The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Bill Leonard LAC Library and Archives Canada Thurstan Young BL British Library Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Matthew W. Wise, Chair NYU New York University Everett Allgood, Secretary NYU New York University
Sandra Barclay STS Kennesaw State University Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota Shana L. McDanold PCC Georgetown University Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa María Jesús Morillo Calero BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España John Myers CC:DA Union College Cory L. Nimer SAA Brigham Young University Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Morgan Library and Museum Jean Pajerek AALL Cornell Law Library Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds ISSN Library of Congress James Soe Nyun MLA University of California, San Diego Katherine Timms LAC Library and Archives Canada Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Ben Abrahamse MIT Randall Barry Library of Congress Robert Bremer OCLC Maria Chenique Heartland Library Cooperative Chew Chiat Naun Cornell University Nancy Fallgren National Library of Medicine Steven Folsom Harvard University Ed Jones National University, San Diego William W. Jones New York University Francis Lapka Yale University Lauren McPike Alexandria-Monroe Public Library Adam Schiff University of Washington Jackie Shieh George Washington University Mitch Turitz San Francisco State University Melissa Ulbrich University of Illinois Springfield Thomas Whittaker Indiana University Raegan Wiechert Missouri State University Janis Young Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Introductions, etc.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) opened the meeting by asking Committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves. A Committee roster was passed around the table and all were asked to “check in” and to annotate their entries with any corrections.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the ALA 2016 Midwinter meeting. There were none. A motion was passed and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Sally McCallum (LC) noted that there has been an increasing trend over recent years for MAC papers to be submitted on the basis of adding generic subfields to existing tags, changing repeatability, tweaking existing field definitions, addressing inconsistencies found within existing MARC Format documentation. etc. The Library of Congress is therefore planning to develop, with the MARC Steering Group, a Fast-Track process. This process will involve the MARC Steering Group’s reviewing MAC papers to identify which might be handled as Fast-Track changes and which require fuller scrutiny by MAC. The Steering Group plus the Chair of MAC will review the potential Fast-Track changes and make decisions – or push the change to the next meeting for consideration by MAC. Fast-Track business will primarily be undertaken between conference meetings. All revisions and additions to the MARC 21 Formats arising from Fast-Track changes will be announced and posted to the MARC listserv. The Committee agreed to establishing the Fast-Track process.
PROPOSAL 2016-03: Clarify the Definition of Subfield $k and Expand the Scope of Field 046 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-03.html
Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes clarifying the meaning of the sentence “Dates contained in subfield $k may not be coded elsewhere in the formats” as currently defined in subfield $k (Beginning or single date created) in field 046 (Special Coded Dates) of the Bibliographic format and making it clear that the dates that are recorded in 008/06-14 may additionally be recorded in 046.
Related Documents: 2016-DP08
MAC Discussion and Action taken: There was general agreement that the first sentence of the subfield $k definition needs to be rewritten. The sentence as written in the proposal is too long to make it easily comprehensible. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) suggested that this could be substituted with the sentence: “Date or beginning of a date range in which a resource has been created.” It was agreed that this would still fulfill the task of removing the current exclusion of dates recorded in field 008 character positions 06-14 (Type of date/Publication status, Date 1, Date 2).
The use of the abbreviation “B.C.” (i.e., Before Christ) will be substituted with B.C.E. (i.e., Before the Common Era). NDMSO will review the rest of the MARC formats to make equivalent editorial changes where necessary.
A motion to accept the proposal with the above amendments passed unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2016-04: Broaden Usage of Field 257 to Include Autonomous regions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-04.html
Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes broadening the usage of field 257 (Country of Producing Entity) to include autonomous regions so that regions with strong film cultures can be used in this field. This will involve changing the name of the field and changing the field definition and scope.
Related Documents: 2016-DP07
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Thurstan Young (BL) and others expressed concern with the use of the term “autonomous” as it can have political connotations. By itself, the term “region” is politically neutral. John Myers (CC:DA) suggested the idea of replacing the term “autonomous regions” with “cultural regions.” Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) responded with the concern that removing “autonomous” would mean regional units such as California and not just cases such as Hong Kong and Palestine might be considered for inclusion.
The British Library also suggested adding a new subfield $b for regions, to separate country names from regions. This was not considered desirable by OLAC since an accompanying definition would have to be written for it.
There was broad agreement that the proper OLAC application of this data element would require a clear field definition and a best practices document as well.
OLAC will work further on this paper.
Note: Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) will not be at ALA Midwinter, so she will either have someone else present the paper, or defer tabling it until ALA Annual.
PROPOSAL 2016-05: Defining New X47 Fields for Named Events in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-05.html
Source: OCLC
Summary:This paper proposes the establishment of a new X47 series of fields to accommodate coding of named events used as subject access points in the MARC Authority and Bibliographic formats.
Related Documents: 2016-DP09
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Robert Bremer (OCLC) explained that this need surfaced when OCLC was mapping topical 65X terms into 611 fields for the FAST project when they exhibited a chronological attribute, or because they represented named events in time.
Thurstan Young (BL) expressed concern that adoption of the new X47 series of fields may be hampered unless tools or analysis are made available to support the community’s identification of headings taken from LCSH which have been modelled as events in FAST. Robert Bremer (OCLC) said that OCLC would generate a list of these headings and distribute them amongst the community.
Janice Young (LC) commented that, owing to other priorities, the modelling of events in FAST would have no impact on the way in which they are modelled in LCSH for the time being.
Given the chronological aspects of named events, Sherman Clarke (VRA) and others expressed interest in defining an additional subfield $n for the new fields. Subfield $n may be especially helpful in those cases where an event occurs more than once (e.g., Battle of Bull Run, World War, etc.).
However, no general agreement was reached on the addition of subfield $n. It was agreed that any such addition would need to be the subject of a separate paper.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) also noted that subordinate conference headings in X10 fields may contain chronological attributes and may require further scrutiny.
A motion to accept the Proposal passed unanimously on the basis of OCLC’s undertaking to generate and distribute a list of LCSH headings which are modelled as events in FAST.
PROPOSAL 2016-06: Defining Field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-06.html
Source: CONSER, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)
Summary: This paper proposes defining field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) (R) for the MARC 21 Holdings Format to contain copy specific technical specification relating to the digital encoding of text, image, audio, video, and other types of data in the resource.
Related Documents: 2016-DP10
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Thurstan Young (BL) noted that the use of code “rda” in 347 subfield $2 (Source) in the examples is problematic. The code “rda" represents the overall description conventions applied to the record rather than the specific vocabularies recorded in the 347 subfields $a (File type) and $b (Encoding format). NDMSO will liaise with the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) in order to establish new codes for RDA vocabularies in the 34X tags as a whole.
Proposal approved unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2016-07: Defining Subfield $3 in Field 382 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-07.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper proposes the need for subfield $3 (Materials specified) in Field 382 (Medium of Performance) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2012-01; 2016-DP01
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) suggested that subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) be added to field 382. However, the MLA representative James L. Soe Nyun commented that there was no strong use case for this at present.
There was general agreement that this type of proposal may in future be considered and approved between meetings as part of the MARC Fast-Track process.
Proposal approved unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2016-08: Redefining Code Values in Field 008/20 (Format of Music) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-08.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper presents a proposal to redefine four code values and define one new code value in Field 008/20 (Format of Music) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, in order to bring the code values in line with RDA and clarify their use.
Related Documents: 2009-01/2; 2012-07; 2013-04; 2016-DP02
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Proposal approved unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2016-09: Recording Distributor Number for Music and Moving Image Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-09.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA), Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes a way to unambiguously record distributor numbers separately from publisher numbers in Field 028 (Publisher Number). The proposal also revises the language in Field 037 (Source of Acquisition) to clarify the relationship and function of these two MARC fields.
Related Documents: 2016-DP03
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Proposal approved unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2016-10: Punctuation in the MARC 21 Authority format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-10.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: Libraries from German-speaking countries do not provide punctuation when content designation identifies an element sufficiently. This paper proposes coding to indicate the absence of punctuation redundant to field and subfield coding via a Leader position.
Related Documents: 2010-DP01; 2010-07; 2016-DP11
MAC Discussion and Action taken: NLM sought to clarify that the coding of punctuation policy in LDR field character position 18 would only refer to end of field and end of subfield punctuation. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) confirmed that the proposed code will not apply to internal punctuation of fields and subfields.
Proposal approved unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2016-11: Designating Matching Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-11.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a way that information about matching two records can be expressed in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority formats.
Related Documents: 2016-DP12
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Steven Folsom (Harvard University) and Chiat Naun Chew (Cornell University) expressed concern that MAC may be defining subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) in field 885 (Matching Information) in a way that it has not been defined elsewhere in MARC: generally speaking subfield $0 relates to subfield $a in the same field. However, Bill Jones (New York University) pointed out that field 883 (Machine-generated Metadata Provenance) contains a subfield $0 that references an entity elsewhere in the record, not in the 883 field itself. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) confirmed that the structure of the new field 885 is partly based on the structure of field 883.
The definition of subfield $a (Matching Information) will be amended as follows: “A term, code or identifier, identifying the matching process which processed the records. A subprocess may be added.”
The definition of subfield $c (Confidence value) will be amended by the retention of the first sentence only, with the addition of the words “assigned by the institution”.
Subfield $d will be defined as “Generation date”, the definition of which will be based on the wording used to define $d (Generation date) in field 883.
Subfield $x (Nonpublic Note) (R) and $z (Public Note) (R) will be defined.
Proposal approved with the above amendments: 10 approved; 1 opposed; 7 abstentions.
PROPOSAL 2016-12: Designation of a Definition in the MARC 21 Authority format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-12.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a way of giving a definition in a MARC Authority record.
Related Documents: 2016-DP13
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested that instead of defining a new field to record definitions, a new indicator value might be added to fields 678 (Biographical or Historical Data) and 680 (Public General Note) as a means of flagging definitions instead. However, Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS) noted that using existing fields for this purpose may mean that definition information could not be indexed separately.
The definition of field 677 (Definition) will be amended to read “The field contains a formal definition of the entity described in the record”.
The definition of subfield $a (Definition) will be amended to read: “A formal definition of the entity.”
Subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier) will be defined.
Proposal approved with the above amendments; 3 abstentions.
PROPOSAL 2016-13: Designation of the Type of Entity in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-13.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a way of coding which type of entity is described in a given MARC Authority record.
Related Documents: 2016-DP14
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Field 075 (Type of Entity) definition will be amended by substituting the phrase “systems, models or styles of subdividing” with “methods of subdividing”.
Subfields $a (Type of entity term) and $b (Type of entity code) will be made non-repeatable for the present. Mathew Wise (NYU, Chair) commented that if subsequent evidence demonstrated that subfields $a and $b had to be made repeatable, then these changes could be handled by the MARC Fast-Track process.
Proposal approved with the above amendments; 1 abstention.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2015-DP17: Redefining Subfield $4 to Encompass URIs for Relationships in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp17.html
Source: British Library in consultation with the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC
Summary: This paper discusses the redefinition of subfield $4 (Relator code) in the Address field (371), See From Tracing fields (400, 410, 411, 430, 448, 450, 451, 455, 462, 480, 481, 482 and 485), See Also From Tracing fields (500, 510, 511, 530, 548, 550, 551, 555, 562, 580, 581, 582 585) and $4 (Relationship code) in Heading Linking Entry fields (700, 710, 711, 730, 748, 750, 751, 755, 762, 780, 781, 782, 785, 788) in the MARC Authority Format. It also discusses the redefinition of $4 (Relator code) in Heading fields (100, 110, 111), Subject Added Entry fields (600, 610, 611, 630, 650, 651, 654, 662), Added Entry Fields (700, 710, 711, 720, 751) and $4 (Relationship code) 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.
Related Documents: 2010-DP02; 2016-DP04
MAC Discussion and Action taken: John Myers (CC:DA) voiced concerns over combining two types of data within a single subfield: that is, a code or a URI representing that code within subfield $4. However, it was acknowledged that this approach to recording URIs for relationships was preferable to any of the other alternatives outlined by the paper.
The British Library queried whether there was an ongoing need to maintain the distinction between relator codes and relationship codes in the MARC format. In cases where $4 is currently labeled “Relator code,” the accompanying definition specifies that a MARC code is recorded in this subfield. In cases where $4 is currently labeled “Relationship code,” the definition specifies that a designation is recorded in coded form. If URIs are recorded in subfield $4 these may or may not be associated with a MARC code. Therefore, where $4 is currently labeled “Relator code”, it would be appropriate for this to be made less prescriptive by relabeling it “Relationship code” in future. 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. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that the distinction between relator codes and relationship codes aligns with different relationship types: relator codes are used for agent (person, family, or corporate body) to resource relationships; and relationship codes are used for resource to resource relationships. If the changes outlined by the British Library were implemented, then those $4 subfields currently labeled “Relator code” could still reference the MARC Code List for Relators as an example of designations in coded form.
Sally McCallum (LC) said that there is a need for an across-the-board solution for recording URIs for ANY data element in MARC, subfield or field, not an ad hoc solution for one element, such as the one on the table. Given that need, and in order to avoid future confusion, it was recommended that BL and the PCC URI Task Group refocus and rework their paper toward a more comprehensive approach to incorporating URIs throughout the MARC Formats.
Discussion Paper may return as another Discussion Paper.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP18: Redefining Subfield $0 to Remove the Use of Parenthetical Prefix "(uri)" in the MARC 21 Authority, Bibliographic, and Holdings Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp18.html
Source: PCC Task Group on URI in MARC in consultation with the British Library
Summary: This paper discusses modifying $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) in the Authority, Bibliographic, and Holdings formats so that dereferenceable HTTP URIs may be recorded without the parenthetical standard identifier source code prefix code “(uri).”
Related Documents: 2007‐06/1, 2010‐06, 2015‐07, 2016‐DP04, 2016‐DP05
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) voiced concerns over this paper. While it is clear that the concept of a URI is one of the building blocks for the Semantic Web, the omission of the parenthetical prefix "(uri)" introduces a syntactical inconsistency into the MARC format. Subfield $0 is currently defined as "Authority Record Control Number or Standard Number", and many tags within MARC data exchanged in the German speaking part of the MARC community currently already contain three subfields $0 – two with control numbers, and one with an actionable URI. All of them contain parenthetical prefixes to define the source.
There was some concern that such a practice would no longer be permissible. However, the paper only recommends the removal of the parenthetical prefix when subfield $0 contains a URI.
The final sentence of the proposed redefinition of subfield $0 will be amended to make it more explicit by adding the phrase “and should not be included” as follows: “In the latter case, the parenthetical "(uri)" is redundant and should not be included if the identifier is given in the form of a web retrieval protocol, e.g., HTTP URI, which is self-identifying.”
It was moved and approved to consider this Discussion Paper as a Proposal; the Proposal was approved with the above amendment; 1 abstention.
DISCUSSION PAPER 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
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp19.html
Source: PCC URI in MARC Task Group
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to certain fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats that currently do not have subfield $0 defined. MARC 21 Bibliographic Format: Country of Producing Entity (257) and Associated Language (377). MARC 21 Authority Format: Associated Language (377).
Related Documents: 2016-DP18
MAC Discussion and Action taken: There was general agreement that this type of paper is the sort that in the future may be considered and approved between meetings as part of the MARC Fast-Track process.
It was moved and approved to consider this Discussion Paper as a Proposal; the Proposal was approved unanimously.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP20: Recording Temporary Sublocation and Temporary Shelving Location in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp20.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This paper proposes the definition of subfield $k (Temporary sublocation or collection) in the 87x fields (Item Information – General Information) of the MARC 21 Holdings Format and the redefinition of subfield $l (Temporary location) to specify the temporary shelving location to provide more specificity to the temporary holdings information so that it can be easily identified in machine processing and to allow for its use relative to circulation policies.
Related Documents: [none]
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Thurstan Young (BL) mentioned an inconsistency between the reference to 87X fields in the introduction of the paper and the focus on an 876 field in question 5.1. This makes the scope of the paper’s recommended changes unclear. Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that the inconsistency was likely an editorial oversight which would be clarified in the Proposal.
Mathew Wise (NYU, Chair) noted that there is likely a need for three subfields to mirror the 852 $a, $b, and $c. OCLC would need to analyze which of those subfields $l currently reflects, and then build the other two around it. That includes an additional subfield for recording temporary location information.
Discussion Paper will return as a Proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP21: Defining Subfields $e and $4 in Field 752 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp21.html
Source: ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS)
Summary: This discussion paper presents the need for subfields $e (Relator term) and $4 (Relator code) in Field 752 (Added Entry-Hierarchical Place Name) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: [none]
MAC Discussion and Action taken: To achieve consistency with the definition of subfield $2 (Source of heading or term) in field 751 (Added Entry-Geographic Name), it was agreed that the definition of subfield $2 (Source of heading or term) in field 752 should be amended to: “MARC code that identifies the source list from which the geographic name was assigned.”
It was moved and approved to consider this Discussion Paper as a Proposal; the Proposal was approved unanimously with the above amendment.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP22: Defining a New Subfield in Field 340 to Record Color Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp22.html
Source: The Cataloging Advisory Committee (CAC) of The Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA)
Summary: This paper discusses defining a new repeatable subfield in field 340 (Physical Medium) in order to record the color content of resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: [none]
MAC Discussion and Action taken: There was general agreement that subfield $g should be made repeatable so that different instances of color content occurring within the same resource can be recorded discretely.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that the use of code “rda” in 340 subfield $2 in the examples is problematic. The code “rda" represents the overall description conventions applied to the record rather than the specific vocabularies recorded in the 340 subfields $a (Material base and configuration), $c (Materials applied to surface), $d (Information recording technique), $f (Production rate/ratio), $k (Layout), $m (Book format), $n (Font size) and $o (Polarity). NDMSO will liaise with the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) in order to establish new codes for RDA vocabularies in the 34X tags as a whole.
Discussion Paper will return as a Proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP23: Adding Subfields $b and $2 to Field 567 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp23.html
Source: National Library of Finland
Summary: This paper discusses adding subfield $b (Controlled term) and subfield $2 (Source of term) to field 567 (Methodology Note).
Related Documents: [none]
MAC Discussion and Action taken: There was no consensus on whether a controlled term for methodology should be recorded in the 3XX block or as proposed in field 567. Thurstan Young (BL) pointed out that there was a precedent for recording controlled terms in a note field, citing 518 subfield $p (Place of event).
There was general agreement that more complete examples of application should be provided, showing the relationship between field 567 and the rest of a resource description.
The British Library recommended that subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) should be added to the paper’s list of changes.
Discussion Paper may return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP24: Define a Code to Indicate the Omission of Non-ISBD Punctuation in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp24.html
Source: OCLC and PCC “ISBD and MARC Task Group”
Summary: This paper discusses the need for an additional code in Leader/18 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to indicate that non-ISBD punctuation has been omitted.
Related Documents: 2010-DP01; 2010-07
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The label and definition of value # (blank) in Leader Byte 18 will not be changed. This is to avoid widespread reprocessing and recoding of legacy data.
A new value ‘n’ will be defined to indicate that non-ISBD punctuation has been omitted from the bibliographic record. This will achieve the paper’s main objective of specifying that punctuation has been omitted from subfield boundaries.
It was moved and approved to consider this Discussion Paper as a Proposal; the Proposal was approved with the above amendment; 2 abstentions.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP25: Extending the Encoding Level in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp25.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a way of extending Leader position 17 - Encoding level in combination with field 042 (Authentication Code) in the MARC Authority format.
Related Documents: 2016-DP16
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Initially, there was general concern raised about mixing different types of data in a single 042 subfield $a. The alternative idea of defining a subfield $b to record encoding level did not gain widespread acceptance. However, upon consulting the MARC Authentication Action Code List, MAC realized that the current list contains an assortment of agency, organization, and project names that may imply a level of authentication, e.g., lacderived, lccopycat-nm, ukblcatcopy, etc.
In addition, there were concerns whether a new code for leader position 17 "Encoding level" is needed to point to detailed information in field 042 $a. It was agreed that leader/17 can be kept as it is now.
This being the case, there is no further MAC action necessary for the German National Library to proceed. The German National Library will work with NDMSO on the necessary code values for inclusion in the MARC Authentication Action Code List (i.e., gnd1, gnd2, gnd3, etc.)
No further MAC action necessary; the Discussion Paper is withdrawn.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP26: Designating a Norm or Standard used for Romanization in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp26.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper explores options to designate in a bibliographic record which transliteration and romanization norm or standard has been used during the creation of the record, or during the creation of parts of the record.
Related Documents: DP100; DP109; DP111
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The British Library recommended that subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) should be added to both the proposed 067 (Transliteration / Romanization Information) and the 881 (Transliteration / Romanization Information) fields.
Randall Barry (LC) expressed concern that the examples given in the paper do not reflect all of the complexities involved in the process of transliteration and romanization. For example, different vernacular script fields may be added to a record over time. Each of these scripts may require different romanization schemes. In light of this complexity, it might be preferable to only designate the norm or standard applied to transliteration and romanization at a field level rather than at a record level. This would negate the requirement for a 067 field.
The German National Library and Library of Congress will work together to submit a follow-up Discussion Paper. They will also revisit and re-analyze the current state of romanization schemes to determine if there is a clear path forward for handling vernacular script fields within MARC 21.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP27: General Field Linking with Subfield $8 in the Five MARC 21 Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp27.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper describes the reasons why a general designation of field linking with subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) is needed. This applies to subfield $8 throughout the MARC format, i.e. MARC Bibliographic Data, MARC Authority Data, MARC Holdings Data, MARC Classification Data and MARC Community Information.
Related Documents: 2014-02
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The British Library and Biblioteca Nacional de España expressed a preference that a new field link type “u” be defined with the label “General linking, type unspecified” rather than redefining the scope of “Field link type” in subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number). This is preferable in terms of backwards compatibility and relates to option 2 rather than option 1 in the paper. LAC expressed a preference for option 1.
It was moved and approved to consider this Discussion Paper as a Proposal following Option 2; Converting the Discussion Paper to a Proposal was approved with 2 opposed.
The Proposal was approved; 2 opposed and 4 abstentions.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP28: Using a Classification Record Control Number as a Link in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp28.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper explores the options of linking from a MARC Bibliographic record to a MARC Classification record by using the record control number of the MARC Classification record as an identifier.
Related Documents: 2016-DP19
MAC Discussion and Action taken: There was a general preference for the expansion of subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to encompass classification record control numbers rather than defining a new subfield $1 to record this information. Subfield $1 should be kept in reserve for accommodating changes in MARC with a potentially higher impact.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) commented that if this paper moved forward and were approved, then they may be able to apply the resulting changes in terms of the NLM Classification scheme. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that if there were any fields besides 084 (Other Classification Number) in which it would be desirable to define subfield $0 for classification record control numbers (as listed in the paper), then details should be provided to the German National Library.
It was noted that $0 should in addition be defined in fields of the MARC Authority Format which carry classification information.
The German National Library will develop this Discussion Paper as a Proposal; they will also consider whether the Proposal should address the Authority Format as well as the Bibliographic Format.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP29: Defining New Subfields $i, $3, and $4 in Field 370 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp29.html
Source: ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation
Summary: This paper discusses adding subfields $i (Relationship information), $3 (Materials specified), and $4 (Relationship code) to field 370 (Associated Place) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats. Subfields $i and $4 would be used to provide a note or relationship designator term or code that may be used to clarify the relationship of the associated place recorded in the field to the resource being described. Subfield $3 would be used to indicate that an associated place applies to only a part or portion of the resource.
Related Documents: 2009-01/1
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Thurstan Young (BL) queried the basis for defining subfield $4 (Relationship code) in field 370 (Associated Place). The only example of usage provided gives the MARC code “trl” for translator which appears inappropriate in the context of a place. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded that this was an error and that SAC would like to create a new code in subfield $4 for place of translation. SAC will also provide additional examples modelling the usage of subfield $3 (Materials specified) in field 370.
Discussion Paper will return as a Proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP30: Defining New Subfields $i and $4 in Field 386 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp30.html
Source: ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation
Summary: This paper discusses adding subfields $i (Relationship information) and $4 (Relationship code) to field 386 (Creator/Contributor Characteristics) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats. The subfields will be used to provide a note or relationship designator term or code that may be used to clarify the relationship of the creator/contributor terms recorded in the field to the resource being described.
Related Documents: 2013-06
MAC Discussion and Action taken: There was general agreement that, while there is a case for defining subfields $i and $4 in field 386, the same does not apply to field 385 (Audience Characteristics).
Discussion Paper will return as a Proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 01/12/2017 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |