The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Katherine Timms LAC Library and Archives Canada Thurstan Young BL British Library Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Matthew W. Wise, Chair NYU New York University Bruce Evans, Secretary Baylor Baylor University Libraries
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 Robert Pillow AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Sandy Rodriguez MLA University of Missouri-Kansas City Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Christine DeZelar-Tiedman University of Minnesota Thomas Dukleth Agogme William W. Jones New York University Nate Trail Library of Congress Adam Zukowski Towson 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 inquiring about any needed changes to the agenda. Hearing none, Matthew asked 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 2014 Annual meeting. A motion was passed and the minutes were approved unanimously.
LC plans to start a BIBFRAME pilot before ALA Annual this summer. The records they create will be transformed into MARC. However, not everything will be dragged over, as some BIBFRAME data points do not have MARC equivalents.
Also, there have been a number of technical notices regarding source codes since June. One code value with a “slash” in it will be looked into and possibly amended. LC usually use hyphens for separation purposes.
There were no further reports or announcements from the group.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) asked everyone to consider whether MAC needs any public relations or marketing, as not many people have been coming to the meetings as of late, even though the Committee is fulfilling an important task. Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) replied that this concern is common to all standards people, that is, Why don’t people notice us more? Others replied that the scope and work of the Committee is an acquired taste, and that for this particular conference, Matthew noted that our meeting did not make it into the program, as we received our room confirmation late. Sherman Clarke (VRA) noted that at the very least we could advocate for ourselves at other standards meetings.
Matthew Wise announced at the conclusion of the meeting that MAC’s San Francisco meetings would take place on June 27 and 28.
PROPOSAL 2015-01: Defining Values in Field 037 to Indicate a Sequence of Sources of Acquisition in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-01.html
Source: British Library
Summary: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.
Related Documents: 2011-02; 2014-DP06
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The Proposal was approved with one abstention. There was no discussion, and all international partners supported the paper.
PROPOSAL 2015-02: Adding Dates for Corporate Bodies in Field 046 in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-02.html
Source: British Library
Summary: This paper proposes that date of establishment and date of termination of a corporate body are accommodated in Field 046 (Special Coded Dates).
Related Documents: 2008-DP05; 2009-01; 2014-DP05
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The proposal was approved unanimously as written.
Before passage, Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) raised a concern on behalf of the NLM about what people are going to do about legacy data. Some NLM people also preferred “earliest known dates.”
Regarding the legacy data concern, other participants noted that Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) (not present) would likely take up the mantle of analyzing legacy data, which would be facilitated by the ability to filter out conferences, thereby leaving behind a more manageable file of corporate bodies.
Regarding the “earliest known date” matter, a participant noted that we have set the precedent to not use “known” date, just earliest date. Additionally, if we went with “known”, we would then need to change all relevant codes to have this “known” date.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) added that while they use the 548 to encode this data, the German National Library sees the potential of field 046 and so supports this paper.
PROPOSAL 2015-03: Description Conversion Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-03.html
Source: Library of Congress
Summary:This paper proposes defining a new field in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format where the information regarding the process for the conversion of data in a description can be recorded.
MAC Discussion and Action taken: This paper generated considerable discussion, but was ultimately passed (with one abstention) with the following amendments: 1) Also define the field in the Authority and Holdings formats. 2) Change Field Definition and Scope to read: "Used to provide information about the origin of a MARC record which has been converted by machine from another metadata structure." 3) Change subfield $k caption to "Identifier of source metadata." 4) In the subfield $k description, change "control number" to "identifier" and strike "bibliographic" from the text (new language: "Identifier associated with the description from which the data was obtained"). 5) Change subfield $d to subfield $g "Generation date" or "Conversion date", to allow space for defining possible new subfields $b - $f, should additional parsing be needed in the future.
The discussion began with Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asking why this came as a Proposal and not as a DP, as this paper presents many matters that require discussion. Sally McCallum (LC) replied that the field is needed, which then launched a much larger discussion about the usefulness of the field overall.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) noted that there needs to be a way to indicate that this record has been cleaned up (after the conversion) if a cataloger has gone in and fixed problems. We should add a value in the 884 to show that this work has been done. Encoding level was offered as a possible solution, but there would still not be an indication if the record has been brought up to standard.
While John Myers (CC:DA) offered the Pinyin conversion project as an analogy to provide a possible coding solution, some wondered if this information was even useful, when multiple people can alter a record. We are so early in the process with BIBFRAME that we hate to see a use for this yet. Sherman Clarke (VRA) noted that when AACR2 arrived, you had “mc” put in the 040 when there was machine conversion. You could then have revisions recoded in the same field after that, and so wondered if this is something we could do in this case.
Adding more to the field usefulness issue, Shana McDanold (PCC) noted that this data is not going to be useful outside of MARC, and so wondered why we are adding information to MARC when it’s going to be converted later? Replies centered on the fact that as long as we’re in the MARC environment that this info is useful. For example, if we adopt this field and you see that there’s not an 884, then you know it was created by a human. Additionally, again, catalogers are going to want to know when someone has gone through and changed things, and know right away that the record is of good quality. Shana McDanold (PCC) then clarified that she’s not questioning the need for a field per se, but rather how much change we need to track, and wondered if existing fields, such as the 040 and Leader position 17 (Encoding level), would be better suited for this purpose.
After further confirmation from others that this field fills a need beyond what the 040 and Leader position 17 (Encoding level) can offer, Sally McCallum (LC) refocused the discussion to clarify that we are discussing two issues: 1) The field itself, and 2) the addition.
Further discussion indicated support for the field, but divergent views on the addition remained. Using Leader position 17 (Encoding level) as a tool to indicate a record having gone through a conversion process came up again, but was ultimately deemed unsatisfactory. Eventually the discussion led to Thurstan Young (BL) voicing support for this field showing complete conversion, rather than partial, vis-à-vis the Field Definition and Scope in 2.1. Lengthy discussion ensued about what partiality means, which ended at entertaining the revised language and other revisions suggested in Thurstan’s e-mail to the MARC list. Here are the specifics:
- Change Field Definition and Scope to read: “Used to provide information about the origin of a MARC record which has been converted by machine from another metadata structure.”
- Change $k label to read: “Identifier of source metadata.”
- Change “control number” to “identifier” in $k description.
- Strike “bibliographic” from $k text (New language: “Identifier associated with the description from which the data was obtained.”)
Although there was interest in adding two more subfields to the proposal, presumably $b and $c, for version of process and number of version, the Committee decided only to add what was expressed as a current need in the proposal. Also, there was recognition that, should $b and $c be added eventually, there might be additional need for another set of three subfields, i.e., $d, $e, and $f. So, in order to leave space for those potential additions, $d was changed to $g.
It was also suggested that field 884 be added to the Authority and Holdings formats.
The proposal passed (with one abstention) with the noted amendments.
PROPOSAL 2015-04: Broaden Usage of Field 088 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-04.html
Source: Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS)
Summary: 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.
Related Documents: 2014-DP07
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Motion to accept this paper was approved unanimously with the following corrections: 1) Subfield $a should be added to all examples; 2) In the APA 345 example, the 490 1_ and 830 are lacking a $v; 3) In the Research reporting series example, the number represented in the 490 $v is not needed; 4) In Example 4.2, the 830 indicators are reversed.
PROPOSAL 2015-05: Definition of New Code for Leased Resources in Field 008/07 in the MARC21 Holdings Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-05.html
Source: British Library
Summary: This paper proposes the definition of a new code for leased resources in 008/07 (Method of acquisition) in the MARC21 Holdings Format.
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Motion to approve with paper correction – change “2015-01” to read “2015-05” (since corrected) – passed unanimously.
Discussion centered on the fact that leasing e-resources is not a new practice, so the question came up about what people have been using to indicate this up until now, and if anyone was concerned about legacy data.
In response to previous practice, one person noted that they track leasing information where license data resides, while another noted it may be useful to have this in holdings records. Another wondered if the temporary quality of leasing needs to be explicitly stated here, to which others replied that leasing implies renewal requirement. You still have to recommit, whether or not you wish to do so in perpetuity. So the distinction is already there.
In regards to covering the possibility of partial leasing, such as purchasing a CD with a subscription to an accompanying resource, some commented that this could be indicated in a holdings note. Another observed that the final paragraph of the proposal leaves open the possibility of additional coding if deemed necessary in the future.
PROPOSAL 2015-06: Defining New Subfield in Field 382 for Coding Number of Ensembles in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-06.html
Source: Music Library Association
Summary: This paper proposes that subfield $e (Number of ensembles) be added to field 382 (Medium of Performance) in order to allow for the coding of number of ensembles.
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Motion to accept proposal passed unanimously.
Prior to passage, discussion centered on whether $e would break the algorithm established by $s to function as a check digit, clarifying that an ensemble has an indeterminate number of performers (unlike an “ensemble-like” string quartet, which has a determined number of performers), and whether using $n would meet the music cataloging community’s needs. A suggestion was made that $n could be expanded to encompass the number of individual performers and number of ensembles. This latter point was addressed by John Myers (CC:DA) stating that this proposal clarifies the distinction between individual nouns (performer) vs. collective nouns (ensemble). Defining a new subfield to encode the number of ensembles as opposed to the number of individual performers reflects this distinction.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2015-DP01: Recording RDA Format of Notated Music in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2015/2015-dp01.html
Source: Canadian Committee on MARC (CCM)
Summary: This paper presents options for recording the RDA data element Format of Notated Music in the Bibliographic format.
MAC Discussion and Action taken: This paper will come back as a proposal.
The discussion began by answering the DP’s questions.
In answer to 5.1: yes, musicians may find, for example, study score more useful than a full score in a given situation.
In answer to 5.2: Yes.
In answer to 5.3: Yes, there is a possible use case for including this element in authority records as well as bibliographic records. A CC:DA proposal regarding machine actionable elements focused on extent of manifestation versus expression as a reassessment of recording dimensions, numerical data, and so on. So this DP would be in line with that.
The discussion continued with Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) asking if there was any follow-up from MLA. Sandy Rodriguez (MLA) replied that she couldn’t think of an immediate example, but would prefer that the door be left open rather than closed. Jay Weitz (OCLC) followed this up by noting that MLA’s Bibliographic Control Committee has done a lot of fiddling around in MARC and RDA with various formats of notated music, and suggested that MLA try to harmonize those definitions.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) noted that international partners supported the paper, and that several preferred the use of the 348 to encode this data, including the Music Library Association, as it has stronger parallels between other fields. Others noted that it makes sense to avoid a free-text block with the priority to make things more machine actionable.
Reinhold Heuvelmann of the German National Library asked those present to consider the 655 option. He sees this data being modeled as a relationship, and would want to link terms through the 655 to an authority. Apart from that they support the DP. They asked for the creation to two additional subfields. 1) $b for format of notated music code, and 2) would like a $0 added if the 655 option does not go forward.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) asked if there was any further discussion, and Sally McCallum (LC) asked for clarification of next steps. Those from the music community reiterated their preference for the 3XX block, noting inconsistent usage of 655 area. John Myers (CC:DA) followed this up by noting that since we are encoding descriptive data for RDA, then the 3XX makes more sense. The 655 would also create problems for plural use, and also depend on thesauri.
The discussion ended with a recap of next steps, which was to pursue the 348 (when developing the proposal for Annual), but look at use of the 655 in other contexts.
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce Evans
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 06/22/2015 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |