The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Marc Truitt, Chair LITA University of Alberta Libraries Renette Davis ALCTS University of Chicago Wei Jeng-Chu RUSA Worcester Public Library Ellen Siegel Kovacic ALCTS Hebrew Union College JIR Nathan D. M. Robertson LITA University of Maryland Jacqueline Samples ALCTS North Carolina State University Adam Schiff ALCTS University of Washington Stephanie Schmitt LITA Zayed University Laura Snyder RUSA University of Alberta
Ex-Officio Members:
Corine Deliot British Library Sally H. McCallum Library of Congress Marg Stewart Library and Archives Canada
MARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Jim Alberts MLA Cornell University Everett Allgood CC:DA New York University Sherman Clarke VRA New York University John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Rich Greene OCLC OCLC Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Robert Hall PLA Concord Free Public Library Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota Maureen Killeen A-G A-G Canada, Ltd. Gail Lewis MicroLIF Coughlan Publishing Kelley McGrath OLAC Ball State University Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Morgan Library and Museum Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine George Prager AALL New York University Law Libraries Tina Shrader NAL National Agricultural Library
Recorder:
Jacqueline Radebaugh LC Library of Congress
Other Attendees:
Jim Agenbroad Library of Congress, Retired
Rich Aldred Haverford College
Karen Anspach Karen Anspach Consulting
John Attig Pennsylvania State University
Julianne Beall Library of Congress
Tadeja Bresar IZUM, Slovenia
Bill Carney OCLC
Karen Coyle Independent Consultant
Carroll Davis Library of Congress
Stacey Devine Northwestern University
Kathy Glennan University of Maryland
Diane Vizine-Goetz OCLC
David Goldberg NAL
Rebecca Green OCLC
Christel Hengel Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Reinhold Heuvelmann Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
William Jones New York University
Cornelia Katz Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum
Baden-Wuerttemberg
Judy Kuhagen Library of Congress
Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada
Bob Lesh Northwestern University
Pia Leth National Library of Sweden
Elizabeth Lilker New York University
John Maier Pratt Institute
Giles Martin OCLC
Jan Militello Bound To Stay Bound Books
Joan Mitchell OCLC
Michael Panzer OCLC
Bonnie Parks MIT
Regina Reynolds Library of Congress
Charles Riley Yale University
Vicki Sipe University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
Ann Sitkin Harvard Law Library
Gary Strawn Northwestern University
Jay Weitz OCLC
Marie Whited Law Library of Congress
Matthew Wise New York University
Martha Yee UCLA Film and Television Archive
Johan Zeeman OCLC
The minutes do not necessarily record the discussion in the order in which it occurred. Material has been rearranged to increase comprehension and to collocate items related to specific topics for clarity. In MARBI minutes, a "vote of the Committee" indicates a poll of those MARBI Committee members appointed by one of the three sponsoring divisions, rather than persons of a particular constituency who are members of the MARC Advisory Committee or other participants. These votes are a formal representation of the MARBI Committee views. The Chair rarely votes unless to break a tie. The term "straw vote" indicates a poll of anyone in attendance. Such votes are advisory and are not binding upon the Committee. Where no vote totals are recorded and a MARBI position is stated, the position has been determined by consensus.
Abbreviations used in these minutes include:
Marc Truitt (LITA), MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. The proposed agenda was adopted and the minutes of the previous meeting (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-07.html) were accepted by a voice vote.
Marc Truitt (LITA), MARBI Chair, reported that Stephanie Schmitt (LITA) will be appointed the new Chair of MARBI in 2008. The committee congratulated her on this achievement.
Proposal No. 2007-04: Use of field 520 for content advice statements in the MARC 21 bibliographic format
Corine Deliot (BL) introduced the paper which proposed coding field 520 (Summary, etc.) for content advice statements in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. It also proposed defining subfield $c (Assigning agency) to identify the agency that supplied the advice, subfield $2 (Source) for the source code of the classification system used and an additional first indicator value to signify content advice information.
Kelley McGrath (OLAC) stated that because the OLAC cataloging policy stipulates the use of field 521 (Target audience note) for content advice statements, she was concerned that content advice information may be split into two fields: fields 520 (Summary, etc.) and 521 (Target audience note). Kelley McGrath suggested that examples should be added to the documentation that illustrate coding both fields 520 (Summary ,etc.) and 521 (Target audience note) with content advice information.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked whether the agency providing the content advice could be a journal or newspaper. For example: the Washington Post Family Filmgoer publishes content advice information. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that the name of subfield $c (Assigning agency) could be generalized to include entities such as journals and newspapers. The committee agreed.
Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with one amendment: The name of subfield $c (Assigning agency) will be generalized to include entities such as journals and newspapers. Stephanie Schmitt (LITA) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
Discussion Paper No. 2007-DP06: Representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification System in MARC 21 Formats
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced the paper. The Dewey Decimal editorial team is converting from a proprietary representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification system into one based on the MARC 21 formats for classification and authority data. The new Dewey Editorial Support System will support new models of representation, efficient editorial operations, interaction with translations, seamless delivery of DDC data to demonstration and research projects, version control, and derivative products.
The Dewey Decimal editorial team would like the data in the new Dewey Editorial Support System (ESS) to be available in a format supported by international standards, and one that supports flexible data representation. It also would like the data to be more fully integrated with data in OCLC's WorldCat system and in its related authority files, all of which are encoded in MARC 21. In addition, the system is being developed by people familiar with the MARC 21 bibliographic and authority formats and are using tools based on the MARC 21 formats. The record format used for entries in the schedules, tables, and Manual will be based on an enhanced version of the MARC 21 Format for Classification Data. The record format used for Relative Index (RI) heading records and records for mapped headings from other vocabularies will be based on an enhanced version of the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data.
The German and Austrian library communities are converting to MARC 21 from its MAB (Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken) format and have proposed several changes to the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data related to the representation of DDC numbers. The Dewey Decimal editorial team and the team from the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) have agreed to work together on a proposal to address improvements to the representation of Dewey Decimal information across the MARC 21 formats.
Section 2.1: Identification of external table numbers
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced section 2.1 which recommended adding the MARC 21 classification format representation of external table notation to the MARC 21 bibliographic format to support the identification of and access to external table information, as well as the recording of component parts of numbers.
There was no discussion about Section 2.1 from the committee. The change should be presented in a proposal.
Section 2.2: Identification of internal add table numbers
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced section 2.2 which recommended adding an extension to the MARC 21 classification format to provide a separate MARC record for each entry of an internal add table in field 153 (Classification number). Section 2.2 proposed representing the internal add table notation within field 153 (Classification number) using the existing subfields $a (Classification number--single number or beginning number of span) and $c (Classification number--ending number of span) both for the number or span at which the internal add table is located and for the table notation itself.
Section 2.2 also recommended defining a new subfield $y (Internal add table identification) in field 153 (Classification number) for the internal add table number immediately before the add table notation. Subfield $y (Internal add table identification) will contain the value "1" for the first internal add table at that location and values "2," "3," etc. for additional internal add tables at the same location.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that the Section 2.2 recommendations may cause subfield $a (Classification number--single number or beginning number of span) to be used in two different ways. Giles Martin (OCLC) answered that subfield $a (Classification number--single number or beginning number of span) is defined by the sequence of the subfields in field 153 (Classification number). For example, if subfield $a (Classification number--single number or beginning number of span) is coded before the proposed subfield $y (Internal add table identification), it represents a subject and if subfield $a (Classification number--single number or beginning number of span) is coded after subfield $y (Internal add table identification), it represents a different subject.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that in the Library of Congress Classification system (LCC), subfield $a (Classification number--single number or beginning number of span) is not repeated (Subfield $a is repeatable in the MARC 21 classification format standard, however). Therefore, the entire number is recorded in one occurrence of subfield $a (Classification number--single number or beginning number of span). For the Library of Congress Classification system (LCC), separate table records for each notation may be created for internal tables (or they may be included within the record for the number under which they appear). In these cases, the location of the table and then a slash 1, 2, 3, etc., is recorded in subfield $z (Table identification).
Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that in the Dewey Decimal Classification system, the internal add tables are referred by the number or range in which they occur. Mr. Martin (OCLC) also reminded the committee that the Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification systems are very different types of classification systems. What works with one system, may not work with the other.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) expressed concern about how to differentiate the Dewey Decimal Classification-only MARC data elements in the MARC 21 documentation. She suggested that the descriptions of Dewey Decimal Classification-only data elements contain a statement like "this data element is used only for the Dewey Decimal Classification system."
Bill Jones (New York University) asked why the proposed subfield $y (Internal add table identification) must be repeatable. Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that there may be several instances of internal table references in the same field. Subfield $z (Table identification) should also be repeatable for there could be several internal add table numbers within a field.
Bill Jones (New York University) then asked if the Dewey editorial team plans to record number spans in subfield $z (Table identification). Giles Martin (OCLC) stated no.
Section 2.3: Inclusion of component parts of numbers in bibliographic records
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced section 2.3 which recommended representing the component parts of Dewey Decimal numbers using field 765 (Synthesized Number Components) in the MARC 21 classification format. It proposed using the structure of field 765 (Synthesized Number Components) as the basis for a new field in the MARC 21 bibliographic format that can be used when importing or exporting data in a bibliographic record. The Dewey Decimal editorial team suggested:
Bill Jones (New York University) asked why subfield $b (Base number) in field 085 (Synthesized DDC number components) is repeatable. Giles Martin (OCLC) maintained that subfield $b (Base number) should not be repeated. It should also not be repeatable in field 765 (Synthesized number components) of the classification format. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered that all of the subfields in field 085 (Synthesized DDC number components) are repeatable, except subfield $6 (Linkage). Making subfields repeatable creates flexibility in coding.
Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) stated that subfield $c (Number where instructions are found--ending number of span) ends the span that subfield $a (Number where instructions are found--single number or beginning number of span) starts. However, one example in the discussion paper contains more than one subfield $c (Number where instructions are found--ending number of span), but only one subfield $a (Number where instructions are found--single number or beginning number of span).
Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that subfield $c (Number where instructions are found--ending number of span) can apply to any number in the field. Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) agreed. Subfields $a (Number where instructions are found--single number or beginning number of span) and $c (Number where instructions are found--ending number of span) should be bound together, as currently defined. Subfield $c (Number where instructions are found--ending number of span) is the ending number of span regardless of where the span is found. It was suggested that the name be simply, "Ending number of span."
Bill Jones (New York University) asked if subfield $w (Table identification--internal subarrangement or add table) signifies the beginning of a span in field 765 (Synthesized number components). Giles Martin (OCLC) answered that subfield $w (Table identification--internal subarrangement or add table) could be coded as either a single number or a span. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that the definition of $w (Table identification--internal subarrangement or add table) could be changed so that it may indicate a span. Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that the Dewey editorial team must study field 765 (Synthesized number components) further.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that if the suggested changes are approved for the bibliographic format, they would introduce a new way to code subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number). A new link code may be needed.
Section 2.4: Classification number edition and source information in the bibliographic format
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced section 2.4 which recommended that the edition information contained in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) subfield $2 (Edition number) should be expanded to include the language of edition. In addition, the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek wishes to document the agency assigning the number in the same field as the number itself. The second indicator identifies LC/non-LC as the assigning agency. In the case where the assigning agency is not the Library of Congress, subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) may be coded to identify the assigning institution. Corine Deliot (BL) stated that subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) has a consistent meaning in all five MARC 21 formats. Section 2.4 is proposing a different meaning of subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies). Giles Martin (OCLC) suggested that another subfield be chosen for this information.
For edition information, the Dewey Decimal editorial team proposed developing and maintaining a registry of edition identifiers in which each edition would have a standard representation in subfield $2 (Edition number).
Section 2.5: Designations for optional numbers in the bibliographic format
Section 2.6: Multiple numbers in the bibliographic format
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced sections 2.5 and 2.6 together because they are related.
Section 2.5 discussed provisions for designating optional numbers in the MARC 21 bibliographic, authority, and community information formats. Many optional numbers are already coded in existing bibliographic records as standard Dewey Decimal numbers, but no special designation exists to identify optional numbers.
Section 2.6 discussed how the MARC 21 bibliographic format already supports the addition of multiple Dewey Decimal numbers in bibliographic records. Field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) is repeatable, and subfield $a (Classification number) within field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) is also repeatable. The current convention is to use a single field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) for numbers assigned from the same Dewey Decimal Classification edition cited in subfield $2 (Edition number). The Library of Congress also routinely adds optional Dewey numbers (e.g., notation "B" for biographical works) in addition to the standard Dewey number in successive $a (Classification number) subfields in the same 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) field.
There is general interest in providing multiple numbers for works with aspects in more than one Dewey Decimal category. For example, the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek is interested in adding table notation in a separate subfield where further addition to the full Dewey Decimal Classification number is not permitted by the rules. German virtual libraries are interested in assigning partial numbers instead of undertaking the process of number building.
To support these additional access points, the Dewey Decimal editorial team recommended the following actions:
The Dewey Decimal editorial team proposed defining subfields $m (Standard or optional designation) and $o (Primary or access designation) in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format that can be used to indicate the nature of the number in subfield $a (Classification number) in relation to the edition cited in subfield $2 (Edition number).
Gail Lewis (MicroLIF) expressed concern about using field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) for different purposes and changing the coding practices in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number). There is currently a lot of legacy data made up of multiple Dewey Decimal numbers contained in multiple occurrences of subfield $a (Classification number) of field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number). Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that records with multiple occurrences of subfield $a (Classification number) in one field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) must be "cleaned up" to conform to the new practice.
Corine Deliot (BL) stated that in the discussion paper, the use of field 085 (Number components) for direct assignment of component parts of numbers is considered. She asked if the Dewey Decimal editorial team is still considering using field 085 (Number components). Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that field 085 (Number components) will have decomposition numbers of the field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) number. The 085 (Number components) information is tied to another number. All of the numbers will be used for information retrieval and/or shelf location.
Section 2.7: Segmentation information in the Classification Format
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced section 2.7 which discussed defining fields 653 (Segmented Classification Number) and 654 (Segmentation Instruction) in the MARC 21 classification format for segmentation information. These new fields will encode the legacy Dewey Editorial Support System's seg and set fields.
There was no discussion about Section 2.7 from the committee. The change should be presented in a proposal.
Section 2.8: Encoding topic information in classification format fields
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced section 2.8 which discussed defining subfield $t (Topic information) for topics named in examples in the classification fields 680 (Scope note), 683 (Application instruction note), and 761 (Add Or divide like instructions). Subfield $t (Topic information) is needed to distinguish topical information from text that remains the same for particular kinds of fields, regardless of topic, and to enable automated identification of the meaning of Dewey Decimal Classification numbers given in examples.
There was no discussion about Section 2.8 from the committee. The change should be presented in a proposal.
Section 2.9: Number hierarchy
Giles Martin (OCLC) introduced section 2.9 which recommended defining a new subfield $e (Classification number hierarchy -- single number or beginning of a span) in field 153 (Classification number) to link to the next number or number span upwards in the classification number hierarchy. Subfield $e (Classification number hierarchy -- single number or beginning of a span) would provide a link to the appropriate headings and the appropriate notes with hierarchical force. It would also indirectly provide for links to the downward hierarchy. Currently, hierarchy is provided by captions.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked why there were no field tags in the section 2.9 examples. Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that the field tags in the section 2.9 examples should be field 153 (Classification number).
Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) stated that defining subfield $e (Classification number hierarchy--single number or beginning number of span) in field 153 (Classification number) is redundant with the full caption minus the last element. Giles Martin (OCLC) agreed.
Section 3: Summary of changes to field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number)
Corine Deliot (BL) expressed concern about coding partial numbers in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number). How would a user know when 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) contains both a partial and full number? The British Library would like to make a clear distinction between full and partial numbers in field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number). Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that this issue must be sorted out in different systems. There is also a potential legacy data problem that may lead to clean up jobs.
Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) recommended adding complex information to fields that no one yet codes like field 085 (Synthesized DDC Number Components), instead of adding it to a field that is highly used, like field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number). Giles Martin (OCLC) reminded the group that the Dewey Decimal editorial team would like to add subfields to field 082 (Dewey Decimal Classification number) to deal with optional numbers. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) stated that adding subfields $m (Standard or optional designation) and $o (Primary or access designation) are acceptable, however, she did not think that any other subfields should be added.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that new subfields could be added to field 765 (Synthesized number components) because it has never been used. Giles Martin (OCLC) agreed, however, he stated that the Dewey Decimal editorial team does not prefer this solution.
Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) asked if OCLC is planning to make Dewey Decimal information encoded in the MARC 21 formats available to the public. Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that it will be made available to translators and to institutions owning licenses to the information. Joan Mitchell (OCLC) stated that OCLC would like to move to the MARC format because it is an international format and it is flexible enough to convert to different formats. OCLC does plan to make its MARC records available to the public.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Marc Truitt (LITA), MARBI Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves.
RDA Report
Marg Stewart (LAC), speaking on the behalf of the JSC (Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA [Resource Description and Access]) presented the RDA Report to the group. Ms. Stewart (LAC) explained that Chapter 3 is currently up for review by the library community until July 16, 2007. Drafts for Chapters 6 and 7 have also been posted for review. Comments about Chapters 6 and 7 are due on September 17, 2007. At this time, the JSC (Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) is working through all of the comments it received for Chapters 1, 2 and 4. Drafts and other RDA documents are posted on the RDA website at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html.
Marg Stewart (LAC) recommended that the committee review the RDA Prospectus, which is a useful document that gives context to the work that those directly involved in RDA development will be undertaking in the upcoming months and years. Ms. Stewart (LAC) also reported that the JSC (Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) has written a series of documents to guide content development. These are:
The RDA content development schedule is tight. Consultants to the JSC are working to complete the RDA standard on time. RDA will be first released at the beginning of 2009. Although the implementation date is June 2009, Ms. Stewart (LAC) stressed that the key piece to implementation is the readiness of system vendors.
Currently a RDA to MARC mapping is being developed and will become the cornerstone of a MARBI discussion paper that will be presented in January, 2008. This paper will then lead to a MARBI proposal that will be presented in June 2008.
Proposal No. 2007-05: Definition of 022 Subfields for Recording the Linking ISSN in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats
Regina Reynolds (LC) introduced the paper which discussed the need to record the newly defined Linking ISSN (ISSN-L) in MARC 21 bibliographic, authority, and holdings records. The ISSN-L is an identifier intended to provide a mechanism to group the various medium versions of a continuing resource. Its eight digits will be identical to medium-specific ISSNs, however, the ISSN-L will have an identifying prefix. The paper proposed defining new subfields for the Linking ISSN (subfield $l) and canceled occurrences of the ISSN-L (subfield $m) in field 022 (ISSN).
According to Regina Reynolds (LC), the ISSN-L will be implemented in early 2008. In order for ISSN users to know which ISSN-L pertains to which medium-specific ISSN, the ISSN International Centre will make a table available which lists each ISSN-L and the one or more medium-specific ISSNs that are collocated by that ISSN-L. The ISSN International Centre will also issue a table of medium-specific ISSNs and their corresponding ISSN-Ls.
George Prager (AALL) asked if libraries will be able to access ISSN-Ls from OCLC. Rich Greene (OCLC) answered that OCLC is very interested in implementing the ISSN-L. It plans to study the ISSN Centre's table of correspondence and thus, eventually make ISSN-L data available to its customers.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal. Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion.
Discussion Paper 2007-DP05: Data elements needed to ascertain copyright facts
Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) introduced the paper which proposed encoding information that would be needed in a MARC 21 record to be able to ascertain facts concerning copyright status. This is particularly important in the digital world where resources are accessed outside of the context of the originating archive. The paper suggested using a single field to contain all copyright information so that institutions may delete it they do not want to utilize the information. Ms. Coyle (Independent consultant) explained that the examples in the discussion paper are not in a standard format.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) asked if users will also make use of bibliographic field 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) when/if a copyright facts field is defined. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) stated that terms governing use (field 540) are usually coded for archival material when there is a donor agreement. Copyright information is based on established copyright law.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) asked about how to account for fair use. Karen Coyle (Independent Consultant) stated that fair use is an exception to copyright laws. Section 106 (fair use) is only found in the U.S. copyright laws, however, other countries' copyright laws may also include a fair use clause. There is no intention in the discussion paper to use a copyright field as an interpreter for copyright law. It will be used as an effort to record copyright information of a resource that may help users make use decisions. In most cases, the copyright status subfield will not be used except for stating unchanging status, such as public domain.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) reported that in the scope note of field 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note), copyright is used as an example of when to code the field. He asked if the scope of field 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) needs to be revised if a field for copyright facts is defined. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) responded that the scope note of field 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) should be revised so that copyright data is not recorded in two different fields, if a field is defined.
George Prager (AALL) asked if some of the subfields in field 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) will be made obsolete if a field for copyright facts is defined. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) stated that none of subfields in field 540 (Terms governing use and reproduction note) and the proposed copyright facts field should overlap.
Corine Deliot (BL) reported that the British Library has been consulting with its constituencies regarding this discussion paper and received contributions from the BIC Bibliographic Standards Group, the group responsible for the maintenance of MARC 21 in the UK, and from colleagues from the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance (LACA), a body which monitors and lobbies in the UK and Europe for copyright and related rights. There was broad agreement that it would be useful to record some copyright facts in the MARC 21 bibliographic record. These include death dates of creators/contributors, links to other sources of copyright information, and copyright status which will not change over time. However, Corine Deliot (BL) raised concerns about accuracy of copyright information (due to the law being different in different jurisdictions) and issues of maintenance of copyright information. She was also concerned that the discussion paper showed insufficient awareness of the multiplicity of rights, such as moral rights (rights relating to the subject of the work rather than to the creator). Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that moral rights are based on privacy rights and that privacy rights are outside of the paper's scope.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) asked if the committee should discuss recording performance rights in the MARC 21 bibliographic record. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that recording performance rights information would be very difficult. CDL decided that copyright is the easiest type of rights information to record. Kelley McGrath (OLAC) stated that performance rights are item specific. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) reiterated that the committee should only focus on copyright information at this time.
Marg Stewart (LAC) expressed concern that copyright information is very dynamic. For example, copyright status and copyright holder information may change over time. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) agreed stating that other information in a MARC record may also change. For example, the status of published and unpublished manuscripts may change over time.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) also reported that the U.S. National Library of Medicine is concerned that copyright information should not be added to the MARC bibliographic record because it is too dynamic. She suggested that MARBI define a subfield that contains a link to copyright information available outside of the MARC record. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that copyright information is not located anywhere on the Internet. Since 1986, U.S. copyright holders do not need to apply for formal copyright. Ms. Coyle (Independent consultant) did report that there is copyright renewal information available, but linking to this information in the MARC record may be difficult.
Marc Truitt (LITA, MARBI Chair) suggested that the group discuss the questions contained in the end of the discussion paper.
Question 5.1: Is there a need to include more complete information to determine copyright restrictions in the MARC record or can this be accomplished by other means outside the format?
Sally McCallum (LC) asked Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) about what the California Digital Library (CDL) found when it worked with copyright facts. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that it is currently too soon to evaluate how useful this information is and how hard it is to maintain. Rebecca Guenther (LC) then asked if the CDL is including copyright fact information with its archival material. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied yes.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) asked whether reference librarians will have to deal with copyright inquiries any longer if copyright information is added to the MARC 21 bibliographic record. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that the MARC record would contain copyright holder contact information. Having copyright holder contact information in the MARC record may be very useful in directing users to rights information. In the CDL, for example, almost every record contains information that directs the user to a particular institution for more information. Unfortunately, the community does not have any rules on how to record this information.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) asked if copyright facts are within the scope of RDA. Marg Stewart (LAC) replied that the JSC is currently looking into how to record rights data.
Corine Deliot (BL) stated that although the METS record contains different types of metadata, for example, descriptive and rights, the MARC community should not mix these different types of metadata in the bibliographic record. Likewise, including copyright facts in the MARC record may require a lot of maintenance to keep it accurate and up-to-date. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) stated that including rights metadata in the METS record requires maintenance, as well.
Stephanie Schmitt (LITA) suggested including a disclaimer stating that copyright information in the MARC 21 record may not be accurate. Ms. Schmitt (LITA) also reported that copyright may be transferred when the original holder dies. Based on the Berne convention, the duration of copyright is death date for creator, plus a certain number of years.
Sally McCallum (LC) stated that the committee has discussed in length about the dynamic quality of copyright information. However, there are other issues that should be considered, as well. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) agreed stating that libraries catalog at the manifestation level and copyright facts may be at the work and expression levels.
Question 5.2: Is field 540 the most appropriate field for this information? Is there an overlap with field 506? Or, would it be preferable to define an entirely new field for all copyright information instead of using 540 with additional new subfields?
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) answered that defining a new field would be preferable. The majority of the committee agreed.
Question 5.3: How should date ranges be formatted? ISO 8601 generally suggests using a slash between the first and last date (although it gives other options). Should the format specify the encoding? ISO 8601 also has no way to handle unknown dates, so there may be a need to specify conventions.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that the ISO 8601 standard for recording dates is not adequate to record copyright date information. Ms. Guenther (LC) suggested that perhaps the MARC documentation could supply information on how to encode copyright date information until there is a new standard to encode such dates as questionable dates and open dates.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) added that the copyright date must be understandable to the user, as well. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that library systems can translate the date into something that is readable to the user.
Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) reported that in the North Carolina State University's photographic archive, date ranges have been used and have been proven to be very helpful for bibliographic access. Sherman Clarke (VRA) added that the VRA Core includes information on how to record circa dates.
Marc Truitt (LITA, MARBI Chair) summed up the discussion by stating that if copyright information is added to the MARC record, date conventions will be needed.
Question 5.4: How should controlled values be handled? For instance, it may be desirable to use controlled terms in the subfield for publication status (published, unpublished, unknown) and in the subfield for copyright status (e.g. under copyright, public domain, unknown). It would be ambiguous to use $2 to specify a controlled list for this information, since there would be two subfields and controlled lists. Is it important that controlled terms be used? If so, can the format specify what the terms should be? Would an indicator value be better to enforce enumerated values?
Jim Alberts (MLA) suggested that using controlled values would be helpful in ensuring accurate recording of copyright information. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) agreed that if such lists exist, the MARC community should utilize them. Corine Deliot (BL) reported that a group in the UK has created a controlled list of copyright terms. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that the group needs community agreement on what words to use. For example, field 583 (Action note) contains a controlled list of terms used in its subfields.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested that a coded value may be easier to translate. However, Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) did not agree. Sherman Clarke (VRA) then suggested using an indicator value.
Question 5.5: How can the source of the information and its currency be recorded? This will be difficult because each subfield could have a different source and different date when determined. Or is it unnecessary?
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested repeating subfield $n (Source of information) in the proposed 543 field with each different source of information. Although the proposed subfield $n (Source of information) is not repeatable, Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that it applies to the entire field.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) suggested that when one revises the copyright data in the proposed copyright facts field, one must also change the date in subfield $o (Statement date) and then take responsibility for the data in the field. However, Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) suggested repeating the proposed copyright field every time it is updated. Institutions can then display the most current information based on the date in subfield $o (Statement date).
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) was concerned that if the proposed copyright field was repeated every time a change was made to the copyright information, lack of currency and credible sources may be problems. However, Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) countered that she doubted many changes to the field would occur. Likewise, repeating the proposed copyright field every time something changes provides a history of a resource's copyright status.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that some members of the community think that it would be useful to have a subfield for type of material in the proposed copyright field. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) agreed that this may be useful, however, type of material information may also be found in the Leader, 007 and 008 fields. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested adding subfield $z to the proposed copyright field for a general note. Libraries could then record type of material in it if they found that the information is needed at the field level.
Later, after the meeting, it was determined that the proposed copyright field tag 543 is obsolete in the MARC 21 bibliographic format (it was defined for Solicitation information note) and thus, another field must be proposed to contain copyright facts.
Proposal No. 2007-06: Changes for the German and Austrian conversion to MARC 21
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) explained that the German and Austrian library communities are converting to MARC 21 from the Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken (MAB, Automated Library Exchange Format). Proposal 2007-06 described additions to MARC 21 that the German and Austrian library communities need to support their existing data transfer activities. It is divided into 13 subparts. Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced each subpart separately so that the committee could discuss each section in depth.
Proposal 2007-06/1: Authority record control number subfield in the MARC 21 bibliographic, classification, and community information formats
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a subfield for the authority record control number (subfield $0) to main, added and subject access entry fields. The control number is for the authority record of the heading in the field.
Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that OCLC supports this proposal. He would like, however, to add the 4XX (Series statement) and 8XX (Series added entry) fields to the proposal. Mr. Greene (OCLC) also stated that the part of the control number that refers to an institution actually refers to a file. An institution may maintain several different authority files.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) agreed to adding subfield $0 (Authority record control number) to the 4XX (Series statement) and 8XX (Series added entry) fields. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) clarified that only fields 440 (Series statement/Added entry-Title) and 800-830 (Series added entry) should contain subfield $0 (Authority record control number) . The group agreed.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) stated that the U.S. National Library of Medicine is concerned about subfield $0 (Authority record control number) being repeatable. She asked Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) what one would do when a heading changed in one file and not in another. How would one maintain this? Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) answered that if an authority record is canceled, one must update the control number in subfield $0 (Authority record control number) . In Germany and Austria, authority control is done cooperatively.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with two amendments: Subfield $0 (Authority record control number) will also be defined in fields 440 (Series statement/Added entry-Title) and 800-830 (Series added entry) and repeatability of the subfield should be studied before its implementation. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
2007-06/2: Bibliographic record control number subfield in series entry fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a subfield for the bibliographic record control number (subfield $w) for the series set in the series added entry fields (800-830). The control number is for the bibliographic record of the series heading in the field.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) asked if defining subfield $w (Bibliographic record control number) for the series set record to the bibliographic fields 440 (Series statement/Added entry-Title) and 800-830 (Series added entry) would be used for weak titles. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) replied that the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek codes field 773 (Host item entry) subfield $w (Control subfield) for weak titles.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written, although it was suggested that the subfield name be generalized to exclude the phrase, "for the series set record." Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion.
2007-06/3: Authority record control number in the 260 field of the MARC 21 Authority format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a subfield (subfield $0) to authority field 260 (Complex See Reference - Subject) for the authority record control number of any established heading that appears in the field.
There was no discussion about Section 2007-06/3 from the committee.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion.
2007/06-4: Normalization of numbers and names in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed adding a subfield (subfield $y) to several bibliographic fields to carry normalized forms of part names and numbers, series numbers, and edition numbers. According to Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB), the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek uses an algorithm for creating normalized forms of numbers and names. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek will publish and make an English version of its normalization algorithm available in the future, in the case that others may want to use it. According to Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB), normalized strings simplifies differentiation between manifestations.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) asked why field 440 (Series statement/Added entry-Title) is not listed in proposal. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) replied that he did not think that subfield $y (Volume/sequential designation in normalized form) should be defined in field 440 (Series statement/Added entry-Title) or the 7XX (Added entry) fields. However, he thought that it should be defined in field 250 (Edition statement).
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) asked Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) why one would want to normalize subfield $p (Name of part/section of a work) in the title fields (20X-24X). It is not sequentially-arranged information. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) replied that subfield $p (Name of part/section of a work) contains information that is not counted in any other way. For example, "Introductory volume" should be placed at the top of a list. It should not be alphabetically arranged. Another example is "Index." This would go at the bottom of a list.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) suggested that normalized forms of names and numbers be treated as local data because there are no established standards for normalizing forms of names and numbers. Rich Greene (OCLC) agreed stating that OCLC would strip occurrences of subfield $y (Volume/sequential designation in normalized form) out of its master records because there is currently no way to use the data.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that in the United States, catalogers have been "sloppy" about normalizing series numbering. If subfield $y (Volume/sequential designation in normalized form) is defined, it could be useful to U.S. catalogers. Sally McCallum (LC) replied that in order for this information to be useful to libraries, there must be a standard way of normalizing names and numbers.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested that libraries coding subfield $y (Volume/sequential designation in normalized form) could add a prefix to the data with the organization code to identify the sorting form. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) asked if the identifier would be located in each field containing subfield $y (Volume/sequential designation in normalized form) or would it be at the record level. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) answered that the data in field 003 (Control number identifier) would identify what algorithm system was used. Bill Jones (New York University), however, stated that field 003 (Control number identifier) does not show which institutions has made changes to a record since it was created.
Laura Snyder (RUSA) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Stephanie Schmitt (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 0-8. Thus, the proposal did not pass.
2007-6/5: Codes for multivolume monograph record levels in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced this section which proposed establishing codes in Leader/19 (Multivolume monograph record level) to enable indication of the level of a multivolume record within its bibliographic hierarchy. Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) explained that in German and Austrian libraries, a record is created for each volume regardless of title, subject or type of material. Therefore, a distinction between the set record for a multivolume work and a single volume record of a multivolume work is needed at the record level. This distinction enables efficiencies for activities that use the different types of records. The set record is mainly used for acquisition functions, while the single volume records are needed mainly for lending and interlibrary loan activities. The distinction between single volume records that contain strong titles and those with only weak titles is also needed at the record level. This information is used in systems for record level-based processing of the different types of records. A single volume with a strong title can be handled as any other one-part monograph. In contrast, a single volume without a strong title is distinctive only by combining field 245 (Title statement) subfields $a (Title) and $n (Number of part/section of a work) and $p (Name of part/section of a work).
Susan Moore (MAGERT) stated that members of MAGERT support defining Leader/19 as "Multivolume monograph record level" because it would improve the identification of map sets containing weak titles or no titles at all. Jim Alberts (MLA) also stated that Leader/19 (Multivolume monograph record level) may be useful to the music community.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that defining Leader/19 as "Multivolume monograph record level" is too user specific and not general enough to be used by the entire MARC community. Sally McCallum (LC) replied that the proposal's goal is to differentiate multipart monographs. Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) does not provide enough information for this.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that to allow other communities to take advantage of Leader/19 (Multivolume monograph record level), codes b and c could be named "Independent title" and "Dependent title." Mr. Clarke (VRA) also suggested renaming codes b and c as "Resource independent title" and "Resource dependent title."
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with one amendment: To facilitate use for non-book materials, the code value names should be made more generic. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
2007-06/6: Nature of contents for offprint in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed establishing a code for offprints in field 008/24-27 (Nature of contents) for Books. He explained that there has been discussion about coding field 008/23 (Form of item) instead, however, the new code for Offprint could overlap with the codes currently defined in field 008/23 (Form of item).
Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) stated that art libraries process many offprints and thus, the art library community is interested in establishing a code for offprints in field 008. However, field 008/24-27 (Nature of Contents) is for content, and offprints refer to a mode of printing. Ms. O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) suggested that instead of a defining a code in field 008/24-27 (Nature of Contents), the German and Austrian libraries should consider coding a linking entry field, for example, field 787 (Nonspecific Relationship Entry), which would allow one to encode the volume and number of the offprint.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) stated that offprints are a form of issuance. He suggested coding field 655 (Index Term - Genre/Form). Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that the offprint distinction should be coded data so that it is language independent.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that there are other forms of issuance, like preprints and post prints, that should be coded. Mr. Clarke (VRA) suggested that a more flexible name and broad definition could account for these cases. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) agreed.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with one amendment: The definition of the new code for Offprints should indicate that it also includes preprints and postprints. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
2007-06/7: Subfield for cancelled National Bibliography Numbers in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed establishing a subfield for cancelled or invalid national bibliography numbers in field 015 (National bibliography number) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format.
John Espley (AVIAC) asked if the bibliography number in subfield $z (Canceled or invalid national bibliography number) must be in the same structure as the number in subfield $a (National bibliography number) of field 015 (National bibliography number). Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested deleting the sentence, "The number content would have the same structure as in field 015 subfield $a" from the proposal. The group agreed.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with one amendment: The specification, "The number content would have the same structure as in field 015$a" will not be included in the documentation. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
2007-06/8: Define indicator for type for uncontrolled keywords in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Classification, and Community Information formats
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced this section which proposed defining an indicator in field 653 (Index term - Uncontrolled) to encode the type of keyword contained in the field.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) suggested adding the word "term" after topical (value 0) and genre/form (value 8) indicator values. The group agreed. Bill Jones (NYU) also suggested that examples showing repeating occurrences of subfield $a (Uncontrolled term) in one field 653 (Index term - Uncontrolled) be added into the documentation. The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with two amendments: The word "term" will be added to the names of values 0 (Topical) and 8 (Genre/form) in the second indicator position and examples showing the repetition of subfield $a (Uncontrolled term) in one occurrence of field 653 (Index term - Uncontrolled) will also be added to the documentation. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
2007-06/9: Field for replacement record information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced this section which proposed defining a new field to carry information about a record that is replacing a deleted record in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. The field is coded in the delete record. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) stated that this new field is similar to field 682 (Deleted heading information) in the authority format.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) was concerned that a field containing replacement record information is unique to German practices. She wondered if anyone else would find the field useful. Ms. Plantz (NLM) then asked if OCLC plans to delete this field from its records. Rich Greene (OCLC) answered that OCLC currently codes field 019 for deleted record information. Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked Rich Greene (OCLC) if there are deleted records in OCLC's authority format history file. Rich Greene (OCLC) answered yes.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Wei Jeng-Chu (RUSA) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion.
2007-06/10: Define a replacement record control number subfield in the MARC 21 Authority format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced this section which proposed defining a new subfield in the authority format field 682 (Deleted heading information) to carry the record control number for an authority record that replaces a deleted record.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) explained that when field 682 (Deleted heading information) contains LCSH terms, the record control number for the authority record that is replacing a deleted record is added in textual form. However, he did agree that it would be easier to put the record control number in subfield $w so that it may be machine-processed. The group agreed.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion.
2007-06/11: Add a field for a geographic name added entry to the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the section which proposed defining a new field 751 in the bibliographic format for a geographic name used as an added entry. Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) explained that field 752 (Added Entry -- Hierarchical place name) was considered by the German and Austrian library communities. Its hierarchical approach, however, was not deemed useful since place names in the German authority file are expressed on only one level.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (Arlis/NA) asked Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) why the German and Austrian communities do not split geographic name into hierarchies. Mr. Heuvelmann (DNB) explained that his constituents use qualifiers to differentiate place names. He pointed out that the first and fourth examples in the proposal illustrates how qualifiers are used. Some participants stated that the proposed field could be useful for visual resources, e.g., location. RDA may indicate that additional access points may be added.
Adam Schiff (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion.
2007-06/12: Subfield for former call numbers in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings formats
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced this section which proposed defining a new subfield in the bibliographic and holdings formats field 852 (Location) to carry information about a former call number or shelf location for a resource. The proposed subfield $d (Former call number) will be defined as repeatable. This information is not currently found in the proposal.
There was no discussion about section 2007-06/12 from the committee.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as written. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion.
2007-06/13: Field for normalized dates and sequential designations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DND) introduced the section which proposed defining a new field (field 363) in the MARC 21 bibliographic format for the normalized form of the date of publication and sequential designations of a serial title.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) questioned why the Germans and Austrians want only one level for alternative numbering schemes. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that since the proposed field copies field 863 (Enumeration and Chronology - Basic Bibliographic Unit), it should contain all of the levels that field 863 currently has defined in it.
Marc Truitt (LITA, MARBI Chair) asked if the group should try to align the proposed field with field 863 (Enumeration and Chronology - Basic Bibliographic Unit). Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB), however, stated that the proposed field contains subfield $u (First level textual designation), which is not present in field 863 (Enumeration and Chronology - Basic Bibliographic Unit). Rebecca Guenther (LC) agreed stating that subfield $u is not applicable in field 863 (Enumeration and Chronology - Basic Bibliographic Unit).
Bill Jones (NYU) questioned why subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) is present in the proposal's examples. Sally McCallum (LC) answered that subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) is being used to link two fields in a span. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested that subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) is not needed since the indicator values indicate when a span begins and ends. Sally McCallum (LC) replied that subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) would be used to link fields with two start and end spans.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept Option 1 as amended: Field 363 will contain the same number of enumeration and chronology levels as field 863 (Enumeration and Chronology - Basic Bibliographic Unit) in the holdings format. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The paper passed 8-0 in favor of the motion as amended.
LC Report
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the Library of Congress report. The Library of Congress will issue a 2007 edition of the MARC Code List for Languages. It should be made available in Fall, 2007. Updates No. 7 of all five MARC 21 formats have been printed and are being distributed by LC's Cataloging Distribution Service. PDF copies of the five updates are also free online at: www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/marc/index.html.
A revised character set section of the MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure, Character Sets, and Exchange Media is being prepared by the Network Development and MARC Standards Office, (NDMSO) with assistance from Jack Cain and Charles Husbands. It will include provisions on using all of the Unicode characters currently listed in the latest standard.
NDMSO is working on the ISO/DIS 20775: Information and documentation -- Schema for holdings information standard so that the holdings schema may be used with SRU and Z39.50. The schema will be for static holdings information.
The PREMIS Editorial Committee is actively working on revisions of the PREMIS Data Dictionary. The Committee expects to release the revised documents in early 2008.
Business Meeting
Marc Truitt (LITA, Chair) conducted the business meeting. Adam Schiff (ALCTS) finished his term on MARBI. The group expressed that it will miss Mr. Schiff's excellent comments and suggestions. Marc Truitt (LITA, Chair) is also stepping down from the committee. Stephanie Schmitt (LITA) will become the new chair of MARBI in 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacqueline Radebaugh
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 08/18/2015 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |