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 Daniela Trunk DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Matthew W. Wise, Chair NYU New York University Everett Allgood, Secretary NYU New York University
Benjamin Abrahamse PCC MIT Libraries Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota John Maier ARLIS/NA Pratt Institute Libraries Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa María Jesús Morillo Calero BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España John Myers CC:DA Union College 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 Weatherly Stephan SAA New York University Libraries Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Matthew Beacom Yale University Ian Bigelow University of Alberta Robert Bremer OCLC Christopher Carr Concordia University Chew Chiat Naun Harvard University Chris Corrigan Library of Congress/NLS/BPH Nancy Fallgren National Library of Medicine Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Tim Kiser Michigan State University Nancy Lorimer Stanford University Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Karen Peters Bates College Adam Schiff University of Washington Jackie Shieh George Washington University Mitch Turitz San Francisco State University [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.
The minutes of the meeting at ALA Midwinter in Atlanta, GA, January 21-22, 2017, were approved without correction
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) announced that he has agreed to continue as MAC chair for another two year term, a decision which was unanimously approved by the MARC Steering Group.
PROPOSAL 2017-08: Use of Subfields $0 and $1 to Capture Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-08.html
Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC
Summary: This proposal outlines a method to capture URIs in the MARC 21 Formats in a manner that clearly differentiates between:
To that end, the paper proposes restricting the use of the $0 to URIs and control numbers that refer to Records describing Things, and defining the $1 to include URIs that directly refer to the Thing.
Note: Standard vocabulary terms from controlled lists, such as MARC lists, are not generally considered Authority ‘records’; however, when those terms are represented as SKOS concepts and assigned actionable/dereferenceable URIs, they do carry with them ‘record-’ like data in a particular vocabulary scheme. The latter are referenced in this paper as Authority ‘records’ in conjunction with more traditional Authorities in a record format
Fields affected:
(Bibliographic format) 033, 100, 110, 111, 130, 240, 337, 338, 340, 344, 345, 346, 347, 370, 518, 600, 610, 611, 630, 647, 648, 650, 651, 654, 655, 656, 657, 662, 752, 753, 754, 800, 810, 811, 830
(Bibliographic and Authority formats) 034, 043, 336, 348, 370, 377, 380, 381, 382, 385, 386, 388, 700, 710, 711, 730, 751, 880, 883, 885
(Authority format only) 260, 360, 368, 372, 373, 374, 376, 500, 510, 511, 530, 548, 550, 551, 555, 562, 580, 581, 582, 585, 672, 673, 682, 747, 748, 750, 755, 762, 780, 781, 782, 785
(Holdings format) 337, 338, 347, 561, 883
(Classification format) 034, 043, 700, 710, 711, 730, 748, 750, 751, 754, 880, 883
(Community Information format) 043, 100, 110, 111, 600, 610, 611, 630, 648, 650, 651, 654, 656, 657, 700, 710, 711, 730, 880, 883
Related Documents: 2007‐06/1; 2009-DP01/1; 2009-DP06/1; 2010-DP02; 2010‐06; 2015‐07; 2016‐DP04; 2016-DP18; 2016-DP19; 2017-DP01
MAC Discussion: John Myers (CC:DA) queried whether RWOs belonged in the MARC data structure as currently configured and suggested that it might only be possible to reference them in authority records.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) responded that it was necessary to expand the existing scope of MARC in order to facilitate the community’s transition from this encoding standard to a linked data environment. Jean Godby (OCLC) added that the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC is interested in defining subfield $1 within bibliographic records because many of the Linked Data repositories the group works with do not contain separate “Authority File” equivalents. Nancy Loerimer (Stanford University) added that requiring these repositories to re-structure their data structures in order to reflect those of libraries would be impractical, expensive, and counter-productive. Jackie Shieh (George Washington University) noted that adding $1 now will give other communities opportunities to populate something without addressing or building authority records. Thurstan Young (British Library) added that accommodating the distinction now will be less costly than developing and implementing programming in the future to distinguish between two types of URIs in the same subfield. Sally McCallum (LC) observed that the cataloging rules approach for the creation of records for preferred labels only, instead of records for all labels linked with relationships, could be reviewed. The PCC Task group will need to develop a best practices guideline.
MAC Action: Proposal was amended to include Field 257(Country of Producing Entity) and to make subfield $1 repeatable; it was then passed with three nay votes and two abstentions.
PROPOSAL 2017-09: Defining Field 758 (Resource Identifier) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-09.html
Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)
Summary: This paper proposes establishing a new field 758 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format to identify related resources.
Related Documents: 2017-DP02
MAC Discussion: Sally McCallum (LC) asked why a field in the 76X-78X block of fields could not be used to identify related resources.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) responded that the preference for using a new MARC field (i.e., 758) rather than the pre-existing 787 (Other Relationship Entry) represents a clean break with all of the legacy data currently encoded within MARC 787 fields. The 76X-78X linking fields are focused on descriptions of manifestations, while this new element is intended to identify works and expressions.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that the 758 field’s definition and scope should not make the recording of relationship information optional; this approach risks inconsistency of application and the recording of ambiguous data. The inclusion of a relationship URI in subfield $4 to accompany the authority URI in $0 or RWO URI in $1 would be consistent with linked data best practice. Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard) responded that the working group prefers to leave the inclusion of the predicate information to be a matter of best practice. They recognize its importance, but they do not want to make it mandatory.
Sally McCallum (LC) responded that the MARC formats do not mandate the usage of specific subfields such as $4 (Relationship) in field definitions; the application of field 758 would need to be developed by the community.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) commented that the NLM review group supported this change when it was focused on identifying the work but they are troubled about the expansion into identifying related works.
Bill Leonard (LAC) shared the concern for the expansion of the scope to include related works. He also commented that the proposed name of subfield $a "label" is ambiguous given that the word has been otherwise applied in the context of the MARC formats.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard) replied that the linked data world uses the word label as proposed. Regarding the shift in scope, the intention is to be able to mirror and generate triples.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded that the issue of 758 application had been passed to the PCC Standards Committee.
Thurstan Young (BL) recommended that the first sentence of 758 Field Definition and Scope be amended for additional clarity; the wording as proposed suggested that only primary and not secondary relationships were appropriate for inclusion. This enables interpretation of resource to mean a WEMI stack or an individual record within the stack, whereas the examples of application also include other, related resources. Local implementations cannot be left to decide how the field is interpreted.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard) conceded the general point that it is not always possible to be certain about which resource is actually being described in the proposed field. The group thinks of relatedness in a broader sense, i.e., not just in terms of related resources. Indeed, attributes can be considered to be related to entities.
MAC agreed that the first sentence of the definition should be amended as follows:
“An identifier for a resource that is either the resource described in the bibliographic record or a resource to which it is related.”
MAC Action: Proposal was amended to include the British Library’s re-wording of the first sentence in the Field Definition and Scope and the addition of subfield $1 to carry a Real-World Object URI; it was then passed with three abstentions.
PROPOSAL 2017-10: Rename and Broaden Definition of Field 257 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-10.html
Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC), Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary:This paper proposes renaming and broadening the definition of field 257 (Country of Producing Entity) 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.
Related Documents: 2016-DP07; 2016-04
MAC Discussion: Sally McCallum (LC) commented that Library of Congress would like to see regions as well as countries recorded in field 257.
James L. Soe Nyun (MLA) responded that the problem of breaking down the elements recorded in field 257 was distinguishing between countries and regions in some circumstances; Catherine Gerhard (OLAC) added that, while OLAC had traditionally followed LC’s lead on recording country level information, it felt something broader was required to address geographic areas which are not formally recognized as countries.
Thurstan Young (BL) queried whether the term “area” could be substituted with “place” in the field name and definition. The word "area" has cartographic connotations while "place" would be consistent with the IFLA Library Reference Model entity “place”, and at the same time would still offer a more general designation than “country”. However, MAC could not reach a consensus on this suggestion.
MAC agreed with CCM’s recommendation that the second sentence proposed for the definition of subfield $a be removed; the phrase “May contain the abbreviation [S.l.] when the country, area, etc. is unknown” is too prescriptive as regards the method for recording unknown data.
MAC Action: Proposal passed with one abstention. The second sentence of the subfield $a definition will be removed.
PROPOSAL 2017-11: Defining New Fields to Record Accessibility Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-11.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM), Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This proposal presents options for recording the RDA data element Accessibility Content (7.14) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: 2017-DP03
MAC Discussion: John Myers (CC:DA) questioned why it was necessary to record subfield $a in field 341 when the subsequent subfields represent variants of the same information.
Matthew Wise (Chair) explained that while subfield $a records the sense required to access content, subsequent subfields record the means by which a resource compensates for sensory impairment.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that since the contents of 341 subfield $p appeared to be in the form of a free text note rather than a controlled term, it might be better recorded in 341 subfield $3 or proposed field 532. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) added that if $p were to contain a note, then it would be inappropriate to append subfield $2 to field 341 in these circumstances.
Matthew Wise (Chair) noted that some examples of 341 subfield $c set out by the proposal included the term “signLanguage” as defined by w3c. However, he added that there were multiple kinds of sign language and these were not addressed. Bill Leonard (LAC) responded that individual sign languages have codes in the ISO 639-3 tables, which can be recorded in 041 with the appropriate $2 value.
The committe determined that catalogers would need to have a broad conceptual understanding to know which terminology and which controlled lists should be encoded in field 341. Further work on the paper would be required in order to provide them with the necessary guidance.
MAC Action: The committee asked that the proposal be reworked for further consideration at a future MAC meeting.
PROPOSAL 2017-12: Defining Subfields $u, $r and $z in Field 777 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-12.html
Source:Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes the need for subfields $r (Report number), $u (Standard Technical Report Number) and $z (ISBN) in Field 777 (Issued With Entry) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2017-DP04
MAC Discussion: Bill Leonard (LAC) commented that the inclusion of subfields $r, $u and $z in field 777 would offer a means of manifestation level linking between records; this represents an alternative to, rather than a replacement for, the work level linking which is already possible using a 505 field and 700 name title added entries.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that this clarification addressed concerns raised by the British community.
MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2017-DP06: Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Cartographic Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://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)
Summary: This paper reviews adding new values for some 007 fixed field positions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to better accommodate digital cartographic resources.
Related Documents: 2016-01; 2015-DP02
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Daniela Trunk (DNB) commented that, while supporting the paper in principle, the DNB questioned the utility of further developing fixed-length fields; John Myers (CC:DA) added that it might be preferable to seek alternative means to rectify aspects of MARC coding which have not kept pace with technological developments.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that it would be preferable to generalize the existing definition of 007a/01 rather than adding a code “t” for remote access cartographic materials; since 007 is a repeatable field, a second iteration which codes 007c/01 as “r” could be used to reflect remoteness in cases where a cartographic resource is also electronic.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) noted that the ability to code the specific material designation would be lost for remote resources, if "r" was added to 007c/01. Jay Weitz (OCLC) noted that the Maps 008, Form of Item position 29 already has values for online and direct access.
MAC were in agreement that a value “x” representing “Not applicable” should be defined in 007a/04 to cover the physical medium for remote access cartographic materials.
Thurstan Young (BL) and Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) both expressed a preference that the existing definition of 007a/06 be generalized rather than adding a code “n” for “Not applicable” to cover the production/reproduction details for remote access cartographic materials. Sally McCallum (LC) noted that removing the word "photographic" from the definition of position 06 would necessitate the incorporation of that word into the name of value "c" Pre-production.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that, while the paper suggested “it seems logically impossible to have a remote access digital globe”, online resources which satisfy MARC’s definition of a globe do exist. Therefore, CCM and MAGIRT may find it useful to recommend that code “x” for “Not applicable” is added to 007d/04 to cover the production/reproduction details for remote access globes. CCM will consider developing a separate discussion paper addressing similar issues in the 007d Globes configuration
Discussion Paper will return as a Proposal.
Responses to Discussion Paper Questions:
5.1. – No, the existing definition of value a (Map) in 007a/00 (Category of material) is not sufficiently inclusive to cover remote access digital cartographic resources.
5.2. - Delete the second sentence of the 007a/01 definition rather than adding code “t” for remote access cartographic materials.
5.3. - Add value “x” for “Not applicable” to 007a/04.
5.4. - Remove the term “photographic” from the existing definition of 007a/06 rather than adding code “n” for “Not applicable”.
5.5. - CCM and MAGIRT will consider developing a separate discussion paper addressing similar issues in the 007d Globes configuration.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP07: Repeatability of Subfield $s (Version) in MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Format Fields
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp07.html
Source: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: The paper discusses the need for making subfield $s (Version) repeatable in fields X00, X10, X11, and X30 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats and fields 240 (Uniform Title) and 243 (Collective Uniform Title) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: [none]
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Thurstan Young (BL) commented that the option set out by the paper to make subfield $s repeatable was preferable to repurposing subfield $g (Miscellaneous information) or defining a new subfield; RDA treats separate occurrences of version information as repetitions of the same element. The issue of sequencing version information in a heading field is irrelevant so long as this is done consistently.
Daniela Trunk (DNB) noted the paper recommended that subfield $s be made repeatable in the X00, X10 and X11 fields belonging to the Bibliographic format; however, $s is not currently defined in fields 100, 110 and 111 in the format.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded that no one would need to record subfield $s in Bibliographic format fields 100, 110 and 111; therefore these fields could be omitted from the change. Sally McCallum (LC) noted that in the earlier days of MARC some cataloging practices involved the addition of title elements to name heading strings but those practices have ceased.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) noted concern about issues related to the programmatic addition of URIs. The URIs should refer to the entire string, but there could be confusion in some rare cases.
The Discussion Paper was approved for consideration as a Proposal, and was then approved unanimously as written ($s will not be added to Bibliographic fields 100, 110, 111).
DISCUSSION PAPER 2017-DP08: Definition and Repeatability of Subfield $d in Field X11 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp08.html
Source: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: The paper discusses the need to redefine and enable repeatability for subfield $d (Date of meeting) in field X11 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
Related Documents: [none]
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Daniela Trunk (DNB) suggested it might be simpler to amend the existing label “Date of meeting” to “Date” in X11 subfield $d rather than “Date of meeting or treaty signing”.
Benjamin Abrahamse (PCC) responded that doing this would require other labels in the MARC formats to be changed for purposes of consistency.
MAC did not consider that, as an alternative to redefining and making subfield $d repeatable in X11 fields, there was any need to introduce different subfield values for date of meeting and date of treaty signing.
The Discussion Paper was approved for consideration as a Proposal, and was then approved unanimously as written.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 08/08/2017 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |