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 Sherman Clarke (rep. pro tem) ARLIS/NA 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 Jean Pajerek AALL Cornell Law Library Robert Pillow AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds ISSN Library of Congress James Soe Nyun MLA University of California, San Diego Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Robert Bremer OCLC Thomas Dukleth Agogme Nancy Falgren National Library of Medicine John Hostage Harvard University Beth Iseminger Harvard University Kate James Library of Congress William W. Jones New York University Kelley McGrath University of Oregon Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Jackie Shieh George Washington 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 2015 Annual meeting. A motion was passed and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Sally McCallum briefly reported that the BIBFRAME Pilot is going well and that catalogers liked it.
PROPOSAL 2016-01: Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Reproductions of Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-01.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper proposes defining new values for some 007 field positions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to better accommodate digital reproductions of sound recordings. Changes to 007c/01 to better accommodate certain types of commonly used storage devices are also included.
Related Documents: 2015-DP02
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Discussion focused primarily on two issues: the need to work out differences between suggested rewordings made by the Music Library Association and the British Library, and, the scenario where digitally produced music has been recorded, but sound has not yet been produced. On the latter point, MLA representative Jim Soe Nyun made the analogy of a piano-roll. When Chair Matthew Wise posed the question of whether broadening out the definition of digitally produced music would be confusing, both the OLAC and MLA representatives replied that they would actually welcome broadening the definition to include digitally produced music. The group decided to go with the British Library’s suggested rewordings, wich were also tweaked by the Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange. The agreed changes to the proposal were as follows:
1) Change the proposed redefinition of sound recording (value s in 007s/00) to read: "A storage medium containing recorded sound or a representation of a musical composition from which sound can be mechanically reproduced, such as a piano roll."
2) Add the word "remote" to the proposed definition for new value n (Not applicable) in 007s/03 (Speed) and 007s/10 (Kind of material), as in: "Speed/Kind of material is not applicable to remote digital sound recordings because it pertains to calculations specific to physical aspects of carriers."
There was also discussion about whether the chip cartridge label itself needed to be reworded. Ultimately, the group decided to approve the redefinition of chip cartridge given in the proposal, but to leave the label as is.
A motion to accept the proposal with the above amendments passed unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2016-02: Defining Subfield $r and Subfield $t, and Redefining Subfield $e in Field 382 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-02.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper looks at the need to establish two new subfields within MARC Field 382 (Medium of Performance), one to describe the total number of ensembles and the other to describe the number of solo instruments performing with the ensembles. The paper also suggests a clarification of the field's existing subfield $e (Number of ensembles).
Related Documents: 2015-06
MAC Discussion and Action taken: A motion to pass the proposal as written passed with one abstention.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP01: Defining Subfields $3 and $5 in Field 382 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp01.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This discussion paper presents the need for subfields $3 (Materials specified) and $5 (Institution to which field applies) in Field 382 (Medium of Performance) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2012-01
MAC Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
The paper generated considerable discussion. The merits of using $3 versus $8 were addressed. Chair Matthew Wise noted that MLA’s decision not to use $8 happened a while back and has been their preference ever since.
The main focus of the discussion was over the use $5, specifically whether or not it was appropriate to use it to designate provenance information ("which institution added this field?"). German National Library representative Reinhold Heuvelmann expressed disagreement with its use as a means of flagging local cataloging practice, highlighting Example 4 to illustrate his point. In other similar cases a subfield $q "Assigning agency" was defined, e.g. in fields 082 and 083. MLA representative Jim Soe Nyun noted that this example was included to cover all possible scenarios. Chair Matthew Wise noted that it was common to use $5 to designate provenance in the United States. As a possible solution, the CC:DA representative John Myers suggested that a subfield $2 "Source of term" can be used with a dash and a MARC Organization Code / ISIL in combination with the $5. There was a question about whether the $2 solution with a dash would validate in OCLC, to which OCLC representative Jay Weitz replied that it would not.
Eventually, the group arrived at the conclusion that there are many reasons to use the $5, that part of the $5 definition itself validates the Discussion Paper’s suggested usages, and that OCLC best practices could prescribe proper usage of the field. Local institutions may choose to strip out 382 fields containing subfield $5 on imported records if it is considered necessary.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP02: Clarifying Code Values in Field 008/20 (Format of Music) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp02.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper presents suggestions for clarifying four code values 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
MAC Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
There was general agreement with the paper’s redefinition of score. Subsequent discussion focused on whether “piano score”, categorized under the paper’s proposed redefinition of code z-“Other”, needed to have its own code (since other special scores have codes in 008/20), or whether another existing code, such as condensed score, could be used. After OLAC representative Cate Gerhart clarified that a condensed score could not be used for piano score, since the former has extra lines to represent other orchestral parts, the group chose to pursue a separate code for piano score, with code “p” as an option.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP03: Recording Distributor Number for Music and Moving Image Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp03.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA)
Summary: This paper examines the need to distinguish music and videorecording distributor numbers from music and video recording publisher numbers recorded in MARC field 028 (Publisher Number) and suggests defining a new first indicator 6 for Distributor number to accomplish this. The paper also suggests minor clarifying changes to MARC field 037 (Source of Acquisition) regarding the numbers to be recorded there.
Related Documents: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
Discussion mainly focused on this change’s potential to complicate video catalogers’ work, since the boundary between publisher and distributor is oftentimes not clearly defined with videos. However, with music, distributors tend to be explicitly designated as such. OLAC representative Cate Gerhart commented that best practice guidelines could be written to address this. There was overall support for the change.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP04: Extending the Use of Subfield $0 to Encompass Linking Fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp04.html
Source: British Library
Summary: This paper 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.
Related Documents: 2010-DP02 ; 2009-06/1; 2010-06; 2011-08; 2015-07
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a discussion paper or proposal.
British Library representative Thurstan Young summarized the initial concerns raised over the paper’s projected use of subfield $0 to record URIs for relationships in linking entry fields: its effectiveness relies on the sequencing of subfield content; it makes no distinction between primary (entity level) and secondary (relationship level) content; it conflates two different types of data in one field, (human readable strings of information versus machine actionable things). In view of these concerns he expressed a willingness to pursue the German National Library’s alternative suggestion which involves using subfield $4 to record URIs for relationships. This offer garnered further discussion. PCC representative Shana McDanold noted that giving subfield $0 two different purposes in linking entry fields – that is, to record both objects (entities) and predicates (relationships) – would be confusing, and could also generate a lot of dirty data. If subfield $0 were only used to record URIs for objects in fields 76X-78X and $4 were used to record URIs for predicates then this problem might be averted. OLAC representative Cate Gehart voiced concern that the expansion of $4 may be problematic in the context of data which has hitherto been recorded in that subfield, specifically in cases when $4 is repeated. NLM representative Elizabeth Plantz wondered if the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC would resolve any outstanding issues, and whether MAC should wait until its work is completed before considering a follow up paper. Chair Matthew Wise suggested that the British Library and the PCC should collaborate on submitting a paper for Annual. Its return as a discussion paper or proposal will depend on whether there are outstanding questions which require analysis by MAC.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP05: Expanding the Definition of Subfield $w to Encompass Standard Numbers in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp05.html
Source: British Library
Summary: This paper discusses expanding the scope of subfield $w (Bibliographic record control number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats.
Related Documents: 2010-06 ; 2011-08 ; 2015-07
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
The initial concerns raised over the projected use of subfield $w to record URIs for bibliographic records were the same as those expressed in the context of 2016-DP04. However, British Library representative Thurstan Young voiced the opinion that the primary versus secondary content issue did not apply in this case. If the scope of subfield $w were expanded to allow the recording of URIs, then it would still only refer to a single data element (that is, a related bibliographic description). CC:DA representative John Myers noted that if records are merged by OCLC, then their software currently prevents a mis-citation from occurring as a result. He queried whether the same functionality would be available if a URI for the bibliographic record were recorded rather than a record control number. ISSN representative Regina Reynolds wondered whether the scope of subfield $w should encompass standard numbers such as ISSNs and ISBNs (for which subfields are already defined, i.e. $x and $z) as well as URIs. Thurstan Young explained that ISSNs and ISBNs represent identifiers for resources rather than bibliographic records and that their use in this context would therefore be inappropriate. The suggested redefinition of $w makes clear that its scope is limited to the recording of system numbers or standards numbers for bibliographic records.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP06: Define Subfield $2 and Subfield $0 in Field 753 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp06.html
Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC), GAMECIP
Summary: This paper proposes to add $2 (Source of term) and $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) to field 753 (System Details Access to Computer Files). Subfield $2 will allow the vocabulary used for the terminology in subfields $a (Make and model of machine) and $c (Operating system) to be documented and the subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) would allow the URI of the vocabulary term to be entered.
Related Documents: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This discussion paper was converted to a proposal by MAC and passed unanimously.
When the discussion opened with recognition of general support for this paper, OLAC representative Cate Gerhart suggested that MAC vote on this as a proposal. Subsequent discussion included a request to clarify that $2 could refer to the source of term for either the make/model of machine or the operating system. Chair Matthew Wise suggested that making the field repeatable would serve to clear up this ambiguity and prevent a subfield sequencing issue, by having separate fields for the make/model (with its source of term) and the operating system (with its source of term). It was noted that the field was already repeatable. With that, Matthew proposed that MAC entertain a motion to move this forward as a proposal. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP07: Broaden Usage of Field 257 to Include Autonomous Regions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp07.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: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
The discussion began with a question concerning whether this redefinition should be limited to officially recognized autonomous regions, to which the reply was that it is not for the MARC community to decide about definitions for autonomous regions. Kelley McGrath (University of Oregon Libraries) noted that the immediate need for this paper is the film production in four regions: Hong Kong, Taiwan, Palestine, and Puerto Rico. In response to a follow up query whether use of this field would extend beyond films, OLAC representative Cate Gerhart noted that there is no known use beyond films: this paper is based entirely on practices of the film industry. CC:DA representative John Myers noted that it was up to other communities to come forward if this approach represented a problem.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP08: Remove Restriction on the Use of Dates in Field 046 $k of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp08.html
Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper proposes removing the sentence "Dates contained in subfield $k may not be coded elsewhere in the formats" currently in subfield $k (Beginning or single date created) in field 046 (Special Coded Dates) of the Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
There was general support for this paper, and NLM representative Elizabeth Plantz wondered why the restriction was imposed to begin with, to which no one had an answer. OCLC representative Jay Weitz noted that the phrase “Dates contained in $k may not be coded elsewhere in the formats” could be interpreted two different ways. One reader may interpret this language as prohibitive, and another could read it as merely informing the cataloger that s/he may not find the $k coded elsewhere in the format in a given scenario. Jay suggested either eliminating the sentence, or clarifying what it means. The preference was for the latter. When Chair Matthew Wise asked if there was support for moving this paper forward as a proposal, Jay advised that it may be prudent to hold off on that because MAC may also need to clarify the field definition and how it should be applied. The discussion ended with OLAC representative Cate Gerhart confirming that OLAC will clarify the subfield and its use.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP09: Coding Named Events in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp09.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This discussion paper presents options for coding of named events used as subject access points in the MARC Authority and Bibliographic formats.
Related Documents: 2002-DP03, 2002-13
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
The discussion and a straw vote demonstrated that most of MAC preferred Option 2 (define a new X47 series of fields) on the basis that it would be desirable to maintain a distinction between named events which cannot be regarded as responsible agents and those which can (in existing X11 fields). The British Library preferred Option 1 (redefining the X11 series of fields) on the basis that this would involve less change. The German National Library preferred Option 2 but with an X50 option, as in the GND context single events are handled as topical terms. OCLC will pursue Option 2 in a proposal and will add $c and $d for place and date.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP10: Defining Field 347 (Digital File Characteristics) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp10.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: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
The discussion focused on alternative solutions. CC:DA representative John Myers suggested that a specified sequence of subfields could be used rather than a string accompanied by $3 as a means of supporting machine actionability. German National Library representative Reinhold Heuvelmann commented that using $8 would be preferable to $3 from a machine standpoint. However, $8 is not typically supported by current Integrated Library Systems to connect pairs of 347 and 856 fields. Additionally, it was noted that using more than one 856 in a holdings record would cause problems in terms of knowing which 856 relates to which 347. British Library representative Thurstan Young commented that the use of $3 to record publisher details does not correspond to the scope of its definition in MARC as ‘Materials specified’. Nevertheless, Chair Matthew Wise pointed out that 856 $3 is already being used to record publisher details, so its projected use in field 347 for the same purpose would be consistent with that. If necessary, this local application would be need to be covered by PCC best practice documentation rather than in the MARC format itself. PCC will return with a proposal incorporating both subfields $3 and $8.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP11: Punctuation in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp11.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper explains why libraries from German speaking countries do not provide punctuation when content designation identifies an element sufficiently. It proposes coding to indicate the absence of punctuation redundant to field and subfield coding via a Leader position.
Related Documents: 2010-DP01, 2010-07
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
Chair Matthew Wise began by noting that the paper appeared to have generated little opposition. However, British Library representative Thurstan Young expressed the view that a problem might arise if the authority record contains an RDA flag in field 040 $e (Description conventions) and a code for punctuation policy in LDR 18. Unlike the MARC Bibliographic format, the paper makes no distinction between possible different forms of record syntax in the Authority format. Library of Congress’s Sally McCallum responded that this distinction in the Bibliographic format was itself problematic; if an RDA flag is present in the authority record field 040 $e, then the assumption should be that any punctuation is consistent with that. CC:DA representative John Myers expressed support for the paper but wondered if it was a workable solution. Suggested revisions included adding a code for “Punctuation included at subfield boundaries". However, this will not work because punctuation is left at subfield boundaries for abbreviations as well as MARC21 standard syntax.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP12: Designating Matching Information in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp12.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper discusses a way that information about matching two records can be expressed in the MARC Authority format.
Related Documents: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
Discussion indicated strong feelings on both sides. Those who supported the paper noted that a new field could help flag record matches for manual review. However, NLM representative Elizabeth Plantz commented that applying a matching algorithm in a shared record environment seemed unnecessary. British Library representative Thurstan Young noted that if a new field were defined, then it should be made repeatable to allow for the possibility of multi-matches. It would also be useful to define this field in both the Authority and Bibliographic formats as a means of recoding matching information. Field number "887" is already used in the Bibliographic format, so field number "885" is preferred. German National Library representative Reinhold Heuvelmann noted that if the field were extended to the Bibliographic format, then subfield $w could be added to its specification in this context. Subfield $5 could also be added to indicate that a match only relates to a specific institution. The German National Library will incorporate these changes and additions into its follow up proposal for a new field.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP13: Designation of a Definition in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp13.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a way of giving a definition in a MARC Authority record.
Related Documents: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper may return as a proposal or as another discussion paper.
Chair Matthew Wise opened the discussion by noting that a pre-meeting discussion had favored the specification of field 677 to record definition information (668, as originally proposed in the paper, could not be used because it had been made obsolete), and that it should include subfields $5 and $2. Library of Congress’s Sally McCallum had also suggested using $z in place of $2 to indicate definition source. From this point on, the discussion turned to alternative means for inputting this data. Comments centered mainly on NLM representative Elizabeth Plantz’s suggestion that 680 $i could be used (a long-standing practice in the context of MESH headings). Sally McCallum asked about using the 678 field. Matthew Wise, hearing a preference for 680, asked Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) if he would be willing to explore that solution. Reinhold replied that he would, along with the 678. The option to define a new 677 field will also be investigated and may return as another paper from the German National Library.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP14: Designation of the Type of Entity in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp14.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: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will return as a proposal.
MAC recognized the paper’s value and usefulness in anticipating the need to parse out entity information. The preference was to record this information in a variable field, such as the 072 (Subject Category Code) or 075 rather than a fixed field such as the Leader. SAC representative Stephen Hearn suggested that field 072 could be extended to encompass type of entity information. However, the overall preference was to define a new 075 field for this purpose.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP15: Media Type and Carrier Type in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp15.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a way of coding the RDA Media Type and Carrier Type in the MARC Authority format.
Related Documents: 2008-DP04; 2008-05/3; 2009-01/2
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper may return as a proposal or as another discussion paper.
The discussion began with an observation from the Chair Matthew Wise that a pre-meeting discussion failed to see a need for this. He added that name authority records cannot possess media or carrier information; only records describing physical objects can. CC:DA representative John Myers responded that the paper exposed a problem of the FRBR model in that it does not encompass archival materials, to which VRA representative Sherman Clarke added that it would be useful to record carrier information for cultural objects at the authority level in cases where the object itself no longer exists; under such circumstances a bibliographic level record may not be available. However, SAC representative Stephen Hearn noted that this information should nevertheless be recorded at the bibliographic level. ISSN representative Regina Reynolds and British Library representative Thurstan Young added that if fields for media and carrier type were defined in the Authority format, then further aspects of physical description might be added in the future; the distinctions between authority and bibliographic data would grow increasingly blurred as a result, causing confusion. Library of Congress’s Sally McCallum commented that the definition of media and carrier type in the Authority format may be needed to support the Library of Congress's BIBFRAME work as well as the GND data model. John Myers mentioned, in respect to FRBR LRM, that singletons are becoming more prevalent, and so flexibility is needed.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2016-DP16: Extending the Encoding Level in the MARC 21 Authority Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp16.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a way of extending Leader position 17 - Encoding level in the MARC Authority format.
Related Documents: [None]
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: This paper will not return as a proposal, but may return as another discussion paper.
Chair Matthew Wise opened the discussion by commenting that the method set out for extending the encoding level did not seem to leave much room for further expansion by other communities should the need arise in the future. He added that if encoding levels were extended in this way, then they would have to apply universally and not just to the German language cataloging community. NLM representative Elizabeth Plantz added that using such a granular level of encoding may mean that it was difficult to keep track of which institution made what changes over time. OCLC Representative Jay Weitz commented that OCLC had been thinking of getting rid of their encoding levels for some time because of inconsistent application by different institutions.
ISSN representative Regina Reynolds suggested that field 042 (Authentication Code) be used to denote encoding levels as an alternative. ISSN already codes the 042 with ‘pcc’ to flag that data has been verified according to PCC standards. British Library representative Thurstan Young suggested a combination of a code in Leader position 17 pointing to field 042, and a flexible way of expressing encoding levels in field 042. CC:DA representative John Myers suggested that subfield $2 be defined in the 042 so that the source and therefore local applicability of encoding levels could be flagged. OCLC representative Jay Weitz pointed out that the workability of this would depend on there only being a single authentication code and single source code in any given 042. John Myers replied that on this basis it may be necessary to make the 042 a repeatable field.
German National Library representative Reinhold Heuvelmann will take the MAC comments into consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce Evans
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 03/03/2016 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |