MARC Advisory Committee Reports

Annual & Midwinter Reports

From 1973-2013, the MARC Advisory Committee included the MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information) Committee, an interdivisional committee of the American Library Association (ALA). Semiannual MARBI meetings were held at ALA conferences, where proposed changes to the MARC formats were reviewed, evaluated, and voted on by MARBI members, with non-MARBI members of the MARC Advisory Committee serving an informational role. When 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. [Source]

  • 2018 Midwinter Report

    Report of the AALL Representative to the
    MARC Advisory Committee (MAC)
    American Library Association
    2018 Midwinter Meeting
    February 10-11, 2018
    Denver, Colorado

    Jean M. Pajerek
    Cornell Law Library

    Watch Video Update on YouTube (45:12)

    The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Denver. Action was taken on 6 discussion papers and 1 proposal during the meetings. The complete texts of all discussion papers and the proposal considered at the 2018 ALA midwinter meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/mw2018_age.html.

    The following proposals were discussed and approved:

    Proposal No. 2018-01
    Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Cartographic Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-01.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) and the ALA Map & Geospatial Information Round Table (MAGIRT)

    The Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) and the ALA Map & Geospatial Information Round Table (MAGIRT) propose the creation of new values for some 007 (Physical Description) field positions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats to improve description of digital cartographic resources. The proposal mirrors changes that were made in 2016 to the 007 for sound recordings to accommodate digital recordings.
    This proposal was approved unanimously and will be incorporated into the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats.

    The following discussion papers were considered:

    Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP01
    Defining New Subfield $i in Fields 600-630 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp01.html
    Source: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), Standing Committee on Standards

    This paper generated by far the longest and most animated discussion of all the papers considered at the Midwinter MAC meetings.

    The PCC Standing Committee on Standards proposes adding subfield $i (Relationship information) to the 600-630 block of fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. The specific fields that would be affected are: 600 (Subject Added Entry-Personal Name), 610 (Subject Added Entry-Corporate Name), 611 (Subject Added Entry-Meeting Name), and 630 (Subject Added Entry-Uniform Title).

    Chapter 23 of RDA “provides general guidelines and instructions on recording relationships between works and subjects.” Appendix M of RDA “provides general guidelines on using relationship designators to specify relationships between works and their subjects, and lists relationship designators used for that purpose.” As an example, one such relationship designator of interest to law catalogers would be “commentary on (work): A work used as a basis for a set of explanatory or critical notes.”

    Appendix M relationship designators are currently recorded in subfield $i of 7xx related work added entries, 7xx linking entries, or incorporated into a 5xx note. As stated in the discussion paper, “the only method presently available for recording specific subject relationships between resources (and other entities) is to treat them as bibliographic relationships, not subject relationships. However, RDA specifically distinguishes between these two overall categories of relationship.” The discussion paper provides the following example of current practice:

    100 1# $a Dyck, Andrew R. $q (Andrew Roy), $d 1947- $e author.
    245 12 $a A commentary on Cicero, De legibus / $c Andrew R. Dyck.
    600 10 $a Cicero, Marcus Tullius. $t De legibus.
    700 1# $i Commentary on (work): $a Cicero, Marcus Tullius. $t De legibus.

    The paper posits that authorizing the use of relationship designators in 600-630 fields would obviate the need for the 700 related work added entry in instances like this, where the same information could be conveyed in the 600 field:

    600 10 $i Commentary on (work): $a Cicero, Marcus Tullius. $t De legibus.

    The observation is made in that paper that “[t]he use of an RDA relationship designator … allows the field to express with greater precision the nature of the subject relationship than LCSH could do alone, since the subdivision “Commentaries” is restricted to sacred works.”

    In general, this discussion paper received little support. Some Committee members cited the unconvincing and hypothetical nature of some of the use cases presented; the German National Library suggested that RDA chapter 23 and Appendix M may end up being reorganized, and cautioned against making the proposed changes to MARC 21 while RDA is still in a state of flux. Other Committee members voiced concern about the ability of current systems to implement batch changes to records based on this use of relationship designators.

    LC’s reaction to the paper was particularly harsh, stating that “[w]e do not believe that it is necessary to use relationship designators in the 600-630 fields, and we intend to prohibit their use with LC subject headings if approved by MAC … The time of the cataloger would not be saved, and the potential for confusion is real because this practice would effectively dictate the use of two different systems in the same tag block at the same time. The resulting displays in OPACs and discovery layers may also be problematic. Based on past experience, it is likely that the duplicated fields would display as separate results and could mislead users about the number of resources available on a subject.”

    The sponsor of this controversial discussion paper will have to decide whether to re-work it or abandon the effort altogether.

    Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP02
    Subfield Coding in Field 041 for Accessibility in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp02.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

    Accessibility features in video recordings provide alternative access to both visual and audio content by employing supplementary visual description, such as described video, and captioning or signing. This discussion paper recommends that subfield coding be added to field 041 (Language Code) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to indicate:

    • Language codes for written languages providing access to moving image audio content using captions
    • Language codes for spoken languages providing access to moving image visual content using video description
    • Language codes for signed languages that are used to provide access for the deaf and hard of hearing to moving image audio content

    There was broad support for this idea among the Committee members, so this discussion paper is likely to return to MAC as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP03
    Inventory of Newer 3XX Fields that Lack Subfield $3 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp03.html
    Source: Music Library Association (MLA)

    In this discussion paper, the Music Library Association advocates in favor of defining subfield $3 (Materials specified) for fields 377 (Associated Language), 380 (Form of Work), 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression), and 383 (Numeric Designation of Musical Work) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. Subfield $3 “allow[s] catalogers to better associate metadata with specific pieces of the bibliographic description.” It’s important in music cataloging because music catalogers often create metadata in bibliographic records that applies to only one part of the resource being cataloged (e.g., a sound recording with a number of separate pieces on it). Some Committee members noted that the non-standardized, textual nature of subfield $3s limits machine actionability; the need for improved examples was also noted. After some discussion, the decision was made to accept this discussion paper as a proposal (contingent on some modifications to address the Committee’s concerns) and it was approved by unanimous vote.

    Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP04
    Multiscript Records Using Codes from ISO 15924 in the Five MARC 21 Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp04.html
    Source: German National Library

    When the language of cataloging is written in a Latin script and the language of the resource being cataloged is written in a non-Latin script, a common practice of many cataloging agencies using MARC 21 is to transliterate the non-Latin portions of the bibliographic description into Latin script, while linking to the same information in the vernacular script using 880 fields (Alternate Graphic Representation). This technique for handling non-Latin scripts is referred to as “Model A” (Vernacular and Transliteration) in Appendix D (Multiscript Records) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. Subfield $6 (Linkage) is used in the 880 fields to link the transliterated field to its vernacular counterpart. One of the pieces of information encoded in the subfield $6 within an 880 field is the script identification code, “a code that identifies the first script encountered in a left-to-right scan of the field.” The codes currently authorized for this purpose are:

    Code — Script
    (3 — Arabic
    (B — Latin
    $1 — Chinese, Japanese, Korean
    (N — Cyrillic
    (S — Greek
    (2 — Hebrew

    According to the discussion paper, “[t]hese values seem to be derived from the MARC 8 character set, an implementation of ISO IEC 2022.” Now that many library systems code their data in UTF8 (Unicode Transformation Format 8), the German National Library recommends that ISO 15924 (“Codes for the representation of names of scripts”) be used as the source for the script identification code portion of $6 subfields in 880 fields. ISO 15924 lists both alphabetic and numeric codes for dozens of scripts beyond the six currently available. This paper received general support from many Committee members, although concern was expressed as to how legacy data would be handled. The paper may return to the Committee as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP05
    Adding Institution Level Information to Subject Headings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp05.html
    Source: German National Library

    Subfield $5 is used certain fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to indicate the “MARC code of the institution or organization that holds the copy to which the data in the field applies. Data in the field may not apply to the universal description of the item or may apply universally to the item but be of interest only to the location cited.” At Midwinter 2017, the German National Library introduced a discussion paper that proposed extending the definition of subfield $5 to the 6XX range (i.e., subject access) of fields in the Bibliographic Format, in order to express the idea that a particular subject heading or term has been used in accordance with the policy of a specific organization. At that time, the paper generated a relatively long discussion during which Committee members expressed reluctance to conflate the kinds of information expressed in a subfield that has historically contained item-level information with work-level information associated with subject headings.

    Now the German National Library has returned with a similar discussion paper. This paper offers the option for encoding institution-level information in the 6XX range of fields in field 883 (Machine-generated Metadata Provenance). The 883 field as currently defined refers to machine-generated metadata only and would have to be redefined to encompass the idea of “intellectually assigned metadata;” the authors of the paper also suggest renaming the field “Metadata Provenance.”

    Some Committee members were not completely convinced by the German National Library’s use case for this change; nonetheless, the Germans were advised to pursue the 883 alternative rather than the subfield $5 option. This paper may resurface as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP06
    Versions of Resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp06.html
    Source: German National Library

    In this paper, the German National Library suggests several ways of designating different versions of a resource in a MARC bibliographic record. Specifically, the paper addresses the situation commonly associated with journal articles in electronic form, where preprints, postprints and the published version of an article may all be available simultaneously to readers who may be unaware of which version they are reading.

    The paper outlines several approaches toward handling this situation:

    • Coding in an 008 fixed field Nature of contents byte
    • Designation as a genre/form term in field 655
    • Use of field 562 (Copy and Version Identification Note)
    • A new subfield to be added to the 250 field (Edition Statement), designating version information, possibly using terms from a controlled vocabulary

    The need to differentiate among various versions of an article in electronic form received wide support among the Committee members. Those expressing a preference from among the options set forth in the paper seemed to favor adding a new subfield to the 250 field. This paper may return to the Committee as a proposal.

  • 2017 Annual Report

    REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
    MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
    2017 ANNUAL MEETING REPORT
    JUNE 24-25, 2017
    CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

    Jean M. Pajerek, Cornell Law Library

    The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago. Action was taken on three discussion papers and five proposals during the meetings. The complete texts of all proposals and discussion papers considered at the 2017 ALA annual meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2017_age.html.

    The following proposals were discussed; the majority were approved:

    Proposal No. 2017-08
    Use of Subfields $0 and $1 to Capture Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in the MARC 21 Formats

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-08.html
    Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC

    This proposal outlines a method to capture URIs in the MARC 21 Formats in a manner that clearly differentiates between URIs that identify a ‘Record’ or ‘Authority’ entity describing a Thing (designated by $0), and URIs that directly identify a Thing itself (sometimes referred to as a Real World Object or RWO; designated by $1). As more libraries experiment with linked data, it is becoming clear that MARC data cannot be transformed into linked data without some refinement of existing MARC structures and the implementation of new fields and subfields. A key area in which linked data require more semantic precision than is specified in MARC is the distinction that must be made between what are called “Real World Objects,” and records (like authority records, which are also RWOs) that describe other RWOs. This proposal would have an impact on dozens of fields in all of the MARC formats.

    This proposal generated a great deal of discussion. Issues raised include:

    • How much linked data can we (and should we) fit into our existing standard?
    • Should RWO information be linked to from authority records, but not bib records? What if transformation processes do not look at authority records?
    • Is this just too difficult and expensive to implement?
    • Should difficulty of implementation prevent us from moving forward?

    A number of amendments were proposed and accepted, and the proposal was approved as amended.

    Proposal No. 2017-09
    Defining Field 758 (Resource Identifier) in the MARC 21 Bibiliographic Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-09.html
    Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)

    Proposal No. 2017-09 recommends the definition of a new field 758 (Resource Identifier) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format. It is intended to be used in cases where a resource identifier (or URI) is available, but is not explicitly associated with an authorized access point or other title construction (e.g., a Wikidata URI or OCLC work entity).

    According to the proposal, enhancing MARC records with linked data identifiers is seen as a way of facilitating the eventual transformation of MARC data into linked data: “Relating bibliographic descriptions to the appropriate work or other resource entities is a major challenge in transforming MARC bibliographic data to linked data. Recording the URI for a related resource in a MARC record makes the URI available for inclusion in an RDF statement as the object when the MARC record is transformed into a linked data representation.”

    The proposal was approved with three abstentions.

    Proposal No. 2017-10
    Rename and Broaden Definition of Field 257 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-10.html
    Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC), Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

    Currently, Field 257 (Country of Producing Entity) is used by the film and video cataloging community to indicate the country where the production companies associated with a film are located. This paper proposes “renaming and broadening the definition of field 257 … in the Bibliographic format so that jurisdictions that have strong film cultures and are often treated as countries can be used in this field, even if they are not legally recognized as countries.” While the proposal recommends changing the name of Field 257 to “Area of Producing Entity,” the Committee suggested it be changed to “Place of Producing Entity.” The proposal was approved.

    Proposal No. 2017-11
    Defining New Fields to Record Accessibility Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-11.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM), Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)

    This proposal recommends the definition of two new fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format: the 341 (Accessibility Content) “to indicate accessibility features and/or assistive technology provided for a resource, or parts of a resource, for example, embedded video, audio, text, in an electronic resource;” and the 532 (Accessibility Note) which would be used to “provide a human-readable summary of the accessibility features or deficiencies of a resource.” Committee members felt that the instructions in the proposal were too confusing and required clarification. After considerable discussion, this proposal was tabled for additional community input.

    Proposal No. 2017-12
    Defining Subfields $u, $r and $z in Field 777 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-12.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

    The Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange proposes that subfields $r (Report number), $u (Standard Technical Report Number) and $z (ISBN) be defined for use in Field 777 (Issued With Entry) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. The three subfields in question are associated with monographs, while the 777 field was originally created to express a serial-to-serial relationship. Even though format integration eliminated most format-based restrictions on the use of MARC data elements in describing various types of materials, the subfields associated with field 777 were never updated and still do not include the three monograph-related subfields in question. This proposal was approved unanimously.

    The following discussion papers were considered:

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP06
    Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Cartographic Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp06.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) and the ALA Map & Geospatial Information Round Table (MAGIRT)

    This discussion paper proposes the creation of new values for some 007 field positions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to improve description of digital cartographic resources. Several suggestions for improving the paper were made; this paper may return as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP07
    Repeatability of Subfield $s (Version) in MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Format Fields

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp07.html
    Source: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Standing Committee on Standards

    The use case presented for making $s (Version) repeatable in fields X00, X10, X11, and X30 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats and fields 240 and 243 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Formats focuses on the need to distinguish among multiple expressions of a work translated into the same language (i.e., “a version of a version” of a work). Properly encoding a version of a version of a work is not possible unless the subfield used to designate versions ($s) is made repeatable. There being no opposition to this idea, the discussion paper was converted into a proposal and approved unanimously.

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP08
    Definition and Repeatability of Subfield $d in Field X11 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp08.html
    Source: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Standing Committee on Standards

    Although $d in X10 fields (Corporate Name) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats is defined as “Date of meeting or treaty signing” and is repeatable, $d in X11 fields (Meeting Name) is defined as “Date of meeting” and is not repeatable. This discussion paper recommends changing the definition and repeatability of $d in X11 fields to align its use with the treatment of subfield $d in X10 fields. The use case presented in this paper has particular resonance for law catalogers because it accommodates a situation in which it might be desirable to create a name/title cross reference for a treaty under the name of the meeting at which the treaty was negotiated or authorized, e.g.:

    130 #0 $a Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam $d (1973 March 2)
    411 2# $a International Conference on Viet-Nam $d (1973 : $c Paris, France). $t Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam $d (1973 March 2)

    This discussion paper was converted into a proposal and approved unanimously.

  • 2017 Midwinter Report

    REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
    MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
    2017 MIDWINTER MEETING
    JANUARY 21-22, 2017
    ATLANTA, GEORGIA

    Jean M. Pajerek
    Cornell Law Library

    The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Atlanta. Action was taken on 5 discussion papers and 7 proposals during the meetings. The complete texts of all proposals and discussion papers considered at the 2017 ALA midwinter meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/mw2017_age.html.

    The following proposals were discussed and approved:

    Proposal No. 2017-01
    Redefining Subfield $4 to Encompass URIs for Relationships in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-01.html
    Source: British Library in consultation with the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC

    This proposal recommends the redefinition of subfield $4 (labelled as either ‘Relator code’ or ‘Relationship code’) in a wide range of fields in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats, to allow the recording of URIs for relationships. Currently, only subfield $0 (labelled as ‘Authority Record Control Number or Standard Number,’ ‘Authority Record Control Number’ or ‘Record Control Number’) can be used to record URIs for relationships, creating ambiguity in cases where it is possible to record URIs for both relationships and the entities associated with those relationships in the same subfield string. The proposed redefinition of subfield $4 would provide for the recording of relationship URIs in a separate subfield that distinguishes them from URIs for entities. The paper also recommends that, “where $4 is currently labelled ‘Relator code,’ it would be appropriate for this to be made less prescriptive by relabeling it ‘Relationship code.’ Likewise, the accompanying definition should be changed, replacing the term ‘MARC code’ with a phrase which references the broader concept of designations in coded form.” This proposal was approved, with two Committee members abstaining.

    Proposal No. 2017-02
    Defining New Subfields $i, $3, and $4 in Field 370 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-02.html
    Source: ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation

    Proposal No. 2017-02 proposes the addition of several new subfields to field 370 (Associated Place) in the Bibliographic and Authority formats. Subfields $i (Relationship information) and $4 (currently Relationship code) would be used to clarify the relationship of the associated place recorded in the field to the resource being described. Subfield $3 (Materials specified) would be used to indicate that an associated place applies to only a part or portion of the resource, such as when the parts of a collaborative work are created in different places. During the discussion of this proposal, it was suggested that new indicators, designating “work,” “expression,” and “no information,” be defined for field 370 as well, but this would have to be brought forward separately from the proposal under consideration. The proposal was approved, with two abstentions.

    Proposal No. 2017-03
    Defining New Subfields $i and $4 in Field 386 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-03.html
    Source: ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation

    Defining subfields $i (Relationship information) and $4 (currently Relationship code) in field 386 (Creator/Contributor Characteristics) would provide the ability to “clarify the relationship of the creator/contributor terms recorded in the field to the resource being described.” This is expected to be particularly useful in situations where there are multiple creators and/or contributors, with differing demographic characteristics, associated with a resource. The proposal was approved, contingent upon some refinement of the wording. Two committee members abstained from voting.

    Proposal No. 2017-04
    Using a Classification Record Control Number as a Link in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-04.html
    Source: German National Library

    This proposal, put forward by the German National Library, recommends that the scope of subfield $0 (Authority Record Control Number or Standard Number) in the Bibliographic and Authority formats be broadened to allow it to provide a link between fields containing classification numbers and MARC classification record control numbers. The proposal was approved unanimously.

    Proposal No. 2017-05
    Defining a New Subfield in Field 340 to Record Color Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-05.html
    Source: The Cataloging Advisory Committee (CAC) of The Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA)

    This proposal to define a new repeatable subfield $g in field 340 (Physical Medium) in order to record the color content of a resource was approved unanimously, with a slight rewording of the definition of the new subfield.

    Proposal No. 2017-06
    Adding Subfields $b, $2, and $0 to Field 567 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-06.html
    Source: National Library of Finland

    Field 567 (Methodology Note) is defined in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format as “[i]nformation concerning significant methodological characteristics of the material, such as the algorithm, universe description, sampling procedures, classification, or validation characteristics.” The National Library of Finland proposes the addition of subfield $b (Controlled Term), subfield $2 (Source of Term), and subfield $0 (Authority Record Control Number or Standard Number) to field 567 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format, in order to introduce a level of standardization to the use of the field. This proposal was approved with one abstention.

    Proposal No. 2017-07
    Adding Value “No information provided” to the First Indicator of Field 070 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-07.html
    Source: National Library of Finland

    The first indicator value in Field 070 (National Agricultural Library Call Number) is used to designate whether the resource being cataloged is in the U.S. National Agricultural Library’s collection or not. While Finnish agricultural libraries use NAL classification, the existence of a given resource in the NAL collection is irrelevant to them. The National Library of Finland proposes that a third value (blank), meaning “No information provided,” be defined for indicator 1. The British Library expressed resistance to this proposal because of their belief that the 070 field refers only to classification numbers actually assigned by NAL. The proposal was eventually approved with two abstentions and at least one vote opposed.

    The following discussion papers were considered:

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP01
    Use of Subfields $0 and $1 to Capture Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in the MARC 21 Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp01.html
    Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC

    As more libraries experiment with linked data, it is becoming clear that MARC data cannot be transformed into linked data without some refinement of existing MARC structures and the implementation of new fields and subfields. A key area in which linked data require more semantic precision than is specified in MARC is the distinction that must be made between what are called “Real World Objects,” or “RWOs,” and records (like authority records, which are also RWOs) that describe other RWOs. This distinction is explained in the discussion paper as follows:

    RDF [i.e., Resource Description Framework] statements about a living person may include lifespan dates or a home address, which would be accessible from a URI [Uniform Resource Identifier] that functions somewhat like a Social Security number. But an authority record is fundamentally different because it is an information object that may contain a description of a person, as well as a revision history and other facts about the record itself. Although this difference may seem pedantic, it is important for making precise statements about library resources. When we state in a machine-understandable form that “William Shakespeare is the author of Hamlet,” we want to ensure that the reference is to the person who lived from 1564 to 1616, and not to an authority record or similar document. In short, a person can be an author, but a record cannot.

    The paper proposes that the use of subfield $0 (Authority Record Control Number or Standard Number) be restricted to URIs that refer to records describing RWOs, and that subfield $1 be defined to contain URIs that refer directly to the RWO itself. Subfield $1 is currently undefined in MARC 21 and therefore available for this purpose throughout the MARC formats, wherever RWO URIs are needed.

    There was general agreement among the Committee members that it is necessary to make a distinction between RWOs and authority records in MARC. The paper may return to the Committee as a second discussion paper, or as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP02
    Defining Field 758 (Related Work Identifier) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp02.html
    Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)

    This paper recommends the definition of a new field 758 (Related Work Identifier) in the Authority and Bibliographic formats. It is intended to be used in cases where “a work identifier (or URI) is available, but is not explicitly associated with an authorized access point or other title construction. Examples include a URI for an algorithmically generated entity such as an OCLC work, or a URI pointing to an external non-library source such as a Wikidata entry. For the Bibliographic format, this proposal addresses the use case where the work referenced by an identifier of this kind stands in a primary relationship with the entity described by the bibliographic record.” The paper also recommends using subfield $4 to specify relationships in authority records, as in this example, indicating a “sameAs” relationship:

    758 ## $4 http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs $0 http://viaf.org/viaf/179062815

    According to the paper, the ability to specify relationships in this way would facilitate the transformation of MARC data into linked data. The discussion paper may return as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP03
    Defining New Fields to Record Accessibility Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp03.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

    This paper posits that “[a]s assistive technologies have evolved, providing alternative access to content in a variety of formats, the ability to accommodate accessibility metadata in MARC 21 has not kept pace.” The paper recommends the definition of two new fields in the Bibliographic Format: field 341 (Accessibility Content) and field 532 (Accessibility Note). A redefinition of Field 007 (Physical Description Fixed Field) position 2 (Accessibility) was included in the paper, but withdrawn after the Committee’s discussion. The consensus of the Committee was that the paper needs further development, possibly including the creation of a list of terminology to be used in the proposed field 341.

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP04
    Defining Subfields $u, $r and $z in Field 777 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp04.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

    The Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange proposes that subfields $r (Report number), $u (Standard Technical Report Number) and $z (ISBN) be defined for use in Field 777 (Issued With Entry) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. The three subfields in question are associated with monographs, while the 777 field was originally created to express a serial-to-serial relationship. Even though format integration eliminated most format-based restrictions on the use of MARC data elements in describing various types of materials, the subfields associated with field 777 were never updated and still do not include the three monograph-related subfields in question. This paper may return as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP05
    Providing Institution Level Information by Defining Subfield $5 in the 6XX Fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp05.html
    Source: German National Library

    Subfield $5 is used certain fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to indicate the “MARC code of the institution or organization that holds the copy to which the data in the field applies. Data in the field may not apply to the universal description of the item or may apply universally to the item but be of interest only to the location cited.”

    In this paper, the German National Library proposes extending the definition of subfield $5 to the 6XX range (i.e., subject access) of fields in the Bibliographic Format, in order to express the idea that a particular subject heading or term has been used in accordance with the policy of a specific organization. The paper generated a relatively long discussion wherein Committee members expressed reluctance to conflate the kinds of information expressed in a subfield that has historically contained item-level information with work-level information associated with subject headings. Use of a different subfield, such as subfield $8, was suggested for the German National Library’s proposed purpose. This paper may return to the Committee as a proposal.

  • 2016 Annual Report

    REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
    MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
    2016 ANNUAL MEETING REPORT
    ORLANDO, FLORIDA

    Jean M. Pajerek Cornell Law Library

    The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Annual meeting in Orlando. Action was taken on 14 discussion papers and 11 proposals during the meetings. Several of the discussion papers were voted on as proposals (after discussion) and approved. Due to the extraordinary number of discussion papers and proposals considered at these meetings, this report will focus on proposals that were approved, and will therefore become part of MARC 21. Most of the discussion papers that were not voted on as proposals (the majority of which will be re-submitted as proposals), and proposals with no applicability to the law library community, are not covered in this report. The complete texts of all proposals and discussion papers considered at the 2016 ALA Annual meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2016_age.html.

    Of interest beyond the proposals and discussion papers is the news that the Library of Congress is developing a MARC Steering Committee Fast-Track sub-group. This group will be tasked with adding some of the widely used, or “free-floating,” subfields to fields where they are needed, and revising or re-writing cumbersome field and subfield definitions. The Group will also address inconsistencies within and throughout the MARC format documentation.

    The work of this group will primarily take place between conference meetings. All revisions and additions to the MARC 21 formats made by this MARC Fast-Track group will be announced and posted to the MARC mailing list. (Thanks to Everett Allgood, MAC Secretary, for this information.)

    Proposal No. 2016-03
    Clarify the Definition of Subfield $k and Expand the Scope of Field 046 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-03.html
    Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)

    The use of subfield $k ((Beginning or single date created) in field 046 (Special Coded Dates) of the Bibliographic Format is inconsistent because the standard states that “[d]ates contained in subfield $k may not be coded elsewhere in the formats.” The ambiguity of the meaning of the word “may” in this sentence and whether it is actually intended to be proscriptive (in the sense of “must” not be coded elsewhere) has led catalogers to avoid its use. In order to facilitate the use of 046 $k to consistently record the original date of a moving image work, the Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) propose that the restriction/ambiguity in the definition of subfield $k be removed. The proposal was approved with minor revisions. As an aside, it was agreed that use of the abbreviation “B.C.” in reference to dates is outmoded. LC will revise the MARC documentation to replace B.C. with “B.C.E.” (Before the Common Era).

    Proposal No. 2016-05
    Defining New X47 Fields for Named Events in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-05.html
    Source: OCLC

    Proposal No. 2016-05 proposes the creation of a new series of X47 fields to accommodate the need for clear definitions and predictable coding to differentiate between named events which cannot be regarded as responsible agents (e.g., “Eruption of Vesuvius,” “Hurricane Katrina”) versus meetings and conferences. Currently, both kinds of named events are designated as 611 fields in FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings. The proposal was approved.

    Proposal No. 2016-06
    Defining Field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-06.html
    Source: CONSER, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)

    Provider-neutral guidelines for creating bibliographic descriptions of online resources avoid including details that vary by provider, including digital file characteristics. This paper proposes defining field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) in the MARC 21 holdings format where it could be used to encode digital file characteristics specific to a particular version of an electronic resource. The proposal was approved unanimously.

    Proposal No. 2016-09
    Recording Distributor Number for Music and Moving Image Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-09.html
    Source: Music Library Association

    This paper recommends changes to field 028 in the Bibliographic format to allow for the recording of distributor numbers in this field, as well as publisher numbers, as is the current practice. It also recommends that the existing definition of field 037 be revised to clearly indicate that field 037 is not to be used to record music and audiovisual publisher and distributor numbers. The proposal was approved unanimously.

    Proposal No. 2016-10
    Punctuation in the MARC 21 Authority Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-10.html
    Source: German National Library

    Because of differing practices between the German authority file and the LC Name Authority File concerning the use of punctuation in authority records, the German National Library proposes that MARC Authority Leader position 18 (currently undefined) be defined as “Punctuation Policy.” The recommended code values would indicate whether the record includes or omits punctuation. The Committee recommended that a clarification be added to indicate that the punctuation referred to in the proposal is terminal punctuation, not punctuation within a field or subfield. The proposal was approved unanimously.

    Proposal No. 2016-11
    Designating Matching Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-11.html
    Source: German National Library

    This proposal recommends the definition of a new MARC field 885 (“Matching Information”) to document the existence of a match between records that exist in an authority file and incoming records being added to the file. When a possible match is identified, the new field (“Matching Information”) would be added to the incoming record to facilitate resolution of potentially duplicate records. When considered as a discussion paper at Midwinter 2016, the definition of the field applied only to the authority format, but the Committee recommended that the scope be expanded to include the bibliographic format as well; this change is reflected in the proposal. The proposal was heavily discussed and a number of tweaks were suggested. The proposal was approved by a narrow margin.

    Proposal No. 2016-12
    Designation of a Definition in the MARC 21 Authority format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-12.html
    Source: German National Library

    This proposal recommends that a MARC field, possibly 677, be defined in the Authority Format to accommodate the encoding of definitions (intended for display to the end user). When this recommendation was initially considered as a discussion paper at Midwinter 2016, there were some Committee members who felt that definitions could be accommodated in the 680 field (Public General Note), possibly with some tweaking to the subfields. In this proposal, the German National Library addresses this observation by citing ISO 25964 (“Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies”), which states that “a separate note field should be established for … definitions so that they do not become confused with any scope notes.” The proposal was approved with a few amendments, including the addition of subfield $u to the new field.

    Proposal No. 2016-13
    Designation of the Type of Entity in the MARC 21 Authority Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-13.html
    Source: German National Library

    This proposal considers the definition of a new variable field (075) in the Authority Format to accommodate coding to indicate the type of entity described in the authority record. Person, work, corporate body, and topical term are examples of the kinds of entity terms that could be encoded in the proposed field. The proposal was approved with minor edits.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP17
    Redefining Subfield $4 to Encompass URIs for Relationships in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp17.html
    Source: British Library in consultation with the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC

    This paper recommends that the scope of subfield $4 (currently labelled as “Relator code” or “Relationship code”), which is defined in a broad range of fields in both the Authority Format and the Bibliographic Format, be redefined to allow the recording of URIs for relationships. Currently, only subfield $0 can be used to record URIs for relationships, creating ambiguity in cases where it is possible to record URIs for both relationships and the entities associated with those relationships in the same subfield string. The proposed redefinition of subfield $4 would provide for the recording of relationship URIs in a separate subfield that distinguishes them from URIs for entities. This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP18
    Redefining Subfield $0 to Remove the Use of Parenthetical Prefix “(uri)” in the MARC 21 Authority, Bibliographic, and Holdings Formats

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp18.html
    Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC in consultation with the British Library

    Identifiers for entities may be recorded in subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic formats. As currently implemented, the identifier must be preceded by the standard identifier source code or MARC organization code in parentheses directly following the $0. This paper contends that when subfield $0 contains a URI, the parenthetical code (uri) is redundant and unnecessary because the content of the subfield is unambiguously a dereferenceable URI (i.e., http clients can look up the URI using the http protocol and retrieve the resource that is identified by the URI). According to the paper, “[p]arsing MARC data for URIs is significantly easier when a subfield $0 contains a URI, and nothing else.” After strengthening some of the language to make it less ambiguous, the paper was voted on as a proposal. The proposal was approved with one abstention.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP19
    Adding Subfield $0 to Fields 257 and 377 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format and Field 377 in the MARC 21 Authority Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp19.html
    Source: PCC URIs in MARC Task Group

    This paper proposes that subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) be defined for field 257 (Country of Producing Entity) in the Bibliographic Format and field 377 (Associated Language) in both the Bibliographic Format and the Authority Format. The addition of subfield $0, containing an actionable URI, in these fields will facilitate the transformation of MARC data into linked data. The Committee voted to convert this discussion paper into a proposal on the spot; the proposal was then unanimously approved.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP21
    Defining Subfields $e and $4 in Field 752 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp21.html
    Source: ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS)

    ACRL’s Rare Books and Manuscripts Section recommends defining subfields $e (Relator term) and $4 (Relator code) in Field 752 (Added Entry-Hierarchical Place Name) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. Field 752 is used by the rare materials cataloging community to record a normalized place of publication, distribution, manufacture or production. The proposed subfields would allow catalogers to specify the relationship between a geographic name and the material being described. The Committee moved to vote on this paper as a proposal, with some minor edits. The proposal was unanimously approved.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP24
    Define a Code to Indicate the Omission of Non-ISBD Punctuation in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp24.html
    Source: OCLC and PCC ISBD and MARC Task Group

    This paper discusses the need for an additional code in Leader/18 (Descriptive cataloging form) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to indicate that non-ISBD punctuation has been omitted. According to the paper, “[the] implementation of such coding would allow for easy identification of pre-ISBD and non-ISBD records where punctuation has been omitted or removed.” Leader/18 value blank would be redefined as “Non-ISBD punctuation included” and a new value “n” would be defined to mean “Non-ISBD punctuation omitted.” The Committee moved to vote on this paper as a proposal, with minor revisions. The proposal was approved, but the definition of Leader/18 value blank will remain as is (Non-ISBD).

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP25
    Extending the Encoding Level in the MARC 21 Authority Format

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp25.html
    Source: German National Library

    This paper is a reworked version of Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP16, which was considered at ALA Midwinter 2016. In the original paper, the German National Library was seeking the extension of Leader position 17 (Encoding Level) in the MARC Authority Format to accommodate the encoding of seven levels of completeness and the editorial level of the staff that created or modified the record. As currently defined, Leader 17 has only two valid values, “n” for Complete authority record and “o” for Incomplete authority record. After discussing the revised version of the paper, the Committee concluded that the needs of the German National Library can be accommodated by adding codes to the MARC Authentication Action Code List, which can then be used in the 042 field (Authentication Code) of the Authority Format. The paper was withdrawn, since no further action is required by the MARC Advisory Committee.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-DP27
    General Field Linking with Subfield $8 in the Five MARC 21 Formats

    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp27.html
    Source: German National Library

    Subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) is used to link related fields within a single MARC record. The structure and syntax for the field link and sequence number subfield is:

    $8 [linking number].[sequence number]\[field link type]

    The discussion paper concerns itself with the final element of subfield $8, the field link type, for which five values are currently defined. The outcome of the Committee’s discussion is a proposal that a new value “u” for field link type (General linking, type unspecified) be defined for subfield $8 in all MARC 21 formats. After making and approving a motion to consider this discussion paper as a proposal, the Committee approved the proposal with two opposing votes and four abstentions.

  • 2016 Midwinter Report

    REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
    MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
    2016 MIDWINTER REPORT
    JANUARY 9-10, 2016 – BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

    Jean M. Pajerek
    Cornell Law Library

    The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Midwinter meeting in Boston. Action was taken on 16 discussion papers and two proposals during the meetings. One of the discussion papers was voted on as a proposal (after discussion) and approved. The complete texts of the proposals and discussion papers considered at the 2016 ALA Midwinter meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/mw2016_age.html.

    Proposal No. 2016-01
    Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-01.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

    This proposal defines new values for some 007 field positions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to better accommodate coding for digital sound recordings. The changes introduced by this proposal include a broadening of the definition of “sound recording” to include digital sound recordings, and the addition of a code “r” for “remote” to the list of codes for specific material designation of sound recordings (007s/01). The proposal was approved with minor revisions.

    Proposal No. 2016-02
    Defining Subfield $r and Subfield $t, and Redefining Subfield $e in Field 382 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-02.html
    Source: Music Library Association

    Proposal No. 2016-02 has to do with field 382 (Medium of Performance) and has no applicability to law cataloging. The proposal was approved.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-01
    Defining Subfields $3 and $5 in Field 382 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp01.html
    Source: Music Library Association

    This paper, submitted by the Music Library Association, deals with field 382 (Medium of Performance) and has no applicability to law cataloging. The paper will be developed into a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-02
    Clarifying Code Values in Field 008/20 (Format of Music) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp02.html
    Source: Music Library Association

    This paper presents suggestions for clarifying four code values having to do with field 008/20 (Format of Music); it has no applicability to law cataloging. The paper will be developed into a proposal, incorporating some suggested changes related to piano scores.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-03
    Recording Distributor Number for Music and Moving Image Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp03.html
    Source: Music Library Association, Online Audiovisual Catalogers

    This paper recommends changes to field 028 in the Bibliographic format to allow for the recording of distributor numbers in this field, as well as publisher numbers, as is the current practice. It also recommends that the existing definition of field 037 be revised to clearly indicate that field 037 is not to be used to record music and audiovisual publisher and distributor numbers. The paper will be developed into a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-04
    Extending the Use of Subfield $0 to Encompass Linking Fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp04.html
    Source: British Library

    This paper from the British Library discusses the definition of subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) in linking entry fields 760, 762, 765, 767, 770, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 780, 785, 786, 787 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, with the goal of supporting linked data applications. The easiest way to understand this concept is to look at an example supplied in the paper:

    776 08 $i also issued as (manifestation) $0 (uri) http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/#P60195 $a Aylett, David. $t With voice divine. $d [England] : [D. Aylett], 2008

    The example shows the relationship specified as text in subfield $i and also recorded as a URI from the RDA Registry in subfield $0. While supportive of the idea of recording relationship information as URIs, the Committee voiced concern that the use of subfield $0 for this purpose would compromise the definition of subfield $0 as a place to record entity information (as opposed to relationship information). A suggestion that emerged from the discussion was that subfield $4 could be redefined to accommodate the encoding of relationship URIs. This paper will be developed into a proposal, ideally with input from the PCC URI Task Force.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-05
    Expanding the Definition of Subfield $w to Encompass Standard Numbers in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp05.html
    Source: British Library

    In this paper, the British Library suggests that linked data applications would be rendered more capable of exploiting MARC-based bibliographic data if the scope of subfield $w were expanded to encompass standard numbers, as well as bibliographic record control numbers. This would align subfield $w encoding practice with that of subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number). The paper will be developed into a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-06
    Define Subfield $2 and Subfield $0 in Field 753 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp06.html
    Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers, GAMECIP (GAme MEtadata and CItation Project)

    This paper recommends that subfield $2 (source of term) and subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) be defined in field 753 (System Details Access to Computer Files). The focus of the paper is the encoding of computer game system details and playback information. After discussion, this paper was voted on as a proposal and approved.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-07
    Broaden Usage of Field 257 to Include Autonomous Regions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp07.html
    Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers

    This paper advocates broadening the scope of field 257 (Country of Producing Entity) to include autonomous regions so that regions with strong film cultures such as Hong Kong and Palestine can be encoded. This would entail changing the name of the field to “Country or Autonomous Region of Producing Entity.” The paper will be developed into a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-08
    Remove Restriction on the Use of Dates in Field 046 $k of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp08.html
    Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers

    The use of subfield $k ((Beginning or single date created) in field 046 (Special Coded Dates) of the Bibliographic format is restricted because the standard states that “[d]ates contained in subfield $k may not be coded elsewhere in the formats.” There was discussion about the ambiguity of the meaning of the word “may” in this sentence and whether it is actually intended to be proscriptive (in the sense of “must” not be coded elsewhere). In order to facilitate the use of 046 $k to consistently record the original date of a moving image work, the Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) recommend that the restriction/ambiguity in the definition of subfield $k be removed. The paper will be developed into a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-09
    Coding Named Events in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp09.html
    Source: OCLC

    The implementation of FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings in bibliographic records in OCLC has raised questions among catalogers about the use of the 611 field (Subject Added Entry-Meeting Name) to encode named events other than meetings, such as wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, battles, festivals, etc. In this paper, OCLC lays out two options for eliminating this confusion. The first option is to redefine the X11 fields to include named events; the second option involves defining a new X47 series of tags for the encoding of event-related information. MAC members generally preferred the second option, although the first option was favored by the British Library. The paper will be developed into a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-10
    Defining Field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp10.html
    Source: CONSER, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)

    Field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) is currently defined in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format and allows for the encoding of information pertaining to the digital encoding of text, image, audio, video, and other types of data in a resource. The intent behind this paper is to allow this information to be encoded on holdings records as local information, in keeping with the spirit of provider-neutral cataloging (since different providers may use different file formats). There was discussion as to whether subfield $3 or subfield $8 should be used to make the connection between the 347 and the 856 fields in the holdings record. The paper will be developed as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-11
    Punctuation in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp11.html
    Source: German National Library

    Because of differing practices between the German authority file and the LC Name Authority File concerning the use of punctuation in authority records, the German National Library suggests that MARC Authority Leader position 18 (currently undefined) be defined as “Punctuation Policy.” The recommended code values would indicate whether the record includes or omits punctuation. This paper will be developed as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-12
    Designating Matching Information in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp12.html
    Source: German National Library

    This paper recommends the definition of a new MARC field (possibly 887) to document the existence of a match between records that exist in an authority file and incoming records being added to the file. When a possible match is identified, the new field (“Matching information”) would be added to the incoming record to facilitate resolution of potentially duplicate records. This paper will be developed as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-13
    Designation of a Definition in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp13.html
    Source: German National Library

    This paper recommends that a MARC field, possibly 668, be defined to accommodate the encoding of definitions (intended for display to the end user) in the Authority Format. The Committee suggested using field 677 instead, since 668 was previously defined in MARC but is now obsolete and the repurposing of obsolete fields is generally avoided. Some Committee members felt that definitions could be accommodated in the 680 field (Public General Note), possibly with some tweaking to the subfields. Another discussion paper may be developed.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-14
    Designation of the Type of Entity in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp14.html
    Source: German National Library

    This paper considers the definition of a new variable field (075) in the Authority Format to accommodate coding to indicate the type of entity described in the authority record. Person, work, corporate body, and topical term are examples of the kinds of entity terms that could be encoded in the proposed field. This paper will be developed as a proposal.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-15
    Media Type and Carrier Type in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp15.html
    Source: German National Library

    This was the most controversial paper discussed at the meeting. It advocates for the definition of fields 337 (Media Type) and 338 (Carrier Type) in the MARC Authority Format to accommodate the encoding of this information in authority records for unique works. Media Type and Carrier Type are manifestation-level characteristics currently encoded in bibliographic records. When an authority record for a unique work (e.g., a manuscript) is needed to control subject access to works about that manuscript it may be desirable to include media type and carrier type information in the authority record describing the single exemplar of that work. Creating a bibliographic record for the work and including media type and carrier type information in the record would not provide for authority control; it might not even be possible to create such a bib record if a library does not own the unique work in question. The issues raised during the Committee’s discussion were not resolved. This paper may be reworked into another discussion paper.

    Discussion Paper No. 2016-16
    Extending the Encoding Level in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp16.html
    Source: German National Library

    The German National Library is seeking the extension of Leader position 17 (Encoding Level) in the MARC Authority Format to accommodate the encoding of seven levels of completeness and the editorial level of the staff that created or modified the record. As currently defined, Leader 17 has only two valid values, “n” for Complete authority record and “o” for Incomplete authority record. Discussion centered around the perception of the Committee members that the seven proposed new values indicate more about the staff creating or editing the record (and their authoritativeness) than the completeness of the data in the record. Field 042 (Authentication Code), with possible subfield tweaks, was suggested as an alternative location for this information. This paper may be reworked into another discussion paper.

  • 2015 Midwinter & Annual Report

    REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
    MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
    2015 ANNUAL REPORT

    Jean M. Pajerek
    Cornell Law Library

    Report from American Library Association (ALA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, June 27-28, 2015.See below for the report from the midwinter meeting.

    The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Annual meeting in San Francisco. Action was taken on one discussion paper and three proposals during the meetings. In addition, an informal discussion paper was considered.

    Discussion Paper 2015-DP02
    Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-dp02.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

    This paper proposes defining new values for some 007 field positions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to better accommodate coding for digital sound recordings. Some combinations of characteristics of digital resources cannot be expressed with currently existing 007 values. This may be partially attributable to an uneven mixture of content and carrier characteristics encoded in the 007 configurations.

    The scope of the paper is limited to bibliographic records for born-digital sound recordings that are available through a network. Specific questions discussed included whether the definition of value s (“Sound recording”) in 007/00 (“Category of material”) should be redefined to include both physical and digital media, and whether a specific value for “Digital sound recording” should be added to 007/01(“Specific material designation”).

    MAC recommends that the discussion paper be developed into a proposal for the Midwinter meeting next January.

    Proposal 2015-07
    Extending the Use of Subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to Encompass Content, Media and Carrier Type
    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-07.html
    Source: British Library

    This paper proposes the definition of subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) in fields 336 (Content Type), 337 (Media Type) and 338 (Carrier Type) in the Bibliographic Format and 336 in the Authority Format. Subfield $0 contains the system control number of a related authority record, or a standard identifier such as an International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI). Definition of this subfield to encode the controlled vocabulary terms used in fields 336, 337 and 338 would facilitate the conversion of MARC data into linked data. The proposal was approved unanimously.

    Proposal 2015-08
    Recording RDA Format of Notated Music in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-08.html
    Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange

    This paper proposes defining a new field 348 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats for recording the RDA data element Format of Notated Music. Since this proposal has no applicability to law cataloging, suffice it to say that it was approved unanimously with an amendment.

    Proposal 2015-09
    Defining 670 $w (Bibliographic record control number) in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-09.html
    Source: Library of Congress, Policy and Standards Division

    This paper proposes the definition of subfield $w (Bibliographic record control number) in the 670 field (Source of Data Found) of authority records to contain a bibliographic record control number (e.g., LCCN, OCLC record ID number) of the title being cited. Janis Young, of LC’s Policy and Standards Division, attended the meeting to answer questions about the proposal. Like many recently approved MARC proposals, this one is intended to facilitate data manipulation by linked data applications. According to the background information provided in the proposal, “[i]t is Library of Congress practice to include an LCCN (Library of Congress Control Number) of a related bibliographic record in some authority records. Specifically, LC catalogers include the LCCN of the bibliographic record for the work being cataloged when creating proposals for LC subject headings and proposals for LC genre/form and medium of performance terms. The LCCN is now included in the 670 $a, which is a free-text field for the source citation; thus, the LCCN cannot always be located, identified, and acted upon programmatically.” Encoding the information in its own subfield would allow for this kind of machine manipulation. The proposal was approved by unanimous vote.

    Informal discussion paper:
    URIs in MARC: A Call for Best Practices https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fuHvF8bXH7hldY_xJ7f_xn2rP2Dj8o-Ca9jhHghIeUg/edit?pli=1
    Author: Steven Folsom, Discovery Metadata Librarian, Cornell University Library

    This informal discussion paper was added to the MAC agenda at the request of Committee member Sally McCallum of LC; its author was in attendance to present the paper and respond to questions. The stated purpose of the paper is to “draw attention to the need for standardized best practices for capturing URIs in MARC bibliographic and authority records … “Stressing the importance of URIs in the transition from MARC data to linked data, the author makes the case that standard practices for the encoding of URIs in MARC are necessary for creating “semantically correct relationships” between entities. He goes on to say that “[w]hen converting MARC to linked data a person would have a different URI than an authority about the person, with appropriate relationships between the work, person, and authority. Having the types of entities named by the URIs explicitly stated in MARC will require less conditional logic when building MARC to RDF converters.” The Committee agreed that the use of URIs is a well-established practice, widely used on the Semantic Web. We recommended that a formal discussion paper be developed under the aegis of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging and submitted to MAC for further consideration.


    Report from American Library Association (ALA) Midwinter Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, January 31-February 1, 2015.

    The MARC Advisory Committee convened two meetings at the ALA Midwinter meeting in Chicago. Action was taken on one discussion paper and six proposals during the meetings.

    Proposal 2015-01
    Defining Values in Field 037 to Indicate a Sequence of Sources of Acquisition in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    Proposed by the British Library

    This paper proposes the definition of values for Indicator 1 in Field 037 to sequence sources of acquisition. It also proposes the definition of subfields $3 and $5 so that the materials and institution or organization to which a source of acquisition applies can be recorded. The British Library submitted this proposal because it is required to sequence multiple instances of the 037 field (Source of acquisition) to manage the exchange of metadata for electronic serials with third parties. The Committee approved this proposal.

    Proposal 2015-02
    Adding Dates for Corporate Bodies in Field 046 in the MARC 21 Authority Format
    Proposed by the British Library

    This paper proposes that the date of establishment and date of termination of a corporate body be accommodated in Field 046 (Special Coded Dates) in the Authority Format. The element sub-type ‘Period of Activity of the Corporate Body’ was added to RDA as part of the April 2014 Update. To ensure correlation between RDA and the 046 field is maintained, the British Library proposes that new subfields are defined so that dates relating to a period of activity can be coded separately from dates relating to the establishment and termination of a corporate body. The proposal recommends the definition of a new subfield $q for date of establishment and $r for date of termination. These subfields would then be used to code the definite start and end dates of a corporate body. Meanwhile, subfields $s and $t would be used for dates indicating the start and end of periods of activity, both for persons and for corporate bodies. This proposal was approved.

    Proposal 2015-03
    Description Conversion Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    Proposed by the Library of Congress

    This paper proposes defining a new, repeatable field (884; Description Conversion Information) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, where information regarding the process for the conversion of data in a description can be recorded. The proposal was submitted by LC in anticipation of a mixed MARC/BIBFRAME cataloging environment in which some libraries will perform production cataloging using BIBFRAME and convert the BIBFRAME descriptions into MARC so that they can be used by MARC-based systems such as local catalogs and OCLC. The new field 884 would include information such as the process used to produce the data in the MARC record, the date of conversion, and the conversion agency.

    This proposal generated a bit of discussion during which questions were raised about its utility and whether the information could be encoded in a local field. Should there be a way to indicate when these kinds of MARC records have been enhanced by catalogers post-conversion, other than the 040 field? Should the Encoding level in the fixed field somehow reflect the status of these records? After some minor rewording and the addition of a couple of subfields, the proposal was approved.

    Proposal 2015-04
    Broaden Usage of Field 088 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
    Proposed by Alaska Resources Library and Information Services

    This paper proposes broadening the usage of field 088 (Report Number) in bibliographic records to include series numbers (in particular for series in technical report and government publications) by deleting the sentence “Not used to record a number associated with a series statement” in field 088’s field definition and scope. This proposal was approved unanimously with little discussion.

    Proposal 2015-05
    Definition of New Code for Leased Resources in Field 008/07 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
    Proposed by the British Library

    This paper proposes the definition of a new code for leased resources in 008/07 (Method of acquisition) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format. The MARC 21 Holdings Format currently has no code to indicate that the method of acquisition is via lease, even though many e-resources are leased rather than purchased. The paper proposes the creation of a value “q” for this byte, meaning “Acquired through lease.” The proposal was approved unanimously without discussion.

    The sixth proposal, as well as the single discussion paper, had to do with music cataloging, with no applicability to law cataloging.

  • 2014 Annual Report

    REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
    MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
    2014 ANNUAL REPORT

    Pat Sayre McCoy
    D’Angelo Law Library
    University of Chicago

    Report from American Library Association (ALA) Annual Meeting, June 28-29, 2014, Las Vegas, Nevada

    MARC proposal no. 2014-04
    Adding Miscellaneous Information in Topical Term and Geographic Name Fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
    Proposed by the German National Library.

    This paper proposes a method to designate miscellaneous information in topical term and geographic name fields in order to meet the German National Library’s need for distinguishing the originating authority file for the term; there were originally four authority files used in German-speaking countries which have now been combined. The four authority files used different subfields, and some MARC subfields weren’t good matches for the German libraries’ needs. Some of the information in #g is used to distinguish headings with the same name, much like the use of parenthetical qualifiers in the Library of Congress Authority File (LCAF). In addition, subfield #g Miscellaneous information has been made repeatable in fields where it is already defined. Libraries that follow LCAF will not be affected by this decision.

    MAC approved the proposal unanimously, with the caution that the definition of #g should be clearly written to avoid misuse of the parenthetical qualifier.

    MARC proposal no. 2014-05
    Designation Relationships Between Subject Headings from Different Thesauri in the MARC 20 Authority Format.
    Proposed by the German National Library.

    This paper proposes a method to designate relationships between entries from different thesauri in MARC authority records. In German, there is a tradition of mapping different thesauri to each other using the 7XX field with repeatable #i “Relationship Information” and repeatable #4 “Relationship code” and defining a list of relator codes and terms for the six types of ISO relationships: EQ (Equal), ~EQ (inexact equivalence), BM (Broader Mapping), NM (Narrower Mapping) and RM (Related Mapping). The #i could also be used in future authority files and maybe with genre/form terms. Libraries that follow LCAF will not be affected by this decision.

    The proposal passed unanimously.

    MARC proposal no. 2014-06
    Defining New Field 388 for Time Period of Creation Terms in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Records.
    Proposed by the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) Subject Analysis Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation.

    This proposal addressed the need for a place to record the time period of creation or origin of works and expressions. Currently, this is indicated in different ways: subject headings (Law, Medieval) or chronological subdivisions (#y). With Genre/Form implementation, this information will no longer be in the subject headings for literature or music. This chronological information would indicate either the date or time period of the creation of individual work/expression. (E.g., Beowulf was written in the Anglo-Saxon period of English history, and the 388 might be “Anglo-Saxon period, while a currently issued CD of violin concertos of the 18th -19th centuries might have a 388 of $a18th century $a19th century.”) The proposed MARC field 648 was originally included in this proposal, but MAC felt that it should be discussed separately. There was discussion of the source of the chronological terms (probably Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for the libraries that already use it) and who would update it, but that is not in the scope of the proposal. Best practices would need to be developed. This will affect law catalogers with historical materials, such as ancient Greek or Roman law.

    The new MARC field, 388—Time Period of Creation (R) would have the following indicators:

    First Indicator—Type of time period
    #—No information provided
    1—Creation
    2—Creation of aggregation

    Second indicator—Undefined
    #—Undefined

    Subfield codes
    $a—Time period of creation term (R)
    $0—Authority record control number or standard number (R)
    $2—Source of term (NR)
    $3—Materials specified (NR)
    $6—Linkage (NR)
    $8—Field link and sequence number (R)

    MAC approved the proposal as edited to remove discussion of the 648 field.

    MARC discussion paper no. 2-14-DP05
    Adding Dates for Corporate Bodies in Field 046 in the MARC 21 Authority Format.
    Proposed by the British Library.

    This proposal considers options for recording the date of establishment and date of termination of a corporate body. It states that as MARC is currently written, it is unclear what subfield to use for this information. Some catalogers use $f (Birth date) and $g (Death date), while others use $s (Start period) and $t (End period).

    Option 1
    Define new subfields $q (Date of establishment) and $4 (Date of termination) of a corporate body; $s/$t would be used for the start and termination of a period of activity for both persons and corporations.

    Option 2
    Broaden the definition of subfields $f and $g to include dates of establishment and termination of corporations, and leave the scope of $s/$t as the dates of a period of activity. [Personal comments—what about mergers and acquisitions of corporate bodies? What about companies that were restarted?]

    Option 1 was clearly the majority preference among MAC members, who agreed that the definition and scope of field 046 should be expanded to include corporate bodies and that the definitions for $s and $t should be redefined to make them clearer. This will probably appear as a proposal at ALA Midwinter Meeting in 2015.

    MARC discussion paper no. 2014-DP06
    Defining Values for Indicator 1 in Field 037 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
    Proposed by the British Library.

    The British Library needs a way to track the different electronic material vendors and what contents were received from the vendors. It is proposing to use the 037 (Source of Acquisition) field to do this. They would like to define indicator 1 to allow it to carry this information relating to the source of acquisition of materials and that it be sequential—similar to the 264 field. This field would indicate the source of materials (production, publisher, distribution, manufacture and copyright notice) and the range of issues for each acquisition source.

    There was a lot of discussion about the need for this field, as many committee members felt that this was acquisitions information, probably unique to each library, and not suitable information to include in the Master record. If many libraries added this information, how many 037 fields would an OCLC record include? Would the limited information one library added be seen as complete availability information and seem to favor some vendors at the cost of others if a library changed vendors and the 037 was misinterpreted to mean that a vendor no longer supplied the title? Who really uses the 037? Many members agreed that the acquisitions information used in their libraries did not come from the OCLC record, but from licensing agreements, electronic material purchases and local preferences. The old use of the 037 was for technical reports that were not available from the publisher, but only from the agency that produced the report. This is not the case with electronic materials that are much easier to locate. The suggestion that adding the $5 to the 037 to indicate the library was accepted after much discussion. There was also a lot of discussion about the definitions of the indicators proposed, particularly using # as Not applicable/No information provided/Earliest because it has too many meanings and there is no way to tell which one is meant. “Earliest” is particularly difficult because it could mean the earliest issues of the title are available from this vendor OR the earliest issues the library has are available from this vendor. There is no way to tell how thorough the library researched the availability of the title before adding the 037. Where do catalogers get this information anyway? Most of us do not work with acquisitions information and have enough to do without adding this effort to our work.

    The discussion was finally tabled to be continued at the second meeting, which was much shorter and did decide on the questions asked in the discussion paper (and avoided most of the questions about the appropriateness of the information in the MARC record). It was decided that: (1) the definition of values for indicator 1 of the 037b field were an acceptable means of recording sequential source of acquisitions information; (2) the indicator definitions for the first indicator in the 264 could be used for the first indicator in the 037 if the $3 and $* were added; and (3) there are no alternative methods necessary, we could locally decide to use the 037, ignore it, or delete it as we pleased. This will come back as a proposal, perhaps at ALA Midwinter in January 2015.