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]

• 2020 Midwinter Report

  Report of the AALL Liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC)
  American Library Association, 2020 Midwinter Meeting
  January 25-26, 2020
  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  Rachel Decker, Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library, Chapman University Fowler School of Law

  Introduction

  The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Action was taken on two proposals and seven discussion papers during the meetings. Two themes emerged during the meetings: 1) continued development of MARC standard to facilitate “roundtripping” data from MARC to BIBFRAME (BF) back to MARC, and 2) how to incorporate new elements from the RDA Steering Committee’s 3R Project into the MARC standard. The Library of Congress BIBFRAME Update Forum at the ALA Midwinter Meeting 2020 included details about BF to MARC conversion, which may be useful to review in conjunction with the MAC Meeting report below. The presentations can be accessed here: http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/news/bibframe-update-mw2020.html. This report is organized with each discussion paper/proposal in bold with a summary underneath of the related discussion.

  If you would like to provide feedback on any of the discussion papers or proposals, please provide feedback on the Metadata Management Committee listserv or to me directly. The complete text of all discussion papers and proposals considered at the 2020 Midwinter meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/mw2020_age.html

  Proposal No. 2020-01: Defining a New Indicator Value for Human-generated Content in Field 883 of the MARC 21 formats
  URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-01.html

  This paper was generally supported, although several asked for the definition of the proposed label for first indicator 2 to be changed. Some wanted it to be a binary (machine-generated vs. not machine-generated). Some advocated for the label to not include the word “human” and instead represent the intellectual process that a human uses versus the automated process of a machine. This sparked a debate as to whether a machine process is, in fact, intellectual seeing as how it had to be generated by a human at some point. The proposed changes will be modified to reflect the suggestions from MAC.

  The proposal passed unanimously.

  Proposal No. 2020-02: Adding Subfield $0 to Fields 310 and 321 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-02.html

  The proposal was generally supported, although the primary concern in “roundtripping” MARC data is that there is no “current” and “former” frequency designation in BF, therefore, frequency data would be mapped from BF to MARC in only the 310 field. In existing MARC records where date ranges are not provided alongside the current and former frequencies, problems being able to distinguish the two arise. LC responded that they will do their best to migrate data from BF correctly into MARC so that current/former distinction is maintained.

  The proposal passed with one abstention.

  Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP01: Modernization or Replacement of Field 856 in the MARC 21 Formats
  URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp01.html

  Preparation for this discussion paper first came up at ALA Annual 2019 with Proposal 2019-01, which passed, but was only partially implemented in favor of awaiting something that more thoroughly addressed the issues with field 856. The issue is that existing subfields in field 856 cannot adequately accommodate all of the information about access and about usage that our current electronic environment requires. As the discussion paper identifies, “field 856 [remains] saddled with alphabetic subfields of limited, if not downright obsolete, utility.” Sally McCallum (LC) pointed out at the beginning of the discussion that the point of this paper is to “clean out” the 856 field and get rid of subfields that are not needed anymore, not to redesign it completely in one paper. Updating the 856 field will be an iterative process with likely more discussion papers presented at future MAC meetings. She later indicated that this discussion paper will probably come back as multiple proposals: one outlining which fields to deprecate in field 856, another to define the current access and usage needs, and possibly even a third discussion paper to evaluate the indicator values and clarify any confusion about linking to a “resource” vs a “related resource.”

  Deprecating “unused” subfields in 856
  Included in the discussion paper is a list of usage statistics for each of the 856 subfields provided by OCLC, LC, and others from which they have identified subfields that could be eliminated (and possibly repurposed in the future). There was consensus that we should be assessing the usefulness of the current subfields and that many of the subfields identified would be good candidates for removal. More statistics were requested including indicator value usage and holdings counts, for example, to provide further clarity before deciding which subfields to eliminate. MAC Chair, Matthew Wise pointed out that MAC does not typically like to reuse subfields, which was later mentioned as justification for a new proposed field 857. If the new 857 field is defined, the “unused” subfields in 856 wouldn’t need to be deprecated. It was also observed that this discussion paper doesn’t address changes to field 856 across all MARC formats, but future proposals probably should.

  Creation of a New MARC field 857
  The discussion paper proposes three options: 1) Retain 856 without the “unused” subfields, 2) Retain 856 without the “unused” subfields and define a new field (857) for Open Access titles, or 3) Make field 856 obsolete and define a new field (857) in which only the currently required subfields are defined. Generally, people were against making field 856 obsolete and there were some problems identified with the creation of a new field. Some questioned why the new 857 field needed to be restricted to open access resources. Instead, if option 2 could be changed to keep 856 and perhaps use 857 with appropriate subfields to define multiple “flavors” of access, that would be a better solution. The discussion was reminiscent of the 260/264 discussion with others wondering if 856 could be left as a legacy field for general electronic location and access information while crafting a new field that is more up-to-date. It was also pointed out that if a new field is created, there would be four MARC fields (506, 540, 856, 857) that would all deal with access and restriction, which is too many fields and would likely introduce confusion. There was a mix of opinions about the three options and no real consensus in support of any one of the options.

  URL/URI and Access Restrictions
  Lastly, several people pointed out that the subfields aren’t the only problem, but also the intermingling of URLs/URIs and their related access information. The mix of URL and access information is problematic, especially for serials. Many serial titles are hybrids of open and restricted access and future proposals should consider solutions that take this into account. Others were reminded that different communities use different approaches to relay access information. Institutions may use a single record approach with a mix of 506/540 and 856 and others use a two-record approach, but changes to these fields should account for either.

  This discussion paper will return as one or more proposals.

  Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP02: Adding Subfield $0 to Fields 504 and 525 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp02.html

  LC is currently mapping supplementary content from bytes in field 008 to an identifier from a controlled vocabulary such as the RDA Registry or the BF Vocabulary. When LC reverses the process and converts BF data to MARC, it wants to have some place to encode BF IRIs as a means of facilitating a loss-less transformation.

  The main issue discussed was the intermixing of free-text and controlled terminology in the same field. If data from MARC is being mapped from fixed field values to BF, when that data is returned to MARC the free-text in $a would be lost. Some asked, therefore, for further clarification on the relationship between $a and $0 and argued that eye-readable notes need to be retained in the data transformation process (for example, the free text note “Includes bibliographical references” is more meaningful than the term “bibliography” alone). As a solution, some suggested putting the controlled terms in one of the 3xx fields and preserve $a as a note. However, a field like 340 inherently records manifestation and 504/505 inherently describes the work and mixing the two descriptions risks making things worse.

  As a practical matter, if understood correctly, I raised the issue that if the content in $a does not match an existing URI, then $0 is omitted and $a would subsequently be lost in the “roundtripping” process. Looking at the RDA Registry, there is no vocabulary for supplementary content and the BF vocabulary only include 14 entries, which is woefully lacking given the number of descriptive terms used in cataloging legal supplements (pocket supplements, pocket parts, advance sheets, special pamphlets, legislative service, etc.). When asked if LC would be able to expand the controlled vocabulary they responded that they would be happy to work with AALL on that. The second issue is that the 525 field also includes frequency and format for supplemental material, which again if understood correctly, would be lost. LC did not offer a response to that concern, which can be raised again in the proposal stage.

  This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

  Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP03: Defining New Subfields in Field 340 to Record Illustrative Content and Sound Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp03.html

  This paper was well received. Most agreed that illustrative content and sound content have to be accommodated in MARC. Some would like the possibility of using field 344 for sound characteristics to be further explored. Others suggested changes to the proposed language of the subfield definitions explaining that the proposed language seems to imply a binary choice regarding the presence or the absence of illustrations, not the recording of the various types of illustrations that are present. There were mixed opinions as to whether a URI should be coded in $0 or $1, which is a discussion that extends beyond just this paper. Some also expressed a desire for more 3xx fields for each type of data, rather than moving it all to 340.

  This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

  Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP04: Renaming Field 345 and Defining New Subfields for Aspect Ratio and Motion Technique in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp04.html

  This paper was well-received and was referred to OLAC for further refinement to the proposal stage.

  Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP05: Reinstatement of Field 241 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp05.html

  Sally McCallum introduced this paper by explaining that transliterating was a way of accomplishing something that MARC could not accommodate and was not a formal LC policy. LC is now proposing to reduce how much they transliterate titles seemingly with the aim of going to a strictly vernacular cataloging policy. There was strong opposition to eliminating transliteration and many people spoke out with good reasons for keeping it. LC further explained that they are not trying to get rid of transliterations completely, but acknowledged that we are in a mixed environment. They also made sure to express that this is just a reinstatement of the field and does not implement a policy decision.

  The proposal specifically requests for field 241 (Romanized Title) to be reinstated and some read that to mean 880 would become obsolete. The discussion clarified that 880 would not become obsolete, but that library systems would have need to accommodate both fields. Unfortunately, however, the LD4P (https://www.ld4l.org) is attempting to take WorldCat records, submit them for BF transformation, and then roundtrip back to WorldCat. During the transformation process, they would lose any 880 fields since the BF vocabulary would map to 241. Several questions arose, such as whether 245 could be repeatable instead of reinstating 241 and what would happen with legacy 880 data. Some asked how would this affect authority work. Others asked that the name of the field be changed to “Transliterated” instead of “Romanized” and the field definition to read “one script to another” to avoid westernization.

  This paper doesn’t deal with all the other fields that contain transliterated information (statement of responsibility, contents, etc.) and it was acknowledged that there needs to be more work done to understand how much transliterated information is needed. The suggestion was made to have LC change their local validation files and explore the impact of reinstating 241 locally first and then come to MAC with the results of their exploration.

  This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

  Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP06: Defining a New Field for Manifestation Statements in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp06.html

  The MARC/RDA Working group started its work in December and 2020-DP06 and 2020-DP07 are a result of their work. The paper asks for a place for “Manifestation statements” in MARC, which are unstructured statements at the manifestation level. Manifestation level statements were described as a very “low level” of cataloging, without much (if any) alterations.

  Some of the points of discussion included an explanation of why field 881 was chosen. In some way, this field is representative of lots of existing MARC fields. There was some discussion of using a 2xx field, but the question is really, which MARC field can represent the whole record? It’s neutral from the other MARC fields, and it displays at the bottom, which is distinct from the “regular” fields. Others asked if the field needs to be subfielded and it seems like there should be subfields but perhaps this is a policy decision regardless of what subfields MAC decides are available. Someone suggested that $a be reserved for when the rest of the field is not subfielded. Others suggested that authors may need to develop indicator values that show whether the field uses the available subfields or not.

  The authors will take the different options and incorporate them into a forthcoming proposal.

  Discussion Paper No. 2020-DP07: Recording the Extension Plan for Bibliographic Works in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
  URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp07.html

  This paper attempts to incorporate the new RDA “extension plan” element in MARC. The “extension plan” is based on the anticipated schedule for diachronic works; it is about the intention of the work rather than looking at it in retrospect. Most everyone recognized this is a need and there is a benefit to recording this information in MARC. Some questioned if there was a need for a current/former extension plan (such as the case with frequency), however, Kathy Glennon (RSC) explained there would be no need for a current/former extension plan because a change in extension plan would require a new record. Additionally, if a serial ceases, it doesn’t mean that the extension plan changes. Some asked for a $b, which would parallel those used in existing 33x fields.

  This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

• 2019 Annual Report

  Report of the AALL Liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC)
  American Library Association, 2019 Annual Meeting
  June 23-23, 2019
  Washington, D.C.

  Rachel Decker, Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library, Chapman University Fowler School of Law

  The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. A business meeting was conducted to discuss MARC Update no.28 (May 2019) and action was taken on three proposals and two discussion papers during the meetings. This report is organized with each agenda item in bold with a short summary underneath of the related discussion.

  The complete texts of all discussion papers and proposals considered at the 2019 Annual meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2019_age.html

  Business Meeting

  At the 2019 Midwinter meetings, MAC approved Proposal No.2019-1, which updated fields 506, 540, and 856. Following the meetings, the MARC Steering Group reviewed and agreed with the MAC decision and changes were to be included in the MARC Update no.28 (May 2019). However, publication of changes to field 856 were withheld in order to discuss an overhaul of field 856 to craft a simpler and better location for important open access information. As a result, updates to fields 506 and 540 were published in MARC Update no.28 but updates to field 856 were not.

  In mid-May, prior to the MARC Update no.28, amendments to the earlier proposal were examined by the NDMSO. Representatives from OCLC, the German National Library (authors of the original proposal), and NDMSO met to discuss several options for amending field 856. They decided to put forward the use of $7 for the access codes previously approved but not to define $e and $7 Position /1. It was agreed that this shorter version of $7 will be added to 856 as part of MARC Update no.28. The other aspects of fully indicating access and use conditions will be crafted into a discussion paper by OCLC, to be discussed at the 2020 Midwinter meetings. While it has not yet been written, the discussion paper will likely include a proposal to define a new field 857 that parallels, or makes obsolete, field 856. The new field 857 will likely carry over only the subfields that are needed while adding new subfields for access and use. The MARC Steering Group approved the writing of this discussion paper and I look forward to sharing that with you when it is published.

  Proposal No. 2019-04: Coding Externally Hosted Online Publications in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
  Source: British Library
  URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-04.html

  This proposal changes the label and definition of the Holdings Format 008/06 (Receipt or Acquisitions Status), changes the 008/06 code “3”, and defines a new code “6” for “External Access” to be used for online publications accessible through a third party. Comments received before the meeting indicated that there was little issue with this proposal, admitting that very few libraries use the MARC Holdings format for online publications. Regardless, the committee was pleased with the changes made in this proposal including addressing issues of legacy data, resolving the confusion of inputting of single vs. multiple codes, and including corresponding bibliographic records to better illustrate how to use the new codes. The only amendment was to the definition for the new code “6” which will now read: “Online content which is being accessed via a third party platform, e.g. through a publisher’s website, content provider, etc.”

  This proposal was approved unanimously.

  Proposal No. 2019-05: Subfield Coding in Field 041 for Intertitles and Transcripts in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  Source: OLAC Catalogers Network
  URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-05.html

  This proposal suggests adding subfields $i and $t in field 041 (Language Code) for the language of film intertitles and the language of accompanying transcripts for audiovisual materials. In addition, it modifies $g and $m in the same bibliographic field 041. This proposal generated some discussion primarily on the distinction and treatment of librettos and transcripts and whether combining the language code for the two in a single subfield would cause confusion. The Committee decided to accept the proposal as-is, except to omit “transcripts” from the changes to $m and to keep the changes to the other subfields as proposed. I abstained from voting on this proposal.

  The proposal was approved with 2 abstentions and 1 dissent.

  Proposal No. 2019-06: Defining a Field for a Subject Added Entry of Unspecified Entity Type in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
  URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-06.html

  The proposal defines a new bibliographic field to accommodate a subject added entry when the type of entity is unspecified. The use case demonstrated in the proposal concerns a practical issue when adding subject access from a thesauri called the Gnomon Thesaurus (http://www.englisch.gnomon-online.de). In this example, there is not a way to derive controlled subject headings from the terms in this thesaurus, nor are the existing 6XX fields able to be used.

  During the discussion, the choice of 673 as the tag for the new field was rejected and 688 was proposed instead. The Committee did not want to parallel the MARC Authority format or have overlapping field tags, which many thought might cause confusion. The difference in usage between fields 653 and 688 is nuanced and there was concern that it may be unclear to newer or less-experienced catalogers. Attempting to differentiate the two could be difficult without proper explanatory text. The Committee agreed that a sentence or two explaining when to use 653 needs to
  be added to the field description for field 688 and vice versa needs to be added to field 688.

  Lastly, ahead of the MAC meeting, the MARC Steering Group refined the language to be used in the field definition to read, “The field is used if no information is provided to identify the type of entity to which the subject headings belong.” In addition, they agreed to add a second sentence for $e to parallel it with $4 reasoning that more than one relationship entity may be used if the resource has more than one relationship.

  The proposal was approved unanimously.

  Discussion Paper No. 2019-DP04: Defining Subfield $g in Field 751 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats
  URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-dp04.html

  This discussion papers explores the idea of adding a new subfield $g for “Miscellaneous information” into MARC Bibliographic field 751 (Added Entry-Geographic Name) to aid in disambiguation between headings. In 2014, subfield $g (Miscellaneous information) was defined as a repeatable subfield in fields 650 and 651 of the MARC Bibliographic format, and in fields 150, 151, 450, 451, 550, 551, 750 and 751 of the MARC Authority format. In addition, where $g was already defined as a non-repeatable subfield, it was re-defined as a repeatable subfield. This proposal addresses a gap in these previous decisions since field 751 of the MARC Bibliographic Format was not included.

  The Chair of the MARC Advisory Committee suggested that this discussion paper be rewritten as a fast-track proposal. The Committee voted unanimously in support of the suggestion. The MARC Steering Group will decide on the proposed changes ahead of the Midwinter meeting in January 2020.

  Discussion Paper No. 2019-DP05: Adding Subfield $0 to Fields 310, 321, and 521 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
  URL: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2019/2019-dp05.html

  This discussion paper proposes adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to fields 310 (Current Publication Frequency), 321 (Former Publication Frequency), and 521 (Target Audience Note). The authors are involved in the transition process of moving BIBFRAME into MARC. URI’s are created from bytes in the fixed field 008 in the conversion from MARC to BIBFRAME and they do not want to lose those URI’s created in the reverse transformation process.

  Ahead of the Committee’s meeting, commenters agreed that adding the $0 to the fields 310, 321, and 521 would offer consistency with the other fields defined to carry controlled vocabularies. However, concern was raised about having a mix of controlled and uncontrolled terms in the field strings. There seems to be a pattern that 5XX fields are free-text note fields, which are meant to be read, and 3XX fields are meant to be attributes. However, previous changes to the MARC Bibliographic Format have broken this pattern as evidenced by URIs in fields 506 and 520.

  Furthermore, the question was asked as to why it was suggested to add $0 to field 521 instead of field 385? Adam Schiff explained that field 385 originally came from a need to place genre/form terms and SAC ruled out field 521 in the first place for those terms. Additionally, he argued that if a controlled term was in field 521, there would be an impact on systems who facet based on field 385. To rectify this, there would have to be an indicator, a $2, or $0 in order to recognize the presence of a controlled term. Others argued that it would be counterproductive to require indicator values in field 385 because it doesn’t follow the precedent for other 3XX fields. Some pointed out that field 521 is preferable for the exact reason that it doesn’t already carry controlled terms and it would make it easier for machines to parse the information. Discussion continued as to whether it would be possible to make field 521 obsolete and rely wholly on field 385. Ultimately, the Committee decided field 521 cannot become obsolete.

  Additionally, comments generated online reflected concerns about drawing frequency statements from a controlled vocabulary. Several individuals noted that not all frequency statements are simple and they don’t naturally lend themselves to being represented in a controlled vocabulary. An example is New Yorker magazine (ISSN 0082-792X). Less conversation was dedicated to the issues of frequency, however, it seemed to be uniformly agreed that the changes proposed should allow for catalogers to continue with current practices and not force the use of a controlled heading.

  This discussion paper will return as a proposal with suggestions to add more examples, to rename $b as “assigning agency,” and to better address the interplay of fields 385, 521, and 008/22. The Committee asked the authors to consider all options when crafting the proposal. On a broader scale, the NDMSO has advised that more discussion papers like this one will be forthcoming as the BIBFRAME to MARC transition moves forward. The Committee observed that URI’s will likely need to be specified at the subfield level and that the $2 source codes, which already exist in id.loc.gov, will also need to become part of the MARC Bibliographic Standard.

• 2018 Annual Report

  REPORT OF THE AALL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
  MARC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
  2018 ANNUAL MEETING REPORT
  JUNE 23-24, 2018
  NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

  Jean M. Pajerek, Cornell Law Library

  The MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) convened two meetings at the ALA Annual Meeting in New Orleans. Action was taken on five discussion papers and four proposals during the meetings. The complete texts of all discussion papers and proposals considered at the 2018 ALA annual meetings of the MARC Advisory Committee are available at: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2018_age.html.

  The following four proposals were discussed and approved:

  Proposal No. 2018-02
  Subfield Coding in Field 041 for Accessibility in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-02.html
  Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)

  The subfield values currently defined for the 041 field (Language Code) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format do not allow for the specific designation of different types of accessibility content. Although this information can be provided in the 546 (Language Note) field, this is a free text field, and not machine actionable.

  The Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) proposes the definition of three new repeatable subfields in the 041 field to allow for greater specificity in the designation of accessibility content, and for enhanced machine actionability. The proposed subfield $p (Language code of accessible text) designates “[l]anguage codes for text used as an alternative mode of access to the content of a resource.” The proposed subfield $q (Language code of accessible audio) refers to “[l]anguage codes for audio used as an alternative mode of access to the visual or textual content of a resource.” Proposed subfield $r (Language code of accessible visual language) would be used to designate “[l]anguage codes for visual language (non-textual) used to provide alternative access to the audio content of a resource,” e.g., signed languages. Changes to existing subfields $a and $j are also proposed, to accommodate the definition of the three new subfields.

  This proposal was approved unanimously and will be incorporated into the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

  Proposal No. 2018-03
  Defining New Fields to Record Accessibility Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-03.html
  Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM), Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)

  The sponsors of this proposal assert 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.” Information related to accessibility features is scattered among a wide variety of fields (both fixed and variable) in the bibliographic format.

  This proposal advocates for the definition of two new fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format:

  341 (Accessibility Content), “a machine-actionable field 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:

  532 (Accessibility Note), “a free text field for recording a human-readable summary of the accessibility features or deficiencies of a resource.”

  The Committee was supportive of this proposal and it was approved unanimously, with a few amendments.

  Proposal No. 2018-04
  Versions of Resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-04.html
  Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats

  In this proposal, the German National Library suggests two different ways of designating different versions of a resource in a MARC bibliographic record. Specifically, the proposal 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 proposal is a refinement of Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP06
  (https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp06.html), which was discussed by the Committee during its Midwinter 2018 meetings.

  The proposal outlines two options for the designation of version information. Option 1 calls for the definition of a new subfield $s for “version,” the value of which would be expressed by using controlled vocabulary terms. Option 2 proposes the definition of a new field 251 (Version Information), the value of which would also preferably be drawn from a controlled vocabulary.

  Committee members who expressed a preference supported Option 2, defining a new field 251 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. The proposal to implement Option 2 was approved unanimously.

  Proposal No. 2018-05
  Multiscript Records Using Codes from ISO 15924 in the Five MARC 21 Formats
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-05.html
  Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats

  This proposal from the German National Library sets forth three potential options for indicating that the content of a MARC 21 field is written in a specified script by using codes from ISO 15924 (Codes for the representation of names of scripts). This is a lengthy and technically complex proposal, but the upshot is that the Committee approved one of the three options recommended, i.e., the use of ISO 15924 script identifiers in the “script identification code” portion of subfield $6 (Linkage) in 880 fields (Alternate Graphic Representation). ISO 15924 lists both alphabetic and numeric codes for dozens of scripts beyond the six codes currently authorized for use in MARC 21. This proposal was approved unanimously, with the exception of the British Library, whose representative abstained from voting.

  The following discussion papers were considered:

  Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP07
  Designating Sources for Names in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp07.html
  Source: PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) Task Group on URIs in MARC

  In this discussion paper, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC recommends “extending the use of $2 for source vocabulary to the 1XX and 7XX name entry fields in the Bibliographic format.”

  Catalogers are familiar with the use of subfield $2 (Source of heading or term) in 6XX fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, used to specify the source vocabulary for terms used in the 6XX field, e.g.:
  655 #7  Constitutions. $2 lcgft

  In this example, the source vocabulary for the genre/form term “Constitutions” is indicated by the value in subfield $2, “lcgft” (Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms). This discussion paper puts forward the idea of extending the use of source vocabulary terms beyond 6XX fields to 1XX and 7XX fields, to accommodate the use of names in these fields that come from vocabularies other than the LC Name Authority File (LCNAF). Examples of such non-LCNAF vocabularies are VIAF, ISNI, ULAN (Union List of Artist Names), and ORCID.Use of Field 024 to Capture URIs in the MARC 21 Authority Format
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp08.html
  Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC

  A year ago, the MARC Advisory Committee approved a proposal from the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC entitled “Use of Subfields $0 and $1 to Capture Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in the MARC 21 Formats” (MARC Proposal No. 2017-08). The proposal, which was approved and has been incorporated into many fields in the five MARC 21 Formats, outlined a method for recording URIs that differentiates between a “‘Record’ or ‘Authority’ entity describing a Thing” and URIs that “directly identify a Thing itself” (often referred to as a Real World Object, or RWO).

  Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP08 makes a similar case for enabling this distinction to be made in field 024 (Other Standard Identifier) in the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data. It asserts that “changes to the 024 field in the Authority format (similar to the recent changes to the subfield $0 and addition of the $1 … are an important prerequisite for the conversion to linked data.”

  This discussion paper was favorably received and will probably return as a proposal.

  Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP09
  Improving Subfield Structure of Field 245 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp09.html
  Source: OCLC EMEA, Leiden (Netherlands) and OCLC, Dublin, Ohio (US)

  This discussion paper presents two options for improving the granularity of subfield coding in field 245 (Title Statement) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format:

  Option 1 “uses existing subfields, but [makes] them repeatable”
  Option 2 “uses not only existing subfields, but also adds several new subfields.”

  The authors of the paper assert a preference for Option 2.

  As currently defined, subfields $a (Title), $b (Remainder of title) and $c (Statement of responsibility) in field 245 are not repeatable. This constraint creates a situation in which multiple occurrences of the same kind of element within a single 245 field (as when the 245 contains parallel titles, or describes a resource lacking a collective title) may or may not be accompanied by specific subfield coding, because only the first instance of each element can be preceded by a subfield code. The paper is based on the premise that “subfields ought to be as specific as possible and that the different elements of the title statement ought to be put in subfields that are very precise.”

  After considerable, yet unproductive, discussion, the chair of the Committee took a straw poll of the membership to get a sense of what people thought about this discussion paper. Members were asked to vote on whether they thought: a) that more research is needed regarding the ramifications of more granular subfielding in field 245; or b) Never mind! The “Never mind” vote won by a slim margin, so it is possible that we will see nothing further of this paper.

  Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP10
  Designating Access to Online Resources in Field 856 in the MARC 21 Formats
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp10.html
  Source: OCLC and the German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats

  Roy Tennant, representing one of the sponsoring bodies of this paper (OCLC), stated that OCLC’s intention in proposing this change to the MARC 21 formats is to provide “a clear, unambiguous, language neutral, machine understandable way to mark a given URL as leading to open access content that is online in full.” The German National Library wishes to take access designation a step further by defining values to indicate restricted access and partly restricted access, as well as open access.

  Provider-neutral cataloging guidelines allow for the creation of bibliographic records for electronic resources that include more than one 856 field (Electronic Location and Access). It is not uncommon to see provider-neutral records in OCLC with numerous 856 fields, one for each provider of the resource described. In such cases, some providers may offer open access to the resource (or to part of the resource), while others may restrict access in some way (e.g., subscribers only, temporary embargoes). This discussion paper proposes the definition of a new subfield in field 856, indicating whether access to the resource linked to in the 856 subfield $u is “restricted, open, or partly restricted.” In the context of this paper, “open access” refers to a resource that can be accessed without payment, login, or any other barrier. “Partly restricted” could mean a resource with a temporary embargo, or it could mean that some content is open access (e.g., abstracts) while access to other content is limited to subscribers only. “Restricted” means there is no access to the resource unless certain conditions are met; this usually involves paying for the resource.

  The strongest reaction to this paper came from the British Library; their position is that a resource is either restricted access or open access and there is no reason to designate partial access. Sally McCallum of LC pointed out that designating an embargoed resource as partly restricted could lead to situations in which the 856 would require maintenance to keep links up-to-date; this is seen as undesirable.

  This paper may be reworked into a proposal.

  Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP11
  Open Access and License Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
  https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2018/2018-dp11.html
  Source: German National Library, for the Committee on Data Formats, and OCLC

  This discussion paper examines the possibility of encoding open access and license information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings formats. The fields under consideration for this purpose are 506 (Restrictions on Access Note), 007 (Electronic Resource), 008 (Fixed-Length Data Elements), 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note) and 856 (Electronic Location and Access). The validity of the concept of a resource being partially restricted, as opposed to simply open access or restricted access, came into question again during discussion of this paper. Once again the British Library rejected the idea that designating a resource as partly restricted serves any purpose for users, maintaining that a resource is either open access or restricted access, even if the restrictions do not apply to all parts of the resource.

  Several other committee members questioned the appropriateness of encoding licensing information in bibliographic records, since licenses are usually negotiated with individual libraries or consortia.

  This paper may return as a proposal.

• 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.