, field 506 is also proposed for the holdings format. No. 2006-03 was approved with slight editorial revisions.

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-04: Technique for conversion of Unicode to MARC-8
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-04.html) and:
  MARC Proposal No. 2006-09: Lossless technique for conversion of Unicode to MARC-8
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-09.html)

  These papers dealt with the techniques of conversion of Unicode into MARC-8 in systems which can’t handle Unicode records. No. 2006-04 approved a “lossy” technique (once in MARC-8, records cannot be re-converted to Unicode). This seems like a short-sighted approach, but was approved to serve the ostensible needs of a group of small libraries which have OPACs, but which don’t typically send their records to other utilities or systems. Proposal No. 2006-09 was discussed in the June 2006 meetings, and offers the option of a “lossless” technique using “Numeric Character References” for conversion of Unicode to MARC-8. This proposal was approved at the meeting, and now will be submitted for final “LC/LAC/BL” [Library of Congress, Library and Archives Canada, British Library] review.

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-06: Definition of Field 034 for Geographic Coordinates in the MARC21 Authority Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-06.html) and:
  MARC Discussion paper No. 2006-DP01: Recording geographic coordinates in the MARC 21 Authority Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp01.html)

  Proposal No. 2006-06 and the related discussion paper originated in the cartographic cataloging community, but have broader importance.

  Geospatial information systems (GIS) are becoming more important as tools for information retrieval in a variety of fields. Currently, MARC 21 bibliographic fields “034” and “255” are used in the cataloging of cartographic resources to clearly identify the location covered by using geographic coordinates. Searching by geographic coordinates can be a lot more precise than searching by other geographic information in the record, such as geographic subject headings (MARC “651” and 6xx subfield “z”) and MARC field “043”. Additionally, coded language-neutral information such as geographic coordinates is advantageous for international bibliographic (and authority) record exchange. Some online catalogs have recently been able to use this data to assist patrons in information retrieval, but many (most?) do not. One reason is that items being cataloged, such as maps and other cartographic resources, sometimes do not give the coordinates, so that the cataloger would need to add the information from another source. Geographic coordinates for a particular place would be even more useful on an authority record, which could be linked to appropriate bibliographic records. For this reason, Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP-01: Recording geographic coordinates in the MAR21 Authority Format proposes adding field 034 to the MARC Authority Format to include this information on authority records for place names, geographic features, battles, buildings, etc. Adding this information to authority records would need to be a large cooperative project, involving both libraries and the geospatial community. At the ALA 2006 Midwinter MARBI Meeting, it was agreed that a proposal defining field 034 should be offered at the June meeting.

  Proposal No. 2006-06 was issued in late May 2006, advocating the addition of field 034 to the MARC authority format. Field 034 should contain only those data elements relevant to the entity described in the authority record, rather than all those used to describe the manifestation on the bibliographic record. Also, it should be repeatable, to allow for historical changes in coordinates, such as would apply for countries such as Sweden, Poland, etc. The proposal also recommends several additional subfields which aren’t used in the MARC bibliographic 034 field: subfield $r, for distance from earth in light years; subfields $x and $y, to specify the time period which applies to the coordinates; and subfield $z, for name of extraterrestrial body. This proposal was approved by the MARBI Committee, and will now undergo LC/LAC/BL review.

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-07: Definition of subfield $u (URI) in Field 852 (Location) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-07.html)

  Information about archival repositories such as contact information is often given in MARC 21 field 852 (Bibliographic and Holdings Formats). Providing a link to the repository home page would offer a convenient way to offer patrons the most up to date information about the repository. (Links to the actual resource described in the record are be given in MARC field 856). This proposal was approved at the June 2006 MARBI meetings, and will now be reviewed by the national libraries.

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-08: Addition of subfield $r in field 865 to accommodate date of issuance for indexes in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-08.html) and:
  MARC Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP05: Indicating coverage dates for indexes in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp05.html)

  ONIX for Serials offers two separate fields for the issuing and coverage dates of indexes, while MARC 21 does not. The DP discusses whether index coverage dates are needed as well as issuing dates in MARC 21 holdings field 865, in order not to lose information transferred from ONIX into MARC. As a result of the MARBI discussion at ALA Midwinter, MARC Proposal No. 2006-08 was issued, and subsequently approved at the 2006 ALA Annual Meeting.

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-09
  See above under MARC Proposal No. 2006-04

  MARC Proposals (Approved in Part)

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-05: Changes to Holdings data fields to accommodate ONIX for Serials in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-05.html

  MARC Proposal No. 2006-05 proposed the following changes:

  1. The addition of subfield $o (Type of material) in fields 853 and 863, equivalent to subfield $o in 854-855 and 864-865;
  The Proposal gives an example of how subfield $o would be used. The Code of federal regulations (LCCN sn 91035510) has various named units which remain the same for many issues, such as the section entitled: 12, Banks and banking. Section 12 has its own enumeration as well: parts 1-199. Using subfield $o, here is how the holdings data would look:

  853 $a Parts $i(year) $j(month) $k(day) $o12, Banks and banking
  863 $a1-100 $i2004 $jJan. $k01

  2. The addition of subfield $2 in 853-855 to mark an authoritative source for caption abbreviations used in subfields $a through $h.

  3. The addition of subfield $r for language of caption information.
  ONIX is more liberal than AACR2 in allowing caption abbreviations from a variety of sources, and in a variety of languages (i.e., not necessarily in the language which would be mandated by AACR2 for that particular record).

  The MARC Advisory Committee approved the first two parts of this proposal. LC is considering whether to “repurpose” subfield $r for Language of caption in fields 853-855 or whether the code in field 008/22-24 (Language) suffices. Subfield $o should be useful for describing holdings for titles such as the Code of Federal Regulations. More broadly, it is exciting to see this level of co-operation between the publishing and library communities.

  Additional Discussion Papers

  MARC Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP02: Addition of coded value to 008 for content alerts.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp02.html)

  This paper discusses mechanisms to provide coded content alerts for visually impaired users of an OPAC or Union Catalog (similar to movie ratings). It was decided that it is better to define a variable field, rather than an 008 field position, for this purpose, so a new MARBI paper will need to be written presenting this option.

  MARC Discussion paper No. 2006-DP03: Incorporation of Former Headings into MARC 21 Authority Records
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp03.html and:
  MARC Discussion paper No. 2006-DP08: Techniques for incorporation of Former Headings into MARC 21 Authority Records
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp08.html

  In many cases, former headings are not allowed as cross references (MARC authority field 4xx’s) in either the name or subject authority files, such as when a date or a qualifier is added to a former heading to resolve a conflict. Catalogers are supposed to delete this type of former heading from a NACO authority record. However, it is useful for the information about the former heading to appear somewhere in the authority record. The DP discusses two possible approaches: Use of a 4XX field with control subfield $w coded to suppress the cross reference from public display, or defining a new field “683”, which would appear as a note field. An advantage of the 4XX option is that it would be assist in more accurate machine processing. But it would also be advantageous to have a special field dedicated to former headings.

  A (made-up) example of the 683 approach follows:

  100 1# Prager, George, $d 1986-
  400 1# Prager, G. A. $q (George A.), $d 1986-
  683 ## Former heading: $a Prager, George
  [Date added to former heading to resolve conflict]

  It is proposed that Field 683 for former headings be repeatable, and include subfields for the former heading ($a), Explanatory text ($i), Linkage ($6), and Field link and sequence number ($8).

  No decision could be reached at the Jan. 2006 MARBI meeting, other than that a new discussion paper was needed. MARC Discussion paper No. 2006-DP08 was issued on May 31, 2006, and discussed at the MARBI Meetings held during the 2006 ALA Annual Meeting in New Orleans. It expands on the two options:

  683 Field: An additional subfield $d, Date of change is suggested.

  Use of Authority Format 4xx Fields: The first position in the “$w control field” is suggested: “$w/0”: “Special relationship”; Current values include: “a” (earlier heading), “b” (later heading), “g” Broader term, etc. Adding “j” “Invalid heading form” is suggested, along with revising the instructions for use of subfield “i” (Reference instruction phrase) to indicate why the heading is invalid.

  Example [from the new Discussion paper]:

  151## $a Venezuela $x Politics and government $y 1974-1999
  451## $w j $i Former heading (open date in period subdivision) $a Venezeula $x Politics and government $y 1974-

  The new DP offers 2 additional options: Using new values in $w/1. /2, or /3. Or, defining another new authority format field: “885”, which would be similar to the use of the “886” Foreign MARC Information Field in the Bibliographic Format. Field 885 would be similar to use of field 683, but would allow for the original tag, indicators, and subfield coding of the former heading to be recorded. Here’s an example from the DP:

  100 1# $a Philips, Gina, $d 1958-
  885 ## $d20060101 $i Former heading (cancelled) $a100$b1#aPhilips, Gina E.

  If field 885 is used for machine flipping of headings, there might be some difficulty with the repetition of subfield “a”, “d”, and several other subfields, for two different purposes. The MARBI Committee’s decision at the 2006 Annual Meeting was to write another proposal recommending the use of Authority 4xx fields. Preference was for using subfield $w, byte 2, adding value “d” for the invalid earlier form of heading. Each library would need to decide for itself whether or not to allow these fields to “flip” via automated authority control or global update, or to use the information in the 4xx field to generate a list for manual review. Unfortunately, not every invalid earlier heading would appear in the specially coded 4xx field, as this field would not be allowed in certain cases, such as when the invalid earlier heading is the same as a valid heading (1xx field). In these cases, it is likely that a 667 field would be used on the authority record, rather than a 4xx field; presumably, this will be discussed in the forthcoming proposal. In my opinion, the inability to include all invalid earlier headings in the same field is a serious shortcoming of the currently proposed 4xx approach. Also, I would like to see indicators for “flip” and “do not flip” the heading, which could be part of whatever approach is finalized. Then we would need to put concerted pressures on OPAC and authority vendors to properly implement the new MARC codes.

  (For more background on this subject, see the 2003 PCC report: The Final Report of the Task Group on the Function of the Authority File, available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/scs/tgauthrpt_fin.pdf)

  For more on cases where the 4xx approach would conflict with NACO normalization rules, see: Authority File Comparison Rules:
  http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/normrule.html (rev. Feb. 9, 2001; viewed July 6, 2006)

  MARC Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP04: Data elements needed to ascertain copyright facts.
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp04.html

  The MARC 21 Bibliographic Format has no fields for requiring a copyright statement, and the copyright date is generally not recorded, unless the resource lacks a publication date. This paper suggests setting aside a single field for copyright information, to enable the user to make an informed judgment about what use is allowed of the resource, particularly for archival and unpublished material, which is increasingly available in a digital format. Duration of copyright begins from the date of the creator’s death, which is information which can often not be determined from the resource itself. According to this DP, digital libraries can and should provide to their users whatever they know about the copyright status of the material they are offering. It discusses two options: Modifying MARC 21 field 540 for this purpose, or creating an entirely new field. Appendix “A” enumerates data elements recommended for this new MARC field.

  At the June 2006 MARBI meetings, some proposed a separate database, or alternately a separate MARC format for copyright information. There are various problematic areas, such as how to accommodate divergences in national copyright law, issues of multiple copyright holders, and other concerns. Therefore, it was decided to that a new discussion paper would be issued on the subject.

  MARC Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP05
  (See above under: MARC Proposals (Approved in Part), under MARC Proposal No. 2006-05)

  MARC Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP06: Defining separate subfields for language codes of Summaries/Abstracts and Subtitles/Captions in field 041 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp06.html

  At present, subfield $b of field 041 (Language code) includes the language codes of summaries, abstracts, subtitles and captions. Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc., commonly known as OLAC, would prefer if captions and subtitles were coded in a different subfield than summaries and abstracts, as they serve different purposes. OLAC would also like subfield $b in the 041 field to be made obsolete, and two new subfields, one for “Language code of summary or abstract”, and one for “Language code of subtitle or caption.” In order to get retrospective records harmonized with newer records, all instances of subfield $b in moving image records would be assumed to be for subtitles/captions, and moved to that new subfield; all instances of summaries/abstracts would be assumed to be for other types of material, and be moved to the other subfield $b. At the 2006 Annual Meeting, it was agreed that this approach would be fairly accurate; kit records and other mixed material records might be the most ambiguous. Rich Greene of OCLC stated that only about 9% of OCLC records were for visual materials, and of these, only 4046 use 041 subfield $b. Any possible miscoding would be limited to a small number of records. Some discussion centered on the cost/benefit analysis of making the change. However, in the future, it is likely that the use of summaries or abstracts with visual materials will increase, so it was agreed at the meeting that a change would be proposed in the definition of field 041 subfield $b.

  MARC Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP07: Recording set information for multipart cartographic materials.
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp07.html

  Various options using the MARC 21 bibliographic and holdings formats are discussed, but there are problems with all the approaches, due in part to the large size of some of these map sets. “Some map sets include thousands of sheets, each with unique sheet level data elements”.

  Option 1 [DP Section 3.1]: Creating a separate bibliographic record for each sheet. This would be too labor intensive, and would most likely result in much repeated data.

  Option 2 [DP Section 3.1]: Creating a record for each set plus brief records for each sheet, with links to the collected set bibliographic record through 773 fields.

  Option 3 [DP Section 3.2]: Including a contents note in a record for the set as a whole. It would be hard to usefully record coordinates here. Some sheet identifiers are numeric or alphanumeric, which would not result in an ideal display. Also, these notes would sometimes have to include hundreds or more of sheets, which would make them hard to read.

  Option 4 [DP Section 3.3]: Including Field 774 (Constituent unit entry) in the set record. Although more data elements could be included in the subfields than in a contents note, sets with hundreds of maps would run into current system restrictions on size and on readability concerns.

  Options 5-7 [DP Section 3.4] employ the MARC holdings format. There are several shared disadvantages to using the holdings format, plus disadvantages specific to each of the above approaches. General disadvantages: This is really bibliographic information, which belongs in bibliographic records. Also, the data on holdings records can’t currently be searched by many OPACs. Option 5 uses separate holdings records, especially fields 844, 853, and 863. Proposal 2006-06 proposes adding 034 to the MARC authority field. Option 6 suggests repeatable 85X/86X fields. This approach has an added disadvantage in that there aren’t many subfields left for additional data elements. Option 7 would be to add a new holdings field for these kinds of materials.

  At the discussion of No. 2006-DP07 during the 2006 ALA Annual Meeting, it was pointed out that while this DP concerns itself with the description of multipart cartographic material, the issues involved are highly relevant to any other types of multipart resources. In a shared environment, many institutions can add information to the collected set record, but multi-level cataloging is not readily available in most library systems. Regardless of what’s done with the bibliographic options, holdings information is still needed for each institution. While it can handle hierarchical information better than the bibliographic format, it presently works better for serial holdings than for non-serial maps and other non-serials. The MARBI Committee decided that a second discussion paper was needed, to discuss ways to provide more detailed holdings for non-serial cartographic and other formats.

  MARC Discussion paper No. 2006-DP08 (See joint discussion under No. 2006-DP-03 above)

  MARC News

  Implementation of Bibliographic Level “i” by OCLC and LC

  AACR2 2002 revision formally altered the bibliographic division of the world from monograph/serials. Monographs remained one of the categories, but serials were subsumed as part of the new category: Continuing resources, which also included a new subcategory “integrating resources”. Integrating resources included updating loose-leafs (long familiar to law catalogers), updating web sites, and updating databases. To accommodate this new taxonomy, the Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI), defined a new “bibliographic level” (MARC leader/07) value in the MARC format: “i” (Proposal No. 2001-05). RLIN implemented the code several years ago, but the Library of Congress (LC) and OCLC were waiting until OCLC finished their conversion to their new platform. OCLC’s implementation was announced on June 16, 2006. Bibliographic level “i” should now be used whenever appropriate, and use of the interim guidelines (using “bks” format, adding an 006 field to express seriality, etc.), should be discontinued immediately. Guidelines on how to apply the new codes are given in OCLC Technical Bulletin 252, May 2006.

  Both BIBCO and CONSER libraries are expected to share in the maintenance of records for integrating resources. Somewhat later this year (possibly by fall 2006), both BIBCO and CONSER libraries will be able to authenticate records for integrating resources by adding a LCCN [Library of Congress Contol Number] and a new authentication code (MARC field 042), to be determined. BIBCO libraries will also be able to update and enhance these records on OCLC without authenticating them, but both a LCCN and the new authentication code will be necessary to order to cause the record to be selected for distribution through the Library of Congress’ Cataloging Distribution Service. [Les Hawkins message posted to the BIBCO listserv, June 2, 2006 11:30:59 AM,. “Bib level i CONSER and BIBCO records”].

  New Place of publication codes (008/15-17) and New geographic codes (043)

  More precise Australian country codes and geographic codes (043) for specific states and territories have been added to the MARC bibliographic format. They may be used immediately. (The country of publication code “at” and the geographic country code: “u-at”remain valid for Australia as a whole).

  Character Set Changes (Basic Latin & Extended Latin)

  Spacing characters may now be entered as characters on OCLC. Two of the most commonly used, the spacing underscore and spacing tilde, were approved as additions to the MARC bibliographic format in 1994, but since then, we have been directed to use the character’s hex values instead (%5F and %7E). Since Uniform resource identifiers (URIs) frequently employ or both of these characters, this has been a bit of a nuisance for most catalogers. OCLC Cataloging interfaces are now accepting these characters, but they should not be used until revisions of the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations [LCRIs] 1.0E and 1.4F5 are posted on LC’s Cataloging Policy and Support Office’s [CPSO’s] Web site, which is expected to occur in mid to late summer 2006. For more information, see: Library of Congress Usage of New MARC21 Characters Plus Processing Implications on the web at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/newchar2.pdf (last revised 2006-04-04; last viewed June 29, 2006) and: Library of Congress Implementation of New MARC 21 Data Elements at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/m21data.html (click on May 2006; rev. May 16, 2005; viewed June 30, 2006).

  Update No. 6 (Oct. 2005) to the MARC 21 Formats

  Update no. 6 (Oct. 2005) to the MARC 21 formats was made available on May 25, 2006. These include changes made to the formats resulting from 2005 program proposals and meetings, most notable the addition of MARC Bibliographic Field 662:

  Field 662 (Bibliographic Format: Subject Added Entry-Hierarchical Place Name)

  Examples:

  662## $b California $d Los Angeles $e Little Tokyo $2 gnis 662## $g Mars $g Valles Marineris $2 Gazeteer of Planetary Nomenclature [Not yet implemented by the utilities, or in Cataloger’s desktop (as of June 30, 2006); for further information, see MARBI Proposal No. 2005-04/R, dated May 27, 2005, and related papers).

  Full MARC Documentation Conversion into XML

  At the Midwinter MARBI Business Meeting, Sally McCallum of the Library of Congress reported that MARC documentation is being converted into XML by their Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO). Eventually, NDMSO plans to mount the full MARC21 formats on its website (www.loc.gov/marc) in HTML, PDF, and XML. (Currently, only the MARC concise formats are available at their website).

  MODS Version 3.2

  On June 1, 2006, NDMSO released MODS version 3.2. MODS stands for “Metadata Object Description Schema”. It is an XML schema suitable for a variety of library applications, and includes a subset of MARC fields and language-based tags rather than numeric ones. More information is available at the official MODS website: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods

  MARC 21 Authority Format Mapping to MADS Schema Version 1.0

  “MADS” stands for “Metadata Authority Description Schema “. It is the authorities counterpart of “MODS”. The preliminary draft of this report was released in December 2005. The MADS report is available at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/mads-mapping.html

  German Adoption of MARC 21 Formats

  At both the 2006 Midwinter and Annual MARBI Meetings, Reinhold Heuvelmann of the German National Library presented a report on how German and Austrian libraries are working on adopting the MARC21 formats. Since the early 1970’s, libraries in both countries have generally used the MAB (Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken = Machine-readable exchange format for libraries). In 2004, they decided to adopt MARC 21. MAB is being mapped to MARC21. Discussion papers and proposals to MARBI will be prepared to aid the harmonization process. It is projected that the 2 formats will be harmonized by the beginning of 2007. For more information, see the Midwinter 2006 MARBI minutes (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-06.html) and: “Moving to MARC 21” (http://www.ddb.de/eng/standardisierung/formate/marc21.htm ; last viewed June 30, 2006; much of the information is in German).

• 2005

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2005 Annual Report

  Prepared by: Karen Selden
  University of Colorado Law Library
  (with thanks to Everett Allgood, MARBI Representative to CC:DA,
  for assistance with proposal and discussion paper summaries)

  The January 2005 and June 2005 MARBI meetings continued the trend of fewer proposals and discussion papers than normal. A total of nine proposals, one discussion paper, and two Library of Congress reports were presented during the two sets of meetings. Most of the 2005 proposals involved changes to the bibliographic formats, although one involved the classification format, and one involved the holdings format. The lone discussion paper resulted in a formal proposal for the addition of subfields for relator terms/codes for subject access to images in the bibliographic format, which was passed with some revisions. One of the two proposals that failed to pass proposed defining a new subfield for non-unique or non-applicable ISBNs or LCCNs in fields 020 and 010, respectively. Instead of defining this new subfield, the committee asked the Library of Congress to refine the definition of subfield z for these fields to include these types of ISBNs and LCCNs.

  Adoption of the Unicode character set in MARC 21 continues to be a topic of discussion. The Unicode character set is of particular interest to law librarians because the section (§) and paragraph (¶) symbols are available in Unicode, but not in MARC-8, which is the current character set used in MARC 21 records. Many technical issues remain to be resolved in the transition from the use of the MARC-8 character set to the use of Unicode. One of the Library of Congress reports addressed some of these issues, and resulted in a motion to disallow the use of the few non-standard Unicode characters in MARC21 records. The motion passed unanimously. In addition, it was noted that the Library of Congress has created a “Unicode-MARC” electronic discussion list (marc-unicode [at] loc.gov), which is devoted to the technical aspects of implementing Unicode in MARC21 records.

  The other Library of Congress report addressed another continuing topic of discussion, which is the impact of FRBR on the MARC 21 bibliographic, authority, and holdings formats. Other business included the decision of the MARBI Chair to create a MARBI Task Force to review and make comments on the forthcoming drafts of RDA: Resource Description and Access (the cataloging rules revision formerly known as AACR3). A joint meeting of CC:DA (ALA’s Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access) and MARBI to address the potential MARC21 implications of RDA will be scheduled during a future ALA conference.

  Of interest to all catalogers is the announcement that the Automation Vendor Information Advisory Committee (AVIAC) plans to submit a proposal to MARBI in January 2006 for the creation of a separate subfield for 13 digit ISBNs in the 020 field of bibliographic records.

  MARBI Proposals (Approved)

  Proposal 2005-01: Definition of Field 766 in the MARC 21 Classification Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-01.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: While law catalogers do not directly use this MARC format, the addition of this particular field will enable automated Library of Congress Classification systems, such as Classification Web, to function more seamlessly when a secondary table must be consulted to construct an LC classification number. Since the LC law classification schedules are complex and can be difficult to use, any change that will enhance the ease of use of products such as Classification Web is welcomed. The proposal was approved, with the amendment that the field be made repeatable.

  Proposal 2005-03: Definition of Subfield $2 and Second Indicator value 7 in Fields 866-868 (Textual Holdings) of the MARC 21 Holdings Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-03.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: 2005-03 proposes defining a subfield $2 (Source of notation) and value 7 in the second indicator (Type of notation) of fields 866-868 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format to indicate the source of the notation used in the holdings statement. This would allow for indicating that United States Newspaper Project (USNP) guidelines are used in the textual holdings statement. The proposal was approved, with minor editorial changes.

  Proposal 2005-04R: Hierarchical Geographic Names in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-04R.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: This proposal is a revision of Proposal 2005-04, which was not approved at the January 2005 MARBI meeting. 2005-04R proposes expanding the definition of Field 752 (Added Entry — Hierarchical Place Name), adding new subfields to 752 and the newly defined 662 and making some current subfields repeatable to enable a hierarchical approach to subject-oriented geographic coverage. The proposal was approved, with some revisions.

  Proposal 2005-05: Change of Unicode mapping for the Extended Roman “alif” character
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-05.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: This proposal presents a change for the mapping from MARC 8 to Unicode for the Latin “alif” character in the Extended Latin set. The new mapping is more compatible with the diverse use of the “alif” character and with the typical representation of the character. The proposal was approved.

  Proposal 2005-06: Addition of Subfields for Relator Terms/Codes for Subject Access to Images
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-06.html) Summary & Action Taken: This paper proposes defining subfield $e in fields 630 and 651 and subfield $4 in fields 630, 650, and 651 in order to use relator codes and terms to enhance the retrieval of visual materials. The proposal passed with some revisions.

  Proposal 2005-07: Revision of subfield $b in field 041 in the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-07.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: 2005-07 proposes changing the coding convention of field 041 (Language code) subfield $b (Language code of summary or abstract/overprinted title or subtitle) for audiovisual materials by removing the phrase “when they [the languages of subtitles] differ from the language of the soundtrack.” It also proposes changing the terminology used for subtitles and clarifies that captions are also covered in the definition of subfield $b. The proposal passed with some wording changes.

  Proposal 2005-08: Changes to accommodate IAML coded data in bibliographic fields 008/18-19, 047 and 048
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-08.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: This proposal discusses the changes needed to incorporate IAML form and genre, and medium of performance codes in MARC 21. The changes for field 048 were passed, with some revision. MARBI tabled action on the 047 field, and requested that a new proposal addressing changes in the 047 field be presented at the January 2006 MARBI meeting. Finally, in a matter related to the proposed coding changes in the 047 field, the Library of Congress was asked to investigate the ambiguous use of fill characters in the 041 field.

  MARBI Proposals (Not Approved)

  Proposal 2005-02: Definition of Subfield $y in Field 020 (International Standard Book Number) and Field 010 (Library of Congress Control Number) in the MARC 21 Formats
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-02.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: 2005-02 proposes defining a new subfield $y for non-unique/non-applicable ISBN/LCCN in fields 020 and 010 respectively. The proposal was rejected, and MARBI requested that the definition of subfields a and z in the 010, 020 and 024 fields (as well as any other applicable fields) be further clarified.

  Proposal 2005-04: Hierarchical Geographic Names in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-04.html)
  Summary & Action Taken: 2005-04 proposes subfields to be used in Field 662 (Subject Added Entry – Hierarchical Place Name) to allow a hierarchical approach to subject-oriented geographic coverage. The proposal was sent back for further revisions. It was eventually passed as Proposal 2005-04R.

  Discussion Papers

  2005-DP01: Subject Access to Images
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-dp01.html)
  Summary: 2005-DP01 discusses the possibility of changing MARC coding in order to distinguish between indexing terms for intellectual content and indexing terms for visual depictions. MARBI suggested this paper come back with further development, though there seemed to be little support from MARBI for the option of a new block of 6XX fields. The revised paper should fully explore the possibility of relator codes, and the suggestion that perhaps some (or all) 6XX fields perform “double-duty.” The paper was returned to MARBI as Proposal 2005-06, which passed with some revisions.

  Library of Congress Reports

  Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode in Character Encodings in MARC 21 — Part 2: Issues
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-report01.pdf)
  Summary & Action Taken: This report addresses the many technical issues that remain to be resolved in the transition from the use of the MARC-8 character set to the use of Unicode. Discussions centered on this report resulted in a motion to disallow the use of the few non-standard Unicode characters in MARC21 records. The motion passed unanimously.

  Using MARC 21 with FRBR: Record Configurations
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2005/2005-report02.pdf)
  Summary & Action Taken: This report stemmed from discussions at an IFLA FRBR conference held in May 2005 at OCLC’s headquarters in Dublin, Ohio. It aims to clarify the difference between exchange records and internal record configurations, and to begin to identify any changes to the MARC 21 format needed to support FRBR-based activities. The paper also presents 2 models of how MARC 21 authority, bibliographic, and holdings records can be used with FRBR entities. While the report was the basis for much interesting discussion, no action resulted.

• 2004

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2004 Annual Report

  Susan Goldner
  University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law
  UALR/Pulaski County Law Library

  Although there were fewer MARBI proposals and discussion papers than normal this year and none of them affects legal materials specifically, most do have an impact on our catalogs. The current relative stability in the formats seems to stem from the fact that harmonization with Britain is complete and there have been no recent, major changes in the cataloging rules. We can anticipate more activity in the future as work continues with FRBR and begins on AACR3.

  A large issue looming on the horizon is adoption of the Unicode character set repertoire in MARC 21. Unicode was created with the intent of handling all of the world=s languages. It has become the standard to follow, helped by its adoption by Microsoft, Sun (Java), and other software companies. Since not all MARC systems will be able to convert to Unicode at the same time, methods for sharing data between MARC8, the current repertoire, and Unicode have to be developed. This year MARBI considered one report and one discussion paper related to this issue. An aspect of interest to law librarians is that the ‘ and the & are in Unicode but not in MARC8.

  Proposals expanded the ability to link data contained in separate fields and created coding to identify private acquisitions information that should not be shared outside the originating library. The only discussion paper that has not yet resulted in a proposal was one dealing with the non-uniqueness of ISBNs and LCCNs. Developing a new means of coding inaccurate standard numbers is very important since non-unique ones can result in records being erroneously deleted by our systems.

  The remaining proposals dealt with records for 19th Century books, music, stamps, and U.S. Copyright Office data. Each is one more sign that the use of the MARC format by groups outside of normal library cataloging continues to increase as other communities realize the value of sharing data through a standard format.

  MARBI Proposals (Approved)

  2004-01: Making Subfields $e, $f, and $g Repeatable in Field 260 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-01.html)
  These subfields contain place of manufacture, manufacturer, and date of manufacture. They are used by the rare book community, primarily for 19th century books.

  2004-02: Defining New Field Link Type Codes for Subfield $8 (Field Link and Sequence Number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-02.html)
  Subfield $8 is used to link related fields within a record. There are now two new codes that can be used in this subfield.

  • a – Action — For example: Linking fields 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note) and 561 (Ownerships and Custodial History) to the actions recorded in the field 583 (Action Note.)
  • x – General sequencing — For example: Putting 505 (Contents Notes) fields in the proper order.

  2004-03: Designating the Privacy of Fields 541, 561 and 583 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-03.html)
  The first indicator in these fields can now show that there is private information in the field. This will be used by libraries sharing MARC records so that local information such as the appraised value of a collection will not display to other institutions.

  2004-04: Definition of Field 258 (Philatelic Issue Data) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-04.html)
  The National Archives of Canada is cataloging stamps. They approved descriptive rules last July, then came to MARBI for approval of a field to contain the issuing jurisdiction and denomination of stamps.

  2004-05: Changes Needed to Accommodate RISM Data — Music Incipits.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-05.html)
  Music catalogers use the initial sequence of notes of a musical composition in their cataloging because it is sometimes the only practical identifying element. Field 031 will be used to record these incipits. It will contain 20 subfields for recording the complex information needed.

  2004-06: Defining the First Indicator and New Subfields in Field 017 to Suppress Display Labels in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-06.html)
  The U.S. Copyright Office is migrating from a non-MARC format to MARC 21. They will use Field 017 to record copyright registration numbers. Since the United States has 5 different types of registration numbers, and other countries may have additional ones, an indicator was created to suppress the display content and $i will be used with it to generate display text. These fields will begin appearing in Voyager records by December 2005.

  2004-08: Changing the MARC-8 to UCS Mapping for the Halves of Doublewide Diacritics from the Unicode/UCS Half Diacritic Characters to the Unicode/UCS Doublewide Diacritic Characters.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-08.html)
  This changed the way that MARC systems handle a short list of diacritics — an issue for our system vendors.

  MARBI Proposals (not approved)

  2004-07: Applying Field 752 (Added Entry — Hierarchical Place Name) for Different Purposes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-07.html)
  Field 752 is currently used to record hierarchical place names for a variety of types of material. Most notable are maps, photographs and newspapers. It contains a mix of place of production information and subject information. The proposal suggested assigning indicators to the field which would convey the kind of information is contained in the field. MARBI preferred the alternative offered in the proposal, using the 752 field for place of production and assigning a 6XX field to contain the hierarchical place name as a subject. This will reappear at ALA Midwinter as a revised proposal.

  MARBI Discussion Papers

  2004-DP01: Changes Needed to Accommodate RISM Data–Music Incipits.
  Resulted in Proposal 2004-05.

  2004-DP02: Applying Field 752 (Added Entry Hierarchical Place Name) for Different Purposes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  Resulted in Proposal 2004-07.

  2004-DP03: Changing the Mapping for the Double-Wide Diacritics from MARC8 to Unicode/UCS from the Unicode/UCS Half Diacritic Characters to the Unicode/UCS Double-Wide Diacritic Characters.
  Resulted in Proposal 2004-08.

  2004-DP04: Use of ISBNs and LCCNs in MARC 21 Bibliographic Records.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-dp04.html)
  Standard numbers such as ISBNs and LCCNs are used for matching and overlaying records. Unfortunately, the numbers printed on material are not completely dependable as unique identifiers. The way they are currently entered can cause records to overlay improperly. Now there is a subfield to use for cancelled or invalid numbers (those whose check digits do not work). A future proposal will define a new subfield for inaccurate numbers and numbers that apply to different manifestations of the work.

  Report: Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC 21. Part 1, New Scripts. Written by Jack Cain for the Library of Congress.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2004/2004-report01.pdf)
  This report was discussed at both ALA Midwinter and the ALA Annual Meeting. It describes a number of possible options for sharing MARC records that contain the full Unicode character encodings with systems that cannot handle them. Discussion is ongoing.

  MARC News

  Understanding MARC Authority Records, 2nd ed. was just published by the Library of Congress.

  MODS, the MARC companion for digital material, has been revised. MADS, its authority counterpart, is available for review.

  Starting in January, publishers will put 13 digit ISBNs in material. This means that the Library of Congress will start adding them to records in October. Both the 13 digit number and the 10 digit number will appear in material and in MARC records. They will either be placed in multiple 020 fields or in multiple $a in a single 020 (LC was still undecided). RLG expects to implement this in October. OCLC will not be able to fully implement it soon, but will put the 13 digit ISBN in an 024 field and index it as a standard number in the interim.

  Diane Hillman is chair of the CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative Task Force to Explore the Use of a Universal Holdings Record, a super-record. The idea is to create a national holdings record pulling together all the linked records for a publication. It would be created from existing MARC records and give the complete history of a serial in one place. It would not replace our successive entry records but would work along with them. It could be used for an OPAC display that would simplify all of the serial title changes and formats available. It could make inclusion of aggregator records in your catalogs more useful and possibly eliminate the need for serial finding aids outside of the catalog.

  The MARC Format Interest Group is creating a Web site. It will have links to working projects and (possibly) library documentation and training materials.

  Cornell is trying to use MARC Classification to create browse displays and patron interfaces.

• 2003

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2003 Annual Report

  With only six proposals and four discussion papers, this year’s MARBI meetings were shorter than those in recent years. The common thread in every topic was the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). FRBR provides a model for looking at how we catalog material and provides a framework for expressing the relationship between entities. It defines four hierarchical levels: work, expression, manifestation and item. Significant efforts have been made to map the MARC data elements into the FRBR model. This mapping is then used by the utilities and the system vendors to manipulate our current cataloging records and create new displays. We can expect that the MARC formats and our catalogs will continue to change because of FRBR.

  A major development in MARC was implementation of the proposals, approved in previous years, which define coding to use in cataloging integrating resources. Since integrating resources include loose-leafs and updating Web sites, they are a significant part of the current cataloging done in law libraries. This new coding allows us to highlight the serial nature of these materials which we previously had to treat as monographs. While all of the coding for integrating resources is now part of the MARC standards, not all of it has been implemented by the utilities and by our local systems. Until the changes are fully implemented, we must follow interim guidelines. It is hoped that the utilities will be able to convert these temporary measures into newly coded records once implementation is complete.

  MARBI Proposals (All were approved)

  2002-14/9R: Definition of Fields 365 (Trade Price) and 366 (Trade Information) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-14-9r.html)
  These fields will contain information currently used by the British book trade. They were aligned with ONIX so that they might prove useful for provisional records derived from vendors. There is no reason for us to keep them in our records unless we have a use for them.

  2003-01: Defining Subfield $2 in Field 022 for ISSN Center Code.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-01.html)
  Currently the ISSN center responsible for assigning certain data related to a serial item is recorded as a fixed-length data element in the Serials 008. Because there are now 74 ISSN centers throughout the world, not all of them can be coded in this data element. This information will now be recorded in Field 022 $2. It is expected that RLIN and OCLC will convert all existing records to these new codes and current codes will become obsolete.

  2003-02: Definition of Subfield $u (URI) in Field 538 (Systems Details Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-02.html)
  At the request of the Digital Library Federation, Field 538 will be used to describe the creation of digital material. It will include $u for a link to an external description of the technical standards used in the digitization process, $3 for material specified, and $i for display text. Field 538 will be added to the holdings format.

  2003-03: Definition of Data Elements for Article Level Description.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-03.html)
  This adds parsed citation information for journal articles to Field 773 (Host Entry Item) in $q. It contains enumeration and pagination using the rules established by SICI (Serial Item and Contribution Identifier). It is anticipated that this subfield will be system generated through interaction with a service outside the database. This might facilitate a library system portal function, interlibrary loan, or linking to full text.

  2003-04: Definition of Field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) to the MARC 21 Authority Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-04.html)
  This allows for recording in field 024 standard identifiers relevant to the entity in the 1XX of the authority record. OCLC requested this addition because it has an interest in adding the ISTC (International Standard Text Code) to authority records for works/expressions. It is anticipated that there will be an increased usage of this and other standard identifiers for works, people and organizations.

  2003-05: Changes to Field 352 (Digital Graphic Representation) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-05.html)
  This adds $q (Format of the Digital Image) to Field 352 so that cartographic catalogers can include information prescribed by AACR2.

  MARBI Discussion Papers

  2003-DP01: Data Elements for Article Level Description.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-dp01.html)
  Resulted in Proposal 2003-03.

  2003-DP02: Coding Graphic Images in Leader/06 in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-dp02.html)
  Although there was general agreement that the current distinction between moving and still images is inadequate, the Committee decided that more study was needed before any specific proposals could be made.

  2003-DP03: Adding Field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) into the MARC 21 Authority Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-dp03.html)
  Resulted in Proposal 2003-04.

  2003-DP04: Defining subfield $2 in Fields 155, 455 and 555 of the MARC 21 Authority Format.
  (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2003/2003-dp04.html)
  This was recommended by the Rare Books and manuscript Standards group to allow for consistency with field 655 (Genre Terms) in the bibliographic format. MARBI was not convinced of the need for this.

  MARC News

  MARC records on tape or cartridge are no longer available from LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service, as they had been since 1972. MARC products such as Subject Authorities and Books, English are only available through FTP. In addition, there are test files of records available in MARCXML at http://www.loc.gov/marcxml/.

  FRBR Display Tool is available at http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/tool.html. It generates a new hierarchical display of records by grouping the bibliographic data under work, expression, and manifestation. It is designed to test existing records. It will soon be available in a Windows format that will be easier to use.

  510 Fields (Citation/References Notes) were removed from CONSER records. They were removed because they were not being maintained and the data is now available online from other sources. The 510s for Chemical Abstracts and those with second indicator of 3 or 4, used for rare serial data, will not be removed.

  Current MARC Publications

  MARC Standards: General Information
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marcginf.html#naa
  Lists current MARC documentation, announces changes and announces implementation of these changes.

  Understanding MARC Bibliographic Records. 7th ed.
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc21_umb_ann_7th.html

  Understanding MARC Authority Records. NEW
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc21_uma_ann_1st.html

  Guidelines for the Non-Sorting Control Character Technique
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/nonsorting.html
  Non-sorting control characters bracket the “non-sorting zone” used instead of nonfiling indicators. Use is currently restricted to listed fields and subfields representing access points. There is no information about when or if this new technique will be implemented by the Library of Congress.
  Examples:

  • 245 10 $a{A }place like Alice.
  • 245 00 $a{La }mer.
  • 245 10 $aPrivate eyeballs :$b{a }golden treasury of bad taste.

  Submitted by
  Susan Goldner
  University of Arkansas at Little Rock /
  Pulaski County Law Library

• 2002

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2002 Annual Report

  Summary

  Full report is below.

  MARBI approves changes to MARC 21, although the Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada have final authority. During the January and June meetings, a total of seventeen proposals and eight discussion papers were presented. The papers are available online at http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/.

  A number of the proposals dealt with changes to the Format for Holdings Data. This format allows libraries to share specific information about complex publications, such as serials, and to transport their holdings from one system to another. Local system vendors were slow to implement this format, but have made progress recently. As more libraries implement it, they request enhancements to address the realities of library holdings.

  The Committee is moving cautiously to add online links (URIs) to various fields. A proposal to provide a link in authority records to indicate the source of data was approved, but a request for a link to credit notes in bibliographic records was not.

  A number of the proposals dealt with international issues. The Committee considered a group of proposals presented by the British Library and approved almost all of them. These changes support the UK library community=s intention to adopt MARC 21 in place of UKMARC. The Committee approved the addition of Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics to the Universal Character Set and approved the addition of a classification number field at the request of the Russian State Library.

  One of the British Library proposals added the Euro sign and Eszett character to the MARC 21 character set. This is of particular interest to law librarians, who have been trying to get the Section symbol approved for more than a decade. The difficulty is that neither OCLC nor RLIN is willing/able to implement new characters in their current systems. There is hope for us soon, however. Both utilities will move to new systems in the next few years and should then be able to accommodate expanded character sets.

  MARC 21 is not strictly tied to particular cataloging rules. Some of the proposals were for enhancements that benefit the museum and archival communities. Another made changes to accommodate Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST), an OCLC project intended to assist non-catalogers as they add subject headings to metadata.

  A hot topic was Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), published by IFLA in 1998. It was the subject of two discussion papers and of a joint meeting with CC:DA. FRBR provides a framework for looking at the MARC format and our catalogs from a more theoretical perspective. It stresses the needs of the users and their need for relationships between things. It may provide a framework for solving the problems we have with multiple versions. We can expect continued discussions about FRBR which may evenutually result in reforms to MARC 21.

  Full Report
  Activities of the U.S. MARC Advisory Committee
  2002 MARBI Representative Report
  July 15, 2002

  During the January and June meetings of MARBI, a total of seventeen proposals and eight discussion papers were presented. At the end of this report there is a list of all of the papers with links to their full text. Once approved by the Committee, a proposal does not automatically take effect because final authority rests with the Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada, who publish revisions to the MARC 21 formats. Finally, the Library of Congress, the utilities, and local system vendors must implement the changes before you can apply them in your local library.

  Of current interest is the pending implementation of proposals approved at last year’s meetings. These include the Changes in MARC to Accommodate Seriality (http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2001/2001-05.html) and Making Field 260 Repeatable in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format (http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2001/2001-04.html). Although these were both included in the MARC 21 revisions published in October, 2001, they have not yet been implemented. The related cataloging rule revisions will be published later this summer. The associated Library of Congress Rule Interpretations will be available early in the fall. Then the Library of Congress will implement the changes on December 1, 2002. However, neither OCLC nor RLIN will fully implement these major changes until they release their new systems, probably not until Summer 2003, or later. But, OCLC and RLIN will allow serial fields in the books format in time for the Library of Congress implementation this December.

  A number of this year’s proposals dealt with changes to the MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data. The holdings format allows libraries to share specific information about complex publications such as serials, and to transport their library=s holdings from one library system to another. Local system vendors have been slow to implement this format, but have made progress recently. As more libraries implement it, they request enhancements to address the realities of library holdings. The proposals approved at this meeting dealt with fields to describe methods of acquisition, regularity of publication, and number of pieces per issuance.

  The Committee is moving cautiously to add online links (URIs) to various fields. A proposal to provide a link in authority records to indicate the source of data was approved, but a request to add a link to credit notes in bibliographic records was not.

  Some of the proposals dealt with international issues. The Committee considered a group of proposals presented by the British Library and approved almost all of them. These changes support the UK library community’s intention to adopt MARC 21 in place of UKMARC. The Committee approved the addition of Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics to the Universal Character Set and approved the addition of a classification number, defined as Other Classification Number, at the request of the Russian State Library.

  One of the British Library proposals added the Euro sign and Eszett character to the MARC 21 character set. This is of particular interest to law librarians, who have been trying to get the Section symbol approved for more than a decade. The difficulty is that neither OCLC nor RLIN is willing/able to implement new characters in their current systems. There is hope for us soon, however. Both utilities will move to new systems in the next few years and should then be able to accommodate expanded character sets.

  MARC 21 is not strictly tied to particular descriptive cataloging rules. Some of the proposals were for enhancements that benefit the museum and archival communities. Another made changes to accommodate Faceted Application of Subject Terminology(FAST), a project by OCLC intended to assist non-catalogers as they add subject headings to metadata.

  A hot topic was Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), published by IFLA in 1998. This was the subject of two discussion papers and of a joint meeting with CC:DA. FRBR provides a framework for looking at the MARC format and our current cataloging rules from a more theoretical perspective. It stresses the needs of the users and their need for relationships between things. It may provide a framework for solving the problems our users have with multiple versions. We can expect continuted discussions about FRBR which may eventually result in reforms to MARC 21.

  PROPOSALS APPROVED

  Proposal No. 2001-10R: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2001/2001-10R.html
  Definition of Additional Codes in Field 007/10 (Type of material) for Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats.
  Adds codes so that every type of material used in sound recordings in the Twentieth Century is included.

  Proposal No. 2002-01: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-01.html
  Definition of Subfield $u (URI) in Field 670 (Source Data Found) in the MARC 21 Authority Format.

  Proposal No. 2002-03: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-03.html
  Expanding Field 046 for Other Dates in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
  Adds subfield $k (Beginning or single date created) and subfield $l (Ending date created) and changes definition of subfield $j to “Date resource modified.”

  Proposal No.: 2002-04: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-04.html
  Definition of Subfield $p (Number of pieces per issuance) in Fields 853-855 of the MARC 21 Holdings Format.

  Proposal No. 2002-05: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-05.html
  Expansion of Regularity Pattern Coding in Fields 853-855 Subfield $y in the MARC 21 Holdings Format.

  Proposal No. 2002-06R: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-06R.html
  Changes in Field 008 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format.
  (Earlier Proposal 2002-06 http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-06.html)

  Proposal No. 2002-07: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-07.html
  Definition of Additional Second Indicator Values for Specific Subject Systems in Field 655 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

  Proposal No. 2002-08: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-08.html
  Making the First Indicator Value 0 (U. S. Dept. of Defense Classification) Obsolete in Field 052 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
  This fixes the problem for the U. S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency which had incorrectly coded over a million records!

  Proposal No. 2002-09: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-09.html
  Encoding Variable Length Coordinate Formats in Field 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

  Proposal No. 2002-10: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-10.html
  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.

  Proposal No. 2002-11: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-11.html
  Repertoire Expansion in the Universal Character Set for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics.
  (Earlier Discussion Paper 2002-06 http://ww.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp06.html)

  Proposal No. 2002-13: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-13.html
  Changes for Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) Subject Headings.
  (Earlier Discussion Paper 2002-03 http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp03.html)

  Proposal No. 2002-14: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-14.html
  Changes for UKMARC Format Alignment.
  (Earlier Discussion Paper 2002-07 http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp07.html)

  • 2002-14/1: Revision of 008/22 (Target audience) Values.
  • 2002-14/2: Definition of Value in 008/20 (ISSN Center) for United Kingdom.
  • 2002-14/3: Definition of 008/21 (Music parts).
  • 2002-14/4: Definition of 008/33 (Transposition and Arrangement).
  • 2002-14/5: Definition of Value in 008/24-27 (Nature of Contents/Nature of Entire Work).
  • 2002-14/6: Definition of Field 038 (Record Content Owner).
  • 2002-14/7: Definition of Field 026 (Fingerprint Identifier).
  • 2002-14/8: Definition of Field 563 (Binding Information).
  • 2002-14/10: Add Euro and Eszett to MARC Character Set.

  Proposal No. 2002-15: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-15.html
  Defining field 065 (Other Classification Number) in the MARC 21 Authority Format.

  PROPOSALS NOT APPROVED

  Proposal No. 2002-02: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-02.html
  Definition of Subfields $u, $y and $3 in Fields 508 and 511 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

  Proposal No. 2002-12: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-12.html
  Coding for Publication Pattern at the First Level of Enumeration in MARC 21 Holdings Records.

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

  DISCUSSION PAPERS

  Discussion Paper 2002-DP01: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp01.html
  Coding Electronic Formats for Different Media in Field 007 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats.

  Discussion Paper 2002-DP02: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp02.html
  Renaming the 008 Positions to Reflect their Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

  Discussion Paper 2002-DP04 http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp04.html
  Addition of Imprint and Physical Description fields to the MARC 21 Holdings Format.

  Discussion Paper 2002-DP05: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp05.html
  Guidelines for the Nonfiling Control Character Technique in the MARC 21 Formats.

  Discussion Paper No. 2002-DP08: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp08.html
  Dealing with FRBR Expressions in MARC 21.

  Submitted by
  Susan Goldner
  University of Arkansas at Little Rock /
  Pulaski County Law Library

• 2001

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2001 Annual Report

  This is my final report as your AALL MARBI representative; I have enjoyed representing the Law Library community these past five years, and I have appreciated your support and interest in MARBI developments.

  ---

  Overview

  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; and RUSA (Reference and User Services Association). Also represented are national library liaisons from LC, NLM, NAL, and the National Libraries of Canada and Australia, along with representatives from OCLC, RLG, ISM and WLN bibliographic utilities. Finally, there are the rest of us–liaisons from 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 midwinter meeting, January 13-14, 2001 in Washington, D.C., and the annual meeting June in San Francisco, June 16 -18th. 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 then voted on by the MARBI Advisory committee members. 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.

  Highlights of the year

  Two proposals approved at the ALA 2001 annual meeting in San Francisco created the architecture for a significant restructuring of the MARC formats.

  Proposal No. 2001-05: Changes in MARC 21 to Accommodate Seriality

  Related MARBI Documents: DP114 (June 1999), DP119 (May 2000)

  Source: CONSER Program, Library of Congress; ISSN Center

  Summary: This proposal consists of four separate proposals for changes to MARC 21 based on revisions to the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. Rev. concerning seriality. These include: 2001-05/1: Leader/07 Bibliographic level code for integrating resource; 2001-05/2: 008/18 and 006/01 Frequency code for continuously updated resources; 3) 2001-05/3: New codes for updating loose-leaf, database, and updating Web site in 008/21 and 006/04 Type of serial; 4) 2001-05/4: New code in 008/34 and 006/17 Successive/Latest entry indicator for latest entry (integrating resource).

  MARBI Action Taken: All approved as written with changes to terminology; “latest entry integrating entry” was changed to “integrated entry.”

  As many of you may remember, for the past three years the former CC:DA rep Ann Sitkin and I have kept the AALL TS SIS and OBS SIS membership apprised of the discussions, drafts, task force reports, MARBI discussion papers, AALL programs, and committee recommendations regarding the impending changes to the AACR2 chapter 12 on serials and to the corresponding MARC formats. You all have been individually and collectively polled, surveyed, e-mailed, and cajoled. Now those changes are a reality; JSC has all but signed off on the revised Chapter 12, and MARBI took the plunge and approved two major proposals at the June 2001 meeting. When these new format changes are implemented, they will change your MARC coding lives.

  Proposal 2001-05 and its four parts create one of the most radical changes in the MARC formats ever. As a result of the revisions to AACR2 Chapter 12 concerning Seriality, at its June 2001 meeting MARBI approved the addition of a third bibliographic level code — code “i” for integrating resources in the Leader/07. In addition, law catalogers will now be able to code several other features of loose-leafs and other integrating resources very high up in the leaders. Other approved changes rename the serial 008 as the seriality 008, and code ‘i’ is to be treated similarly to code ‘s,’ which means the seriality 008 is to be used when type (leader/06) is ‘a’ (textual material). This will permit libraries to track the serial nature of loose-leafs in the fixed fields, coding for regularity, frequency, etc.

  Another change to the 008/21 leader is the renaming of the type of serial to “Type of serial or integrating resource” (currently Type of serial) and define three additional codes ‘l’ (updating loose-leaf), ‘d’ (database), and ‘w’ (updating Web site). The final change is the addition of a new code ‘2’ in the 008/34 and 006/17 to represent the “integrated entry.” Currently the choices are to code ‘0’ or ‘1’ for successive or latest entry serial cataloging; code ‘2’ would be a “latest entry approach for loose-leaf type entries where the latest title is recorded in the 245 field, but the title is not a serial but an integrating resource.

  These changes will enable libraries to identify loose-leafs and other types of integrating resources many purposes, including creating acquisition lists, identifying subscriptions, and limiting searches in online databases.

  ---

  Proposal No. 2001-04: Making Field 260 Repeatable in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

  Related: DP114 (June 1999), DP119 (May 2000)

  Source: Cooperative Online Serials Program (CONSER); ISSN International Centre

  Summary: This paper proposes that Field 260 “Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)” be made repeatable to accommodate both current and historical publishing information and to provide better access to this information for database managers and library system users. It also proposes definition of subfield $3 “Materials specified.”

  MARBI Action Taken: Approved as written

  Until this proposal was approved in June 2001, field 260 was currently defined as not repeatable. This proposal makes field 260 repeatable for resources that change over time so that both earliest, current, and, if desired, intervening publishing information could be included in the record. Resources that change over time include multipart monographs, serials, and the newly defined AACR category of integrating resources. Integrating resources include databases, Web sites, and updating loose-leafs. Repeatability of field 260 is not intended for multiple versions of a work published by different publishers.

  Basically the proposal does the following: In field 260 (Publication, Distribution, Etc. (Imprint) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format:

  • Makes the field repeatable for changes in publisher over time.
  • Defines the first indicator as sequence of publishing statements with the following values:
    • # — Not applicable/ No information provided/Earliest available publisher
    • 2 — Current publisher
    • 3 — Intervening publishers
  • Defines subfield $3 (Materials specified) for use with 260 fields

  The following illustrates how changing publisher statements might be recorded.

  260 ## $a Paris ; $aNew York : $b Vogue, $c 1964-

  260 3# $3 1980-May 1993 $a London : $b Vogue

  260 2# $3June 1993- $a London : $b Elle

  ---

  ANNOUNCEMENTS

  Library of Congress Report

  Rebecca Guenther (LC) described the new Classification Web pilot program from CDs that provides easy access to up-to-date LC Classification data; the program has been extended through August 2001. Pricing information will be out soon. More information about Classification Web can be found on the CDs website at: www.loc.gov/CDs/.

  UKMARC Harmonization Efforts

  Alan Danskin (British Library) stated that a survey was given to UK librarians and the results found that the majority of British librarians want to harmonize with MARC 21. In light of this clear mandate, the BL Executive Committee has decided to adopt the MARC 21 format. The results of this survey can be found on the UKMARC website at: www.bl.uk/services/bsds/nbs/marc21survey.html.

  ---

  SUMMARY OF OTHER MARBI 2001 PROPOSALS

  Proposal No: 2001-01: Designating Taxonomic Hierarchies in Field 754 (Added Entry–Taxonomic Identification) in the Bibliographic Format

  Related MARBI Documents: 2000-08 (May 2000)

  SOURCE: Florida Center for Library Automation

  SUMMARY: This paper proposes adding subfields $c and $z to field 754 to designate the taxonomic hierarchy of the data in subfield $a and to provide a public note. Likewise, the redefinition of subfield $a is proposed to contain the taxonomic name only.

  MARBI Action Taken: After discussion a motion was made to accept the proposal with the following modifications: 1) Add subfield $x (Non-Public note) and subfield $z (Public Note) as a repeatable subfields; 2) Specify that subfield $z will not be used for common or alternative name, but for other types of public notes; 3) Add another repeatable subfield in field 754 for the Common/alternative name (to be determined by LC). The motion as amended carried with a unanimous vote of 7-0 at the January meetings.

  ---

  Proposal 2001-02: Non-MARC Country Codes in Fields 043 (Geographic Area Code) and 044 (Country of Publishing/Producing Entity Code)
  Related MARBI Documents: DP 98 (December 1996); 97-11 (May 1997)

  Source:Library of Congress; OCLC CORC

  Summary: This paper proposes that subfield $c (ISO code) in field 043 (Geographic Area Code) be defined to allow for the use of an ISO 3166 country code. Likewise, it also proposes that subfield $c (ISO subentity code) in field 044 (Country of publishing/producing entity code) be redefined as ISO code to allow for the use of an ISO 3166 country code as well as an ISO subentity code.

  MARBI Action Taken: Passed as written by a unanimous vote at the Midwinter meeting.

  ---

  Proposal No. 2001-03: Identification of Source in Field 015 (National Bibliography Number) and Field 017 (Copyright Registration Number) in the Bibliographic Format

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source: Russian State Library

  Summary: This paper proposes defining subfield $2 (Source) in field 015 (National Bibliography Number) and field 017 (Copyright Registration Number) to identifying the source of the number. It also proposes making field 015 repeatable for multiple numbers from different sources.

  MARBI Action Taken: MARBI voted 7-0 to pass the proposal as written at ALA Midwinter.

  ---

  Proposal No. 2001-06: Accommodating Non-MARC Language Codes in Field 041 of the Bibliographic and Community Information Formats

  Related MARBI Documents: DP 2001-DP02

  Source: Library of Congress; OCLC CORC

  Summary: Proposes changes to accommodate non-MARC language codes in field 041 (Language code). Changing the repeatability of both field 041 and subfields $a-$g is suggested. Defining the second indicator position (Source of code) and subfield $2 (Source of code) is also proposed to identify the source of the language codes used. Lengthy discussion ensued about complexity of dealing with stacked language codes and legacy data. Concern expressed about making wording in the proposal to eliminate stacking, which utilities said they could not do with legacy data.

  MARBI Action Taken: Passed as proposed with a change to the wording to make the stacking of language codes in field 041 obsolete.

  ---

  Proposal No. 2001-07: Repeatability of Field 508 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source: ALCTS Media Resources Committee; Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA); Cataloging Policy Committee of Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. (CAPC)

  Summary: This paper proposes changing the repeatability of field 508 in the MARC 21 bibliographic format to enable recording of complex and multiple credit notes.

  MARBI Action Taken: Passed at ALA Annual.

  ---

  Proposal No. 2001-08: Coding DVDs in Field 007 for Videorecordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source: Library of Congress

  Summary: Proposes adding a byte for DVDs in field 007/04 for videorecordings to differentiate them from other videodiscs. Several comments made about technical accuracy of distinctions made in the proposal between laser discs and DVDs, and the appropriate coding.

  MARBI Action Taken: Proposal approved with changes to coding for dimensions, and removal of the word optical.

  ---

  Proposal No. 2001-09: Mapping of EACC Characters to Unicode/UCS

  Related MARBI Documents:none

  Source: Library of Congress

  Summary: Proposes a mapping of characters from the MARC East Asian Character Set (EACC) to Unicode/UCS The East Asian Character Code (EACC) is a bibliographic character set for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK) approved for use in MARC 21 records. Developed by the Research Libraries Group in 1983, EACC was approved as an American National Standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.64, in 1989. The EACC repertoire contained 15,728 characters (15,704 from version L of the CJK thesaurus + the CJK space + 23 punctuation and pronunciation mark) as of May 2001. The East Asian Character Set Task Force was formed by MARBI in 1997 to establish mappings between EACC and Unicode. The work of the Task Force focused specifically on reviewing mappings of East Asian characters already done by the Unicode Consortium, identifying characters missing from Unicode, establishing mappings for Korean hangul, Japanese kana, CJK punctuation and component characters, and working out a solution for mapping duplicate and variant ideographic characters.

  MARBI Action Taken: Accepted as the MARC (EACC) mappings to Unicode/UCS the 13,226 mappings developed by the Unicode Consortium, as amended by the corrections and the 2,490 additional mappings developed by the MARBI East Asian Character Set Task Force. Also thanked and lauded the Task Force and in particular Joan Aliprand of RLG for the outstanding work performed.

  ---

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

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source: Library of Congress

  Summary: Proposes expanding field 007/10 to describe additional materials used in the manufacture of sound recordings.

  MARBI Action Taken: Following discussion about the technical accuracy and omissions of various physical types in the proposed coding, MARBI tabled review of this proposal until technical experts could review the preservation types.

  ---

  Proposal No. 2001-11: Definition of Field 887 (Non-MARC Information Field) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

  Related MARBI Documents:none

  Source:Library of Congress; Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC)

  Summary: This paper proposes the addition of field 887 for information that is not mappable to an existing MARC 21 field. The source of the information would be from some other metadata scheme (such as Dublin Core). The field is modeled after field 886 (Foreign MARC Information Field).

  MARBI Action Taken: Passed as written.

  ---

  MARBI 2001 DISCUSSION PAPERS

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP01: Recording Narrators in Fields 508 and 511 in the Bibliographic Format

  Recording Narrators in Fields 508 and 511

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source:Oakville Public Library

  Summary: Discusses the possibility of changing the scope of fields 508 and 511 in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. Because there has been inconsistent coding of “Narrator” in both fields 508 and 511, changing the definition of these fields would end confusion and standardize coding practices.

  MARBI Action Taken: MARBI decided that narrators should be coded only in field 511 to eliminate inconsistent coding practices and possible information retrieval problems. No one believed that redefining the first indicator value 3 (Narrators) in field 511 would assist in indicating the narrators’ roles of participation when differentiating them from cast members. A formal proposal was not considered necessary for this change, however, LC will alter its documentation to reflect the new coding practice in the immediate future.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP02: Non-MARC Language Codes in Field 041

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source:Library of Congress; OCLC CORC

  Summary: Discusses four different approaches to using non-MARC language codes in MARC 21 bibliographic and community information records.

  MARBI Action Taken: The following decisions were made for field 041: 1) Repeat the subfields for each code recorded. 2) Repeat field 041 to indicate the use of different language code schemes in a record to aid in system processing. 3) Define an indicator value and subfield $2 to identify the source of the language codes used. MARBI agreed that there should be further discussion about the legacy records containing stacked codes. The group should also look further into the possible impact that these changes may have on the bibliographic community. A proposal paper reflecting these decisions will be presented at the annual 2001 meeting.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP03: Types of Dates for Electronic Resources

  Related MARBI Documents: 98-04; 98-07

  Source: Library of Congress; CORC

  Summary: Reviews the different types of dates for electronic resources that are used as qualifiers in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set and how they correspond with defined MARC 21 fields. Discusses whether some specific types of dates, which do not have an accurate mapping to MARC 21, are important for bibliographic description and, if so, alternatives for providing appropriate fields/subfields for them.

  MARBI Action Taken: Participants felt that field 046 would be better for other dates since it is more expandable. A new discussion paper was requested for the annual 2001 meeting focusing on using field 046 with the following points:

  • Add non-repeatable subfield $2 to show how the date is structured.
  • Make the field repeatable if subfield $2 is used
  • Harmonize the field in the Bibliographic and Community Information formats.
  • Consider what other dates of importance are needed beyond electronic resources or in specialized communities.
  • Consider how date modified would be applied for loose-leaf materials.
  • Look at the relationship between 046 and other elements

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP04: Expanding Field 046 for Other Dates in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Community Information Formats

  Related MARBI Documents: 98-04 (January 1998); 98-07 (June 1998); 2001-DP03 (January 2001)

  Source: Library of Congress; CORC

  Summary: Explores whether some specific types of dates which are not accommodated in the MARC 21 formats are important for bibliographic description and if so, it examines using field 046 (Special coded dates) as an alternative for providing appropriate places for them.

  MARBI Action Taken: After discussion about data would be used to record date information, and how loose-leaf releases could use date of release as date record in the 046, LC was encouraged to come back with a proposal.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP05: Multilingual Authority Records in the MARC 21 Authority Format

  Related MARBI Documents: 96-10 (July 1996), 97-10 (May 1997), DP100 (June 1997), DP108 (May 1998), DP109 (May 1998)

  Source:MARBI Multilingual Record Task Force

  Summary: This paper explores how to handle multilingual records in the MARC 21 authority format. Three models are discussed, along with recommendations from the MARBI Multilingual Record Task Force.

  MARBI Action Taken: Task Force will continue to explore options. Will rename paper “Context Sensitive” authority records.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP06: Coding Series Numbering in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source:PCC Working Group on Series Numbering

  Summary: This paper describes a situation that suggests a possible change to subfield $v in the 4XX and 8XX fields of the MARC 21 bibliographic format, and/or a change to the 642 field of the MARC 21 authority format for proper sorting of series headings. The paper suggests either a change to coding practice using existing MARC content designation, or a change to MARC content designation.

  MARBI Action Taken: Recommended that PCC first look to vendors to implement normalization and filing rules. Problem of legacy data lacking suggested coding changes.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP07: Name/Title of Unit in MARC 21 Holdings Records

  Related MARBI Documents: 89-8/5; 89-8/7

  Source:CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings

  Summary: Discusses the relationship between field 844 (Name of Unit) and subfield $o in fields 854/864 and 855/865. It considers how to record a distinctive title associated with a basic bibliographic unit that applies only to a constituent part.

  MARBI Action Taken: Suggested follow-up discussion paper.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP08: Coding for Publication Pattern at the First Level of Enumeration in MARC 21 Holdings Records

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source:CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings

  Summary: 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. This is necessary for accurate predictive check-in and to eliminate inconsistencies in coding. The format currently specifies that these subfields are not used at the first level of enumeration and that they only apply to secondary levels. It would result in a coding practice change and revision of description of these subfields, but not a change to the content designators.

  MARBI Action Taken: NLM would like to see CONSER come forward with a proposal on this.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP09: Repeatability of Subfield $w in Fields 853-855 of the MARC 21 Holdings Format

  Related MARBI Documents: none

  Source:CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings

  Summary: Explores repeating subfield $w in fields 853-855 in cases where multi-part titles are issued in a specified frequency. This would allow coding for both when to expect an issue (its issuing frequency) and how many pieces per year of an issue are expected.

  MARBI Action Taken: Group would like to see a proposal; needs to distinguish between frequency in the bib record and issuance in the holdings record.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP10: Incrementing Intervals in Publication Patterns in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

  Related MARBI Documents: 2001-DP11

  Source:CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings

  Summary: Considers methods to code for titles with multiple basic components that sequence their enumeration with skipped numbers, such as the practice of using either even or odd numbers to identify serial issues.

  MARBI Action Taken: Recommended that LC move forward with this as a proposal.

  ---

  Discussion Paper 2001-DP11: Spans of Enumeration and Chronology in Expressing Publication Patterns in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

  Related MARBI Documents: 2001-DP10 (June 2001)

  Source:CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings

  Summary: Considers alternatives for expressing patterns for enumeration and chronology that span issues or years. Alternatives considered are the addition of a new subfield $p (Span interval) or enhancement of subfield $y (Regularity pattern).

  MARBI Action Taken: MARBI liked the technique, but suggested that LC come back with a different enumeration system.

  Submitted by

  Rhonda K. Lawrence, Representative
  Hugh and Hazel Darling Law Library
  UCLA School of Law

• 2000

  Report of the AALL Representative to the
  MARC Advisory Committee (MARBI)
  2000 Annual Report

  Overview

  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.

  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:

  • Bibliographic level: JSC approved the ISBD(S) model of continuing resources. All of the rules covering integrating resources (regardless of material type) will be in Chapter 12. The JSC also will be considering a total reorganization of Part I of the code by ISBD bibliographic areas of description. This, however, will take some time to accomplish and no final decisions on this subject have been made.
  • Publishing statement: JSC did not approve description from the latest issue, but there was interest in this from the ISBD(S) user community. JSC feels that this can be addressed by coding and display.
  • Successive/latest indicator: Would call integrating resource “integrating entry,” possibly with a new value i.

  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.

  Discussion Papers

  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.

  2.3 Impact.
  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:

  Pros:

  • Allows for indexing of serials and integrating resources within utilities and local systems as a special subset of library materials without expanding to an unrecognizably broad category (i.e., all continuing resources)
  • Enables more accurate record identification and labeling
  • Enables search limitations and grouping of displays in large catalogs, such as OCLC

  Cons:

  • Requires that common terminology be found for labeling integrating resources that will distinguish them from serials (such as “updating works”?)

  Record processing

  Pros:

  • Identifies records with similar characteristics for duplicate detection
  • Identifies a manageable subset of records (important to large collections)
  • Allows current CONSER validation by OCLC to remain for serials without extending to all continuing resources
  • However, identifies records that will require updating and the need for some form of CONSER-like processing
  • Provides flexibility in how these records will be managed

  Cons:

  • Could require conversion of records now coded as monographs and there may be no easy way to determine which are integrating
  • Record distribution would be more complex; would records with code ‘i’ be distributed with those with code ‘s’ or separately? Since leader/07 is used to determine CDS distribution product criteria, it would not have much impact if “i” is equated with “s.” However, if any records previously coded as “m” are changed to “i,” it could have a major impact since a delete would first have to be issued.

  Cataloging and other library functions

  Pros:

  • Is consistent with the revision of AACR2 Chapter 12 and emphasizes the seriality of integrating resources while allowing for differences
  • Catalogers would not have to distinguish between integrating resources that are finite and those that are continuing; all would be treated the same
  • Provides more flexibility for cataloging workflow; cataloging could be done by serials, electronic resources, or monograph catalogers
  • Enables serials processing (e.g., check-in, claiming) of materials, such as loose-leafs, for local systems that are unable to handle this on non-serial records

  Cons:

  • It may not always be easy to distinguish which records are to be coded as ‘s’, ‘i’, or ‘m’ (e.g., there are serially-issued loose-leafs, electronic journals without parts, electronic resources where intent to update is not clear)

  2.5 Alternatives
  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:

  • Would lump together a very broad array of resources that do not share the same needs for identification and control.
  • Would make it more difficult to limit searches and to identify true serials
  • Would be difficult to continue OCLC validation and restricted access to CONSER records, or would require opening up CONSER authorization to all PCC
  • If further identification of type of resource was required (e.g., periodicals, loose-leafs, it could only be made at a lower level (008/21) that would not be as likely to be used by systems

  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:

  • Not consistent with AACR2 and other standards for continuing resources (e.g., ISSN)
  • Not logical and could cause confusion
  • Does not enable identification of records requiring updating for purposes of record validation, cooperative cataloging, etc.
  • Maintains status quo for loose-leafs which may be a pro or con depending on point of view
  • Who would determine how integrating resources are to be treated?

  3.008/18 and 006/01 Frequency; also field 853, 854, 855 in Holdings format

  3.1. Proposal.
  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.

  3.2. Rationale.
  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.

  4.1. Proposal.
  Rename as “Type of continuing resource” and define a new code ‘l’ (loose-leaf).

  4.2. Rationale.
  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

  5.1. Background.
  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’)

  • Used for serials prior to adoption of AACR in 1971
  • A new record was made when the numbering was succeeded or when the title merged or split
  • Latest entry records are considered allowable duplicates of successive entry records
  • Many libraries have made a systematic effort to get rid of latest entry records
  • Latest entry is never used for current cataloging with the exception of some reproduction microforms

  Integrating entry

  • To be used for integrating resources once AACR2 is revised and, more infrequently, for electronic serials that do not retain earlier titles.
  • This is the only form of cataloging that can be applied to these materials, unlike latest entry records which can also be accommodated by successive entry records
  • A new record would be made only when there is a major change in edition (loose-leafs) or when the title merges or splits

  5.2. Proposal.
  Define new code ‘2’ for integrating entry.

  5.3. Rationale.
  Use of code 008/34. Libraries currently use this code for:

  • Quick identification of good cataloging copy
  • To retrieve latest entry records to convert to successive
  • To determine whether record duplication may be ignored

  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)

  6.1. Background.
  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.

  6.2. Proposal.
  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
  

  Example:

  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
  

  6.3. Discussion
  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?

  Example:

     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?

  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.

  ---

  PROPOSALS

  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.

  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.

  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:

  • Use subfield $g (miscellaneous information) in the X00 fields for anonymous attribution information, or;
  • Define subfield $j (anonymous attribution information) in the X00 fields.

  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.

  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:

  • Define subfield $y (Link text) as follows: This subfield contains link text which is used for display in place of the URL in $u . When subfield $y is present, applications should use the contents of $y as the link instead of the content of $u when linking to the destination in $u.

  There was general support for this proposal, which passed with little discussion.

  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.

  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.

  Background

  In April 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

  • Open standards and extensibility
  • Separation of content, presentation, linking
  • Computer platform and software application neutrality, interoperability
  • Unicode and data longevity <interfacing>

  Submitted by

  Rhonda K. Lawrence, Representative
  Hugh and Hazel Darling Law Library
  UCLA School of Law