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
Benjamin Abrahamse PCC MIT Libraries Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Bruce Evans (substitute) OLAC Baylor University Libraries Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota John A. 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 A. Stephan SAA New York University Libraries Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC
Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Robert Bremer OCLC Chew Chiat Naun Cornell University Lia Contursi Columbia Law School Rebecca Culbertson California Digital Library Kalan Knudson Davis University of Minnesota Steven Folsom Harvard University Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Les Hawkins Library of Congress Xiping Liu University of Houston Nancy Lorimer Stanford University Kelley McGrath University of Oregon Heylicken Moreno OCLC Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Elizabeth O'Keefe Morgan Library (retired) Suzanne Pilsk Smithsonian Libraries Lori Robare University of Oregon Adam Schiff University of Washington Jackie Shieh George Washington University [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Introductions, etc.
Matthew Wise (NYU, Chair) welcomed the Committee membership and guests. The agenda was adopted without revision. Members introduced themselves and were asked to make corrections to the roster. It was noted that Bruce Evans (Baylor University) would be substituting for Catherine Gerhart as the OLAC representative.
The minutes of the meeting at ALA Annual in Orlando, FL, June 25-26, 2016, were approved without correction. The Secretary, Everett Allgood (NYU), was thanked.
Sally McCallum (LC) described the few Fast-Track changes to the MARC format, which had been approved since the meeting in Orlando.
Announcement of next meeting
The MARC Advisory Committee will meet at ALA Annual conference in Chicago, IL, June 24-25, 2017.
PROPOSAL 2017-01: Redefining Subfield $4 to Encompass URIs for Relationships in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-01.html
Source: British Library in consultation with the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC
Summary: This proposal recommends 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; 2016-DP17
MAC Discussion: Thurstan Young (BL) reported that Blacklight, Evergreen and OCLC had carried out preliminary tests on existing, legacy URIs in subfield $4. These tests demonstrate that tools are available with which to systematically distinguish between MARC coded values and URIs for relationships.
The PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC considered whether the proposed relabeling of subfield $4 could be shortened from “Relationship code or relationship URI” to “Encoded relationship designation” in response to a suggestion from John Myers (CC:DA). However, it concluded that the label change should retain a distinction between codes and URIs.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked for clarification regarding whether codes recorded in subfield $4 will always come from one of the MARC Code Lists. Thurstan Young (BL) responded that, at present, where the subfield is labeled “Relator code”, this is always taken from the MARC Code List for Relators. However, where the subfield is labeled “Relationship code", it contains a designation with no specified source.
URIs associated with MARC relator codes are available from id.loc.gov. However, the relationships between name entities and resources which relator codes represent may also be identified by URIs which are derived from other sources such as the RDA Registry. This necessitates a broadening of the current labeling and definition for subfield $4 where it refers to relator codes so that the source of URIs is not limited to id.loc.gov in these instances. In German speaking countries pairs of subfields $4 will be used for the GND in MARC Authority 4XX and 5XX fields, each one containing a code from the GND code list and a URI from the GND Ontology, respectively.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with two abstentions.
PROPOSAL 2017-02: 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/2017/2017-02.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; 2016-DP29
MAC Discussion: The following additional changes have been incorporated into Proposal 2017-02:
Section 5.1: Definitions for subfields $i and $4 may be amended as part of the editorial process to make them consistent with other definitions of these subfields in the formats.
Section 5.2: Revise the first sentence of the proposed definition for subfield $g to read: The place(s) from which a work or expression originated. [Rest of the revision as proposed.]
Section 5.3: Revise the three proposed sentence revisions to instead read:
In addition, a comment from CCM led to discussion of what may be a subsequent “fast-track” change to the 370 field definition for subfield $c. The proposed revision reads:
Thurstan Young (BL) suggested that, since the definition of subfield $g is being expanded to encompass work as well as expression level data, it would be useful to define a first indicator with values “Work”, “Expression”, “No information provided” and “Not applicable”. This would help to distinguish between the different entities represented in the field content. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that similar changes could be applied to a range of fields besides 370. A separate proposal would be required in order to make the case for such changes.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with two abstentions; with the understanding that the exact wording of some field/subfield names and definitions may be revised subsequently.
PROPOSAL 2017-03: Defining New Subfields $i and $4 in Field 386 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-03.html
Source: ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation
Summary: This paper proposes 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; 2016-DP30
MAC Discussion: Adam Schiff (University of Washington) described some examples of applicable usage of subfields $i and $4 for the 386 field in the MARC Bibliographic format.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with two abstentions; with the understanding that the exact wording of subfield $i and $4 definitions may be amended as part of the editorial process to make them consistent with other definitions of these subfields in the formats.
PROPOSAL 2017-04: Using a Classification Record Control Number as a Link in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-04.html
Source: German National Library
Summary: This paper proposes a linking mechanism from a MARC Bibliographic or a MARC Authority record to a MARC Classification record by using a subfield $0, containing the record control number of the MARC Classification record as an identifier.
Related Documents: 2016-DP28
MAC Discussion: The 083 field (Dewey Decimal Classification Number) will be removed from the proposal's list of fields in the MARC Authority format for which subfield $0 will be defined. This amendment provides consistency with the equivalent list of fields in the Bibliographic format.
MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously.
PROPOSAL 2017-05: Defining a New Subfield in Field 340 to Record Color Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-05.html
Source: The Cataloging Advisory Committee (CAC) of The Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA)
Summary: This paper proposes defining new repeatable subfield $g in field 340 (Physical Medium) in order to record the color content of resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2016-DP22
MAC Discussion: The Music Library Association (MLA) suggested that the first sentence of the proposed definition of subfield $g be revised to read: Color characteristics of the content of a resource.
MAC Action: Proposal approved unanimously, with slight editorial revisions.
PROPOSAL 2017-06: Adding Subfields $b, $2, and $0 to Field 567 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-06.html
Source: National Library of Finland
Summary: This paper proposes adding subfield $b (Controlled Term), subfield $2 (Source of Term), and subfield $0 (Authority Record Control Number or Standard Number) to field 567 (Methodology Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: 2016-DP23
MAC Discussion and Action taken: Proposal approved, with one abstention.
PROPOSAL 2017-07: Adding Value “No information provided” to the First Indicator of Field 070 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-07.html
Source: National Library of Finland
Summary: This paper discusses adding value “# = No information provided” to the first indicator (Existence in NAL collection) of field 070 (National Agricultural Library Call Number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: None
MAC Discussion: According to the current field definition and scope, call numbers in field 070 may only be assigned by the National Agricultural Library (NAL). The Finnish cataloging community’s use of field 070 appears to run contrary to this. A solution may involve amending the field’s current scope along the lines of the 050 (Library of Congress Call Number) field definition. Such a change could be made following a fast track proposal. However, Stephen Hearn (SAC) commented that it should be made clear which classification scheme is actually applied in field 070 before any fast track changes take place.
MAC Action: Proposal approved, with two Nay votes and two abstentions.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2017-DP01: 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-dp01.html
Source: PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC
Summary: This paper discusses the need 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 that refer to Records describing Things, and defining the $1 to record URIs directly referring 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.
Related Documents: 2007‐06/1; 2009-DP01/1; 2009-DP06/1; 2010-DP02; 2010‐06; 2015‐07; 2016‐DP04; 2016-DP18; 2016-DP19
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The presenter, Steven Folsom (Harvard University), admitted that URIs in MARC subfield $0 are currently a hodgepodge – some represent authority records, some represent “real world objects” (RWOs). This paper tries to define a manner in which to record the two types of URIs unambiguously.
Thurstan Young (BL) asked for further information regarding how we might go about separating Authority and RWO URIs in MARC if coding made no distinction between them. Steven Folsom (Harvard University) responded that the process would likely be complicated. Some existing URIs will be easily determined to be either one or the other via machine processing. Others may require additional human review. One appeal in proceeding with distinguishing these now is that the subfield $0 is still quite new, and therefore the number of URIs in MARC $0 is not currently overwhelming. Jackie Shieh (George Washington University) added that, in the case of her institution, machine processing a file of only 2,500 bibliographic records could take between 40 minutes and an hour to insert HTTP URIs in subfield $0.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed serious concern because subfield $1 represents the last remaining subfield available throughout the MARC formats. Therefore, it is important that MAC preserve this precious element for a large-impact use, a place to record metadata provenance, for instance. The British Library countered that this proposed usage may in fact represent what we have been holding subfield $1 for. That is, a use that should help migrate our MARC data forward into a Linked Data, Semantic Web environment.
This will return as a proposal.
Responses to Discussion Paper Questions:
5.1. – Yes, there was agreement this is an important distinction. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) expressed some concern with trying to use Real World Object URIs for subject headings. Nancy Lorimer (Stanford University) responded that at the level of subject headings there was a need to distinguish between concepts and the authority records about them.
5.2. – Many thought yes, subfield $1 does provide the best available field to encode Real World Object URIs. However, Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed concerns that another high impact MARC change might be necessary in the future requiring the definition of a new subfield across the formats; if this happened, no numeric subfield would remain available to deal with it. Bill Leonard (LAC) pointed out that uppercase characters could be an alternative source of new subfield codes. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested developing a universal convention using punctuation characters such as an underscore as sentinels surrounding URIs.
5.3. – Thurstan Young (BL) commented that, unless both subfield $0 and $1 were defined in the same field there should be no problems associated with the continued divergent use of subfield $0.
5.4. – MAC’s view was that PCC will need to develop best practices.
5.5. – Thurstan Young (BL) suggested a further field-by-field analysis before a second discussion paper or proposal comes forward.
5.6. – There was a general feeling expressed that because this subfield $0 is fairly new and not too widely used and employed, cleanup of the existing legacy data should be manageable.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2017-DP02: Defining Field 758 (Related Work Identifier) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp02.html
Source: PCC Task Group on URI in MARC, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)
Summary: This is a discussion of the possibility of defining a field 758 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic formats to identify related works.
Related Documents: 2017-DP01; 2017-01
MAC Discussion and Action taken: The PCC Task Group suggested a new field because the Resource references in the suggested new field differ from other existing 760-787 Related Resource linking fields. The presenter Chew Chiat Naun (Cornell University) explained that the group intends several types of relationships to be represented in the new field. The group thinks of the 7XX block as the "related block." He mentioned that the word "work" should also be discussed since its usage within the MARC formats does not always correspond to the FRBR definition.
This will return as a proposal.
Responses to Discussion Paper Questions:
5.1. – Majority of MAC members approved the creation of field 758.
5.2. – Majority of MAC approved. Regina Reynolds (ISSN) commented that defining a new field was preferable to reusing existing MARC tags in terms of providing specificity.
5.3. – Some concern was expressed by MAC. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) suggested that work identifiers may only belong in the MARC Authority and not the Bibliographic format.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that the paper did not suggest an actual definition for field 758, only a field label. He also noted the dependency between this paper and 2017-DP01 which addresses Real World Object (RWO) URIs. If subfield $1 were defined to carry RWO URIs, then it may have an impact on the subfielding used in field 758.
Ben Abrahamse (PCC) suggested revising the field label because the term “related” is a loaded one within MARC. Also, the proposed use of this new field is not for a related resource description, but for a corresponding Work (or Expression) Entity that is not explicitly stated; an alternative field label such as “Corresponding Entity Identifier” might be more suitable.
Thurstan Young added that catalogers may want to be able to link to Expressions in addition to Work Entities, so the field label, definition and scope would require further consideration from this point of view.
5.4. – John Myers (CC:DA) suggested the PCC Task Group may want to re-read the definition of the 7XX block of fields in the Authority format for some helpful field naming conventions, because it is very different from the definition of the 7XX block in the Bibliographic format.
5.5. – Ben Abrahamse (PCC) questioned whether subfield $2 is needed for the field. He also queried whether the proposed 758 field actually needed both subfields $a and $t. That is, the PCC Task Group may want to consider how related entities in this field should be cited. Catalogers may want citations subfielded in a similar way to Author-Title entries; alternatively they may find an abbreviated reference in a single subfield (i.e., $a) is sufficient.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2017-DP03: Defining New Fields to Record Accessibility Content in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-dp03.html
Source: Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM)
Summary: This paper presents options for recording the RDA data element Accessibility Content (7.14) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.
Related Documents: None
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: Based on comments from the British Library and others, CCM has decided to withdraw Option 3.1 extending the values within the 007 field.
OLAC expressed interest in Accessibility for Media Resources and has volunteered to work with CCM as this Discussion Paper moves forward.
MAC members suggested several subfield additions and editorial revisions, including adding subfields $3 and $0 for the 341 field, and also adding a first indicator blank (i.e., #) for "no information provided".
This will return as a proposal.
Responses to Discussion Paper Questions:
6.1. – Majority of MAC approved. Kelly McGrath (University of Oregon) expressed the view that, besides the accessibility issues outlined by the paper, there was a need to find a way of linking close captioning information to the language of the content.
6.2. – The addition of a 532 field to keep accessibility data distinct from other MARC record content was agreed upon. Jay Weitz (OCLC) noted that historically some accessibility information had been recorded in the 546 field (Language Note) and the 538 field (System Details Note). Therefore, CCM and OLAC may want to examine legacy 538 and 546 fields for accessibility-related metadata. It could be possible to map such legacy data into a new 532 field.
6.3. – The suggestion that 007/02 could be redefined to carry accessibility information was withdrawn on the basis that the field length would need to be expanded from two to three character positions for those categories consisting of only positions 00 and 01.
6.4. – There was general agreement that conflicts should not arise between recording accessibility information in field 341 and content type information in field 336. The context provided by field and subfield labeling in field 341 should make it apparent that the tag carries distinct information.
6.5. – There was general agreement the 341 field should try to make use of other existing thesauri before attempting to create a new one. Kelly McGrath (University of Oregon) commented that an existing vocabulary cited by the paper (W3C WebSchemas/Accessibility vocabulary) appeared to be very web oriented and that it may not cover some types of tactile content.
MAC Midwinter Discussion and Action taken: General agreement on the need for this among MAC members.
This will return as a proposal.
Responses to Discussion Paper Questions:
5.1. – Majority of MAC approved the principle that field 777 could be used to record relationships between manifestations which have been issued together.
5.2. – Majority of MAC agreed that there was a use case for field 777 in the context of expressing intellectual relationships between resources which have been issued together (i.e. reflecting the relationships expressed in RDA Appendix J.2.5.).
5.3. – Thurstan Young (BL) encouraged CCM to consider the Accompanying Expression Relationships in RDA Appendix J.3.5 as further examples of “Issued with” relationships between monographs. Additional display constants were not considered necessary.
5.4. – Subfield $i was considered sufficiently flexible to record labels for relationships in field 777. No new values in indicator 2 were deemed necessary.
5.5. – Majority of MAC agreed that broadening the scope of field 777 was worthwhile on the basis of offering a greater consistency of application between monograph and serial description.
5.6. – MAC was not receptive to adding subfields $r, $u, and $z to fields 760 and 762 without first seeing applicable use cases. However, if use cases are established, then these could be added to any proposal which follows on from this discussion paper.
MAC Midwinter Discussion: Thurstan Young (BL) indicated the British community’s primary concern with this paper is that it may introduce additional inconsistencies within a block of MARC fields that is widely maintained and widely shared. He added that the definition and scope of fields 600, 610, 611, and 630 specify that these fields are “to provide access according to established subject cataloging principles and guidelines”; the definition and scope of field 650 specifies that this field is “to provide access according to generally accepted thesaurus-building rules.”
Several MAC members expressed understanding for the use case presented by the German National Library (DNB). John Myers (CC:DA) noted that, while the German approach to subject cataloging ran contrary to the Anglo-American tradition, it is not the business of MAC to mandate international practices; he added that best practice guidelines could be formulated in order to mitigate any negative consequences of defining subfield $5 across the 6XX. However, the legacy usage of subfield $5 within MARC is so strong and persistent that there was widespread reservation regarding this proposed re-use of the subfield in a shared cataloging environment, especially within a block of fields (i.e., 6XX) that most MARC users consider intrinsic to the overall resource description.
Elizabeth O’Keefe (former rep. - ARLIS/NA) wondered if it would instead be possible to record this information within a different subfield. However, at this point there is only one other undefined subfield available (i.e., $1) and 2017-DP01 contains a proposed usage of that subfield. Subfield $2 could be used, either containing the value "local", or if it contained the source code 'swd' or 'gnd' followed by punctuation, then by the individual library symbol. Subfield $i may be available throughout the 6XX block of fields, but MAC expressed some concern that subfield $i may be needed to record Relationship Information based on the work/subject relationships set out in RDA appendix M. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) noted that, apart from field 600, subfield $q is available in the 6XX tags and that this might be purposed to record local policy application rather than subfield $5; although in 600 this would conflict with subfield $q "Fuller form of name".
MAC Action: German National Library will consider the possibilities of using a subfield other than $5 for recording local policy application. DNB will also consider the possibility of using the 883 field (Machine-generated Metadata Provenance) and its subfield $q "Generation agency" for this information, employing subfield $8 to provide 6XX linkage. Field 883 will have to be broadened in scope, as it is defined for fully or partially machine-generated data, not manually provided data.
This will likely return as a follow-up discussion paper.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 03/20/2017 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |