The Library of Congress
>> Especially for
Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
Stephanie Schmitt, Chair LITA Zayed University
Renette Davis ALCTS University of Chicago
Wei Jeng-Chu RUSA Worcester Public Library
Vicki Grahame LITA University of California,
Irvine
Ellen Siegel Kovacic ALCTS Hebrew Union College JIR
Alesia McManus RUSA Binghamton University
Nathan D. M. Robertson LITA University of Maryland
Jacqueline Samples ALCTS North Carolina State University
Vicki Sipe ALCTS [Intern] University of Maryland
Laura Snyder RUSA University of Alberta
Corine Deliot British Library Sally H. McCallum Library of Congress Marg Stewart Library and Archives Canada
Jim Alberts MLA Cornell University
Everett Allgood CC:DA New York University
Sherman Clarke VRA New York University
John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc.
Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington
Rich Greene OCLC OCLC
Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress
Robert Hall PLA Concord Free Public Library
Reinhold Heuvelmann Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota
Kris Kiesling SAA University of Minnesota
Gail Lewis MicroLIF Capstone Publishers
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 School Library
Tina Shrader NAL National Agricultural Library
Jacqueline Radebaugh LC Library of Congress
Jean Altschuler Arnold & Porter Karen Anspach TMQ Inc. John Attig Penn State University Tadeja Bresar IZUM, Slovenia Karen Coyle Independent Consultant Donna Cranmer Siouxland Libraries (SD) Peter Fletcher UCLA Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Harry Gaylord Bound to Stay Bound Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Les Hawkins Library of Congress Mar Hernandez Biblioteca Nacional de Espana Diane Hillmann Syracuse University Charles Husbands Retired William Jones New York University Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada Elizabeth Lilkes New York University Elizabeth Mangan Retired Giles Martin OCLC Stephen Miller University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Nannette Naught Info. Management Team Kevin Randall Northwestern University Robert Rendall Columbia University Cathy Sackmann Info. Management Team Gary Strawn Northwestern University Vitus Tang Stanford University Beth Thompson University of Georgia Marc Truitt University of Alberta Mitch Turitz San Francisco State University Ken Wade UCLA Christopher Walker Penn State University Paul Weiss Independent Consultant Mary Dabney Wilson Texas A∓M University Matthew Wise New York University Martha Yee UCLA Film and Television Archives
Stephanie Schmitt, LITA, Chair, opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. She reported that the agenda will be modified by moving Proposal 2008-08 and Discussion Paper 2008-DP06 to items 5 and 6 on the agenda. The modified agenda was adopted by a voice vote. Corine Deliot (BL) reported an error in the minutes of the previous meeting (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-08.html). Proposal 2008-01 was incorrectly identified. Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to accept the minutes as modified and Nathan Robertson (LITA) seconded the motion. The revised minutes were accepted by a voice vote.
Les Hawkins (LC) introduced the paper that proposes a mechanism for indicating which issues of a serial, multipart monograph, map set, etc., display a particular series title. It recommends defining subfield $3 (Materials specified) to designate the part of the resource to which the information applies in the 8XX series fields and field 490 (Series Statement). The paper also proposes the addition of subfield $x for ISSN in the 8XX series fields.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) asked whether subfield $3 (Materials specified) should be in field 830 (Series Added Entry-Uniform Title) of Example 4 in the paper. Les Hawkins (LC) replied that yes, subfield $3 (Materials specified) should be present.
Bill Jones (New York University) recommended that subfield $3 (Materials specified) be restricted to the 8XX (Series Added Entry) fields for processing reasons. Sherman Clarke (VRA) agreed, stating that the double use of subfield $3 (Materials specified) in fields 8XX (Series Added Entry) and 490 (Series Statement) may make processing difficult. Renette Davis (ALCTS) stated that the use of subfield $3 (Materials specified) in field 490 (Series Statement) would be useful in records containing no 8XX (Series Added Entry) tracing. The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal as written. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Les Hawkins (LC) introduced the paper that proposes making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) obsolete in favor of coding field 490 (Series Statement) and the 8XX (Series Added Entry) fields for traced series. This would simplify practices and the need for systems to look multiple places for the authorized series heading. The paper also proposes a change to the definition of first indicator (Series tracing policy) value 1 (Series traced differently) in field 490 (Series Statement).
Gail Lewis (MicroLIF) reported that field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) is used quite heavily in school and public libraries. Many school libraries do not have up-to-date or currently maintained systems. Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) stated that this is also the case for many international libraries.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked about what school libraries would do if field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) was made obsolete. Gail Lewis (MicroLIF) stated that vendors would support the MARBI decision, however, they would have to continue to supply records with field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) for libraries with out-of-date systems. Many of these systems have not implemented field 830 (Series Added Entry/Uniform Title).
Kevin Randall (Northwestern University) stated that if field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) is made obsolete, it may still be encoded in MARC records. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that rather than making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) obsolete, libraries could begin to campaign for fields 490 (Series Statement) and 8XX (Series Added Entry) to be used instead. It was also suggested that a choice be given between using 440 or 830.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) asked Rich Greene (OCLC) whether OCLC could still implement its control headings function if field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) is not made obsolete. Rich Greene (OCLC) replied that OCLC would probably would not be able to do that if field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) is not made obsolete. Sally McCallum (LC) asked Rich Greene (OCLC) that if the discussed proposal is not passed, would OCLC not allow libraries to use field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title)? Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that he seriously doubted that OCLC could prevent field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) from being used if it continues to be defined in the MARC standard.
Rich Greene (OCLC) asked the group about the value of the first indicator (Series tracing policy) in field 490 (Series Statement). He wondered whether the 8XX (Series Added Entry) fields can exist without the occurrence of field 490 (Series Statement). Sally McCallum (LC) replied that a lot of systems index field 490 (Series Statement) and fields 8XX (Series Added Entry) regardless of the first indicator (Series tracing policy) in field 490 (Series Statement). John Espley (AVIAC) replied that in the VTLS system, field 490 (Series Statement) is not indexed at all. Sherman Clarke (VRA) also reported that in the New York University's new ILS system, field 490 (Series Statement) will not be indexed regardless of the indicator value.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that the committee vote on redefining the first indicator value “1” to “Series traced in 8XX field” in field 490 (Series Statement) separately from making field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) obsolete. The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to make field 440 (Series Statement/Added Entry-Title) obsolete. Nathan Robertson (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 7-0 in favor of the motion with one abstention.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to redefine the first indicator value “1” to “Series traced in 8XX field” in field 490 (Series Statement). Wei Jeng-Chu, (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Mar Hernández (Biblioteca Nacional de España) introduced the paper that proposes the definition of subfield $z for Canceled/invalid copyright or legal deposit number in field 017 (Copyright or Legal Deposit Number) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic format. The paper also proposes adding field 017 (Copyright or Legal Deposit Number) to the MARC 21 Holdings format.
Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) motioned to approve the proposal as written. Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Mar Hernández (Biblioteca Nacional de España) introduced the paper that discusses coding different types of deposit programs as methods of acquisition in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) of the MARC 21 Holdings format.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) stated that NLM supports the use of field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) code “d” (Deposit), along with coding field 541 (Immediate source of acquisition note) with specific information about the type of deposit. Mar Hernández (Biblioteca Nacional de España) replied that coding field 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note) is a good alternative, however, for libraries with a huge investment in legal deposits, processing a single code in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) is much easier than processing one code in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) and another value in field 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note).
Corine Deliot (BL) stated that the British Library codes items from its legal deposit program code “d” (Deposit) in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition). Ms. Deliot (BL) then asked that if a new code value is defined in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) for legal deposit, how will the British Library access legal deposit items formally coded “d” (Deposit).
Mar Hernández (Biblioteca Nacional de España) suggested that code “d” could be redefined as “Legal deposit” and a new code could be defined for all other deposits. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that the problem with redefining code “d” as “Legal deposit” is that legal deposit systems differ between countries. Coding field 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note) would allow libraries to fully identify the type of deposit program without redefining code “d” (Deposit).
Nathan Robertson (LITA) stated that the problem with defining a code for legal deposit is that it would represent three different entities: the source of the object, the ownership and the use. He maintained that one code cannot describe three different entities. Mr. Robertson (LITA) suggested that instead of a new code in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition), a new variable field could be defined. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) suggested that fields 008/20 (Lending policy) and 008/21 (Reproduction policy) could be coded in conjunction with code “d” in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) for this purpose
Sherman Clarke (VRA) suggested that code “d” in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) could continue to be defined generically as just “deposit” and new codes could be defined for specific types of deposits. He cited field 008/33 (Literary form) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format as an example of a fixed field containing both “generic” codes, such as those for “Fiction,” and more specific codes, such as ehose for “Novels” and “Poetry”. Another option for the information is field 541.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that more analysis could be done on how code “d” in field 008/07 (Method of acquisition) is being used by libraries internationally. The Library of Congress will work with Mar Hernández (Biblioteca Nacional de España) on a follow-up paper for the Midwinter 2009 meetings.
Jacqueline Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper that describes additions to the nature of entire work and nature of content codes in field 008 of the MARC 21 bibliographic format. These additions would support the Finnish conversion to MARC 21. The paper proposes defining code “3” as “Calendar,” reinstating code “y” as “Yearbook” and defining code “4” as “Comic books/Graphic novels” in field 008/24-27 for Books and fields 008/24 and 008/25-27 for Continuing resources.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that his art colleagues would like to make Books field 008/33 (Literary form) code “c” (Comic strips) obsolete so to reduce redundancy if a code is defined in 008/24-27 for “Comic books/Graphic novels”.
Nathan Robertson (LITA) suggested that the phrase, “sequential art” be added to the definition of the code for “Comic books/Graphic novels”
Marg Stewart (LAC) reported that field 008/24-27 values “3” and “4” were defined in CAN/MARC. Ms. Stewart (LAC) suggested that codes “5” and “6” be used instead. The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to define code “5” as “Calendar” in field 008/24-27 for Books and fields 008/24 and 008/25-27 for Continuing resources. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.
Alesia McManus (RUSA) motioned to reinstate code “y” as “Yearbook” in field 008/24-27 for Books and fields 008/24 and 008/25-27 for Continuing resources. Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal. Everett Algood suggested that the definition of yearbook needs to be carefully crafted to differentiate it from annuals.
Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) motioned to define code “6” for “Comics /Graphic novels” in field 008/24-27 for Books and fields 008/24 and 008/25-27 for Continuing resources. The phrase “sequential art” will be added to the definition of the proposed code “6”. Ms. Samples (ALCTS) also motioned to make books field 008/33 (Literary form) code “c” (Comic strips) obsolete. Alesia McManus (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.
Jacqueline Radebaugh (LC) introduced the paper that proposes to define a subfield for Other resource identifier in field 534 (Original version note) to allow for the recording of standard numbers, such as the ISMN (International Standard Music Number). Subfields for the ISBN and ISSN are already defined. This addition would support the Finnish conversion to MARC 21.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked about how one could identify the type of identifier in subfield $o (Other resource identifier). Jacqueline Radebaugh (LC) responded that the Finnish libraries do not require that the source be identified.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) then asked how indexing would be accomplished without identifying the type of identifier in subfield $o (Other resource identifier). Sally McCallum (LC) responded that subfield $o (Other item identifier) is defined in the MARC 21 bibliographic linking entry fields (fields 76X-78X) without any way to identify the type of identifier used.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that the resource identifier recorded in subfield $o (Other resource identifier) be identified by a prefix, such as “ISMN.” This would be a better alternative than defining subfield $2 as Source.
Jim Alberts (MLA) expressed concern that certain identifiers are not considered “standard,” for they are not issued by a standards body and are not internationally or nationally recognized as a unique identifier. Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) suggested that the definition of subfield $o (Other resource identifier) not contain the word “standard.” The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal as amended. The definition of subfield $o will not contain the word “standard”, so will be defined as “Other resource identifier”. Alesia McManus (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) introduced the paper that proposes the definition of videorecording format codes for Blu-ray Discs and HD DVDs in Videorecording field 007/04 (Videorecording format). Ms. Gerhart (OLAC) stated that because there are not many undefined codes remaining in field 007/04 (Videorecording format), defining only a code for Blu-Ray Discs may suffice since it has become the industry standard. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that once all of the alphabet codes are used, the group may define numbered codes.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked the group why a code for HD DVDs is needed. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) replied that codes are more specific than notes and thus, provide better retrieval. Jim Alberts (MLA) suggested that a code for Blu-Ray Discs be defined in field 007/04 (Videorecording format) and HD DVDs could be coded “z” for “Other”.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) stated that the new code[s] should be defined in both the holdings and bibliographic formats. The group agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal but to define only the code for Blu-Ray in field 007/04 (Videorecording format) in both the bibliographic and holdings formats. Alesia McManus (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal.
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the Library of Congress report. The full MARC 21 documentation is now available online at www.loc.gov/marc/. The “clock” for implementation will begin once a change is made in the online documentation, not in the printed documentation.
Because of the RDA implementation schedule, a spring 2009 update may be issued by the Library of Congress, depending upon how much action is taken on RDA changes at Midwinter 2009 MARBI meetings.
The print version of the MARC 21 Concise Formats is now available from the Cataloging Distribution Service.
Stephanie Schmitt (LITA, Chair) resided over the business meeting. She introduced the new chair of MARBI: Alesia McManus of RUSA.
John Espley (AVIAC) reported that an ALCTS committee for non-English information access would like MARBI to begin a taskforce to explore romanization issues in MARC 21 records. Because MARBI rarely appoints taskforces and because MARBI is very busy with RDA implementation issues, Alesia McManus (RUSA) suggested that John Espley (AVIAC) ask the ALCTS committee to find another group to participate. The committee agreed.
Sally McCallum (LC) discussed the paper that introduces the set of MARC proposals and discussion papers that suggests changes to the formats for the implementation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in MARC bibliographic and authority systems. It gives background information about RDA, lists the sections of the series of proposals and discussion papers, and summarizes principles that the RDA MARC Working Group considered in its deliberations about whether changes in MARC were needed for specific RDA elements.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) was concerned that the listed items that the MARC 21 communications format must support, as outlined in Section 2.1 (Content type), may be constraining and not allow libraries to fully implement the RDA standard. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that libraries need MARC data in the form of the communications format. With that, they can then put the data into any form, such as a relational database.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) was also concerned about Section 3.2 (Parsing of data). He wondered if forward mapping to data elements that may be useful in the future is a legitimate reason for their definition. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that each proposed data element should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
Marg Stewart (LAC) introduced the paper that proposes defining a new field in the MARC 21 bibliographic and authority formats to identify whether the record is for a work or an expression.
John Espley (AVIAC) stated that because RDA is organized around FRBR entities, the RDA MARC Working Group wanted to incorporate a way to identify these in the MARC 21 standard. Sally McCallum (LC) agreed stating that the proposed coding enables users to implement RDA, but it does not specify relationships.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked about who would use identified work and expression records. Will there be master records or must each institute identify work and expression records separately? Marg Stewart (LAC) responded that the identification of work and expression records should be based on agreements decided by individual communities.
Rich Greene (OCLC) reported that field 011 was previously defined as the Linking LC Card Number. Although it was made obsolete in 1992, instances of its use persist in some systems. OCLC still receives records containing field 011 (Linking LC card number). Field 011 ( Linking LC card number) is also present in records that OCLC might distribute as part of a Local Database Creation. While there do not seem to be other fields available early in the MARC tag ranges, Mr. Greene (OCLC) asked that MARBI adhere to the principle that a tag will never be reused for a different purpose. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested defining field 013, which has never been defined in the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked whether the proposed field should be mandatory or optional. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that it should be an optional field.
Corine Deliot (BL) wondered if the proposed content designation should be defined in the bibliographic or authority format. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) responded that work and expressions are currently coded in authority records, but this is not the only way to do it. For instance, the Germans are already using the bibliographic format for series set records, which for others might be in authority records. Therefore, the proposed content designation should be defined in both the bibliographic and authority formats.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) asked about how communities plan to maintain this data. For example, when a resource that used to be unique is distributed in different versions and thus, its FRBR level changes, how is this change reflected in the MARC record?
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that German and Austrian libraries prefer a solution that is language independent. Whether this will be a coding solution with fixed values and textual explanations or a solution with some kind of controlled vocabularies should be decided. It was also suggested that there be more clarification on linking between parts and wholes in the examples. Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) suggested that the creation of URIs for entities may solve some of the language problems. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that FRBR entities are not required in RDA records. This information would be beneficial to record, but it is not mandatory data. Mr. Attig (Pennsylvania State University) also stated that it would be useful to code which authority records identify works and expressions. However, this information may be deduced through the absence or presence of certain fields.
Marg Stewart (LAC) reported that Tom Delsey did a mapping from FRBR to MARC (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/functional-analysis.html). She suggested that the MARC community use this mapping to guide its implementation efforts.
Because more clarity is needed to understand how this proposed change would be implemented in practice, Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to wait for future direction from the JSC about RDA. Jacqueline Samples (ACTS) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion.
Bill Leonard (LAC) introduced the paper that proposes to establish new content designation for Carrier type and Media type in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. It also proposes to establish new content designation for Content type in the MARC 21 authority and bibliographic formats.
Jim Alberts (MLA) stated that in Section 3.2 (Media type) of Appendix A under field 007, the code for Audio is “s”, not “a”.
Paul Weiss (Independent Consultant) suggested adding subfield $3 (Materials specified) to the proposed fields to help differentiate parts under specific titles. Bill Leonard (LAC) agreed.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) questioned whether defining separate fields for both media and carrier types would allow different source lists to be used for media and carrier type designation (Coding option 3). Ms. Davis (ALCTS) wondered if any institution would want to do this. Both Bill Leonard (LAC) and John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied that institutions would find this useful.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) reported that the German and Austrian libraries would like a language-independent solution to be implemented. The “RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization” has numerical coded values for Content type and Carrier Type that could be used as a solution. In addition, implementing controlled vocabularies or a code library also could be solutions. Subfield $2 (Source) may be defined to identify vocabularies.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that RDA instructs catalogers to record terms in some RDA elements with controlled vocabulary, and that it is not clear whether the use of an equivalent code in a MARC coded-data field would be considered to satisfy this instruction. However, terms may be identified by URIs. [A similar remark after the meeting is included in Discussion Paper 2008-DP05-3, Section 2.4, reading “[On July 10, 2008, John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) wrote a clarification to the MARC 21 Listserv: ...]"
Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) stated that solutions should be extensible to other ways of encoding besides MARC. There are plans to encode the RDA lists as vocabularies with URIs for each value. Sally McCallum (LC) reported that the Library of Congress is currently working on registries for controlled vocabularies using SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) that may enable identification. Ms. McCallum (LC) also stated that because RDA is not quite completed, how it will be implemented is not clear. The RDA MARC Working Group is trying to enable future implementation of RDA in MARC 21. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) reported that registered versions of the RDA vocabularies will be completed in the near future. He asked, however, once these vocabularies are completed, will URIs be recorded in the same subfields as the terms, or in separate subfields?
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested defining subfield $2 (Source) in the proposed fields so that institutions may specify specific lists and then their corresponding sources. Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) stated that library systems currently do not have a way to use URIs to provide terms. As an interim solution, defining subfield $2 (Source) and a specifying a mechanism to record URI, code and/or term is needed. Sally McCallum (LC) stated that the extensive use of URIs in MARC records needs more discussion and study. She suggested discussing this issue during the Midwinter 2009 meeting.
Rich Greene (OCLC) suggested that the URI issue should be first resolved before voting on which solution is most beneficial. John Espley (AVIAC) agreed. In terms of the options presented in the proposal, most participants were leaning toward option 3, defining separate fields, which would be easier to maintain. A connection would be needed to associate media and carrier; this could be done at either the vocabulary level or instance level.
Alesia McManus (RUSA) motioned to wait on voting on Proposal 2008-05/3 until there is further exploration and study about the use of URIs in MARC records. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the motion.
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the paper that discusses RDA controlled ists of values in relation to various MARC coded value lists, including the RDA content, media, and carrier types and carrier attributes. Ms. McCallum (LC) explained that RDA Chapter 3 concerns recording physical characteristics that relate to the media and carriers of resources. For each media type, RDA provides instructions for recording the carrier and attributes of the carrier in a structured form (often accompanied by an open vocabulary list) and in note form. The implication is that the structured form is preferred and the note supplements it. RDA does not establish codes for any of these attribute values, as that is a storage rather than a cataloging rule issue.
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that MARC 21 field 300 (Physical description) provides subfields that could be used to record most of the RDA carrier attribute information. Extent and Dimensions are specifically identified in subfields $a (Extent) and $c (Dimensions). She suggested that subfield $b (Other physical details) could be used to record the other RDA carrier attributes.
Sally McCallum (LC) also suggested that in cases where identification of each carrier attribute is desired, field 340 (Physical medium) could be augmented to record the carrier attributes in a manner that identifies the type of attribute. Adding subfield $2 (Source) to field 340 (Physical medium) would allow recording the use of the RDA or any other vocabulary source for terms. The field would be repeated for each different vocabulary source used.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that in the example of field 300 (Physical description) in Section 2.2 (Structured textual descriptions of carriers in RDA), there are two occurrences of subfield $b (Other physical details). However, subfield $b (Other physical details) is currently defined as nonrepeatable. The group agreed that this would need to be changed.
Sally McCallum (LC) explained that the mapping to MARC that was carried out by the JSC in 2007 indicated that the notes pertaining to carrier attributes would be recorded in MARC 21 bibliographic field 500 (General note). There, they cannot be distinguished as to the attribute to which they pertain, if that is desirable. Since it would be expected that the notes about different attributes would be carried in separate note fields, subfield $i (Display text) could be added to field 500 (General note) for the attribute name.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) stated that NLM prefers maintaining field 500 as a general note. She suggested that instead of defining subfield $i (Display text), specialized 5XX (Notes) fields may be defined. Paul Weiss (Independent Consultant) furthered that the proposed subfield $i (Display text) provides no meaningful information for it is just a label. He suggested defining specialized 5XX fields or use inter-record linking to package and display related data together.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that subfield $i (Display text) may be useful for identification purposes, however, it would not be useful if it contains the name of the data element. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) responded that display text is needed but it should be separated from the data element name when data is being exported to other communities. This approach would also be preferable in terms of language independence.
Marg Stewart (LAC) reported that the CCM did not find the definition of subfield $i (Display text) to be very beneficial, however, she can see that it may be useful in records for art objects and other like resources.
Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) stated that subfield $i was useful as demonstrated by the example for art objects and that other strong examples should be sought.
This section discusses elements where RDA has lists that differ from MARC coded value lists and consideration should be given to whether items on the RDA lists would be useful enhancements to the MARC record. The RDA MARC Working Group, and the consultant who did the analysis, considered more lists than are suggested for change.
Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) expressed concern about defining terms and codes for “Unspecified” and “Other” for these prevent full disclosure of usage of the vocabularies. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that the vocabularies listed are from the RDA standard. Rich Greene (OCLC) agreed that “Unspecified” is useless, however, “Other” may serve the function of requiring people to use codes. Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) suggested that the MARC 21 format needs to adopt a “vocabulary approach” and not a “coded approach.”
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) reported that when RDA requires that a term be recorded, a code will not be accepted as an equivalent. Marg Stewart (LAC) also reported that although the JSC has not formally discussed the use of coded data, the RDA editor recommends using only terms-not codes. The term “Other” is used when none of the existing terms apply.
[On July 10, 2008, John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) wrote a clarification to the MARC 21 Listserv:
While RDA will indeed contain instructions to record terms, a paragraph will be included in the General Introduction to indicate that terms from other vocabularies could be substituted for those specified in the instruction in RDA and that in those cases the source of the term should be identified. The code lists for MARC 21 coded-data elements would qualify as such an “other vocabulary" and would therefore satisfy the RDA instructions. This would be true for individual terms as well as for the complete code lists, regardless of whether there was a one-to-one correspondence between the RDA terms and the MARC codes.
In effect, any vocabulary can used when recording an element for which there is a specified RDA vocabulary, provided the vocabulary is identified. (In an RDF-compliant implementation, the vocabulary would be identified by means of a URI for the vocabulary encoding scheme.) The only restriction is that the vocabulary should be a valid vocabulary for the defined scope of the element.]
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) discussed the coded values for notated music (in Section 2.4.1). She expressed that at the present moment, the music community does not know how important it is to make the distinctions cited in the RDA list. Because MARC 21 does not currently contain such specific coded values, the music community has been recording this data in the SMD (Specific medium designation). Sally McCallum (LC) responded that the coded form of the SMD is used for retrieval and limiting. However, Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) stated that her previous institution indexed MARC bibliographic field 300 (Physical description) subfield $a (Extent), instead of the field 007 codes because it was more reliable for retrieval and limiting.
Rich Greene (OCLC) responded that the coded data is much more useful internationally since it is language independent.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) stated that the differences in the new codes for rare books are much too small to code as is. She preferred the composite codes. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) also stated that the codes for the processes of printmaking would be very useful when describing nonprojected graphics (Section 2.4.3).
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) asked how the proposed codes for manuscripts in Section 2.4.3 would relate to the Leader/06 (Type of record) values. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that the proposed RDA values are breaking out the different types of manuscripts. The values are inherited from AACR2 chapter 4. The production method element should be multi-byte to allow for situations where more than one code applies.
Jim Roberts (MLA) stated that the proposed Sound recording 007/04 code “r” for “surround” is much better than using the defined code “q” for quadraphonic (Section 2.4.7). The term “quadraphonic” is outdated.
Paul Weiss (Independent Consultant) suggested that for RDA terms, the group look at the MARC Principles to ascertain when values should be defined in MARC. If new values are not needed by a particular community, they should not be defined. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) responded that since the RDA lists are not finalized, the question that MARBI should ask is if each value is useful for processing.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper that compares the RDA relationship designators that specifies relationships between names and resources (Appendix I) with the MARC relator list and suggests methods for aligning them and for encoding RDA role data in MARC records.
The group began the discussion by answering the questions from Section 4.
Question 4.1: Should RDA relationship designators for roles not already on the MARC relator list be added to it? Alternatively, should the lists remain separate?
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that adding new relators to the MARC relators list does not need to be approved by MARBI. Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked about whether a set of rules is consulted when the MARC relators list is updated. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that NDMSO does look at existing lists to make sure that there are no overlap and conflicts. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) then asked that if NDMSO adds the RDA relationship terms to the MARC relators list, will there be a way to identify the RDA terms. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that NDMSO is exploring the creation of a registry using SKOS where RDA terms may be identified.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) asked if there are any hierarchical relationships in the MARC relators list. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that there are no explicit relationships, but relationships do exist in the list. John Attig (Pennsylvania State Univerisity) then asked if the MARC relator terms are aligned with the MARC relator codes. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that they are aligned.
Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) expressed concern that the MARC relators list contains many terms that do not align with the RDA relationship list. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that using SKOS, the MARC relators may be related to the RDA relationships list.
Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) then stated that the RDA relationship terms align with the FRBR entities. There are various viewpoints on how works and expressions are going to be designated in special communities. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that NDMSO does not want the MARC relator codes to be tied to the FRBR entities. The MARC relator codes will be neutral to allow different communities to decide how they are used.
Question 4.2: If the lists are separate, is a mechanism needed to identify the source of the controlled list values that are included in subfields $e and $4? What might you need to do with the information about what list it is from? Or will it be sufficient to infer the source of relator terms from the coding in 040$e?
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that this has already been discussed. A thorough discussion is needed on using URIs for controlled values in the MARC 21 formats.
Question 4.3: Is there a need for $4 in the MARC 21 authority format 1XX fields?
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked if OCLC and system vendors will be able to ignore subfield $4 (Relator code) when a heading is controlled. John Espley (AVIAC) replied that the VTLS systems can ignore subfields $e (Relator term) and $4 (Relator code) in bibliographic records, however, this may be more difficult to accomplish in authority records.
Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) asked about how a name part of the title would be coded if it filled more than one role. John Espley (AVIAC) replied that there would be multiple entries in a browse list. Sally McCallum (LC) also replied that subfields $e (Relator term) and $4 (Relator code) have always been repeatable.
The group agreed that defining subfield $4 in authority records will not be pursued at this time, since it isn't clear how name/title authority records will use it.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) introduced the paper that summarizes new data elements in the MARC 21 authority format that would be needed to support RDA detail with respect to dates, places and several other elements associated with the entity for which the record was made.
There was no discussion of Section 3.1, since it summarized the use of identifiers in MARC 21 authority format, and no changes are required by the identifier elements specified in RDA.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) explained that field 046 is defined in the bibliographic format for Special coded dates. Many of the subfields are for dates related to publication as well as B.C.E. dates and other special dates. These subfields are not appropriate in the authority format, but other subfields could be defined. Alternatively, another field could be chosen for special dates in the authority format since it will not be defined in the same way. However, all fields in the 04X block of the bibliographic format are already taken, and the formats attempt to define a field for the same type of data across formats. Thus, it may be preferable to define field 046 (Special coded dates) in the authority format and choose different subfields from those available in the bibliographic format.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked if the proposed field 046 (Special coded dates) covers earlier, later and period of activity dates. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied that these types of dates are attributes of a corporate body or person, not a work.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) explained that a field could be added to the authority format with subfields for different kinds of places. The field is similar to field 751 in the bibliographic format (recently added as Added Entry-Geographic Name), but in the authority format, 7XX fields are for linking entries. A field could be selected from the Note block (667-68X) or a new block of fields could be defined for all of these additional data elements.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked if the proposed field 621 (Associated Place) subfield $a (Place of birth) would include all of the elements related to place. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied yes.
The committee questioned whether place of repository or place of conference was needed. If so some of the suggested subfields may be generalized or specific subfields added. In addition, the relationship between this proposed field and Address needs to be addressed.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that field 270 (Address) is defined in the MARC 21 bibliographic and community information formats and a field with the same information could be defined in the authority format. It could be defined as field 270 as in the other formats, although the 2XX block is defined as Complex subject see reference (only 260 is defined). Alternatively a new field tag could be chosen with the same subfields as in bibliographic field 270 (Address).
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) stated that the address should allow for a date associated with it, since the information may change. She asked if subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) would be useful in the proposed field 622 (Address). Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) should be added to all of the proposed authority fields.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked if the proposed field (622) would be repeated when the source of the information varies. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied yes.
Corine Deliot (BL) stated that subfield $c (State or province) is US/Canadian-centric. She suggested that subfield $c be defined as “Next largest jurisdiction” or “Intermediary jurisdiction”. Ms. Deliot (BL) also asked if bibliographic field 270 (Address) subfield $c (State or province) may be revised as well. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied yes.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that in RDA “Address” is described in single data element. Therefore, only subfield $a (Address) is needed to support RDA.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that RDA includes elements for language of a person and corporate body. Field 041 (Language code) could be defined as it is in the MARC 21 bibliographic format to include language codes for this purpose. Some of the bibliographic subfields are not appropriate for the authority format, although they will have to be evaluated in terms of using them for works or expressions. Alternatively, if a textual form is desired, a new field could be defined.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that language expressed in coded form may not satisfy RDA requirements. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that two subfields could be defined: one subfield for terms and one subfield for codes. Alternatively, users may translate language codes into the corresponding terms in their systems. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied that the RDA instruction is to record the name of a language, not the code. Diane Hillmann (Syracuse University) stated that URIs may be used instead of the code. She then asked if the context of language is the language spoken by a person. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied yes. (After the meeting it was clarified that use of codes or terms was an implementation decision and not dictated by RDA.) As mentioned in other RDA related papers, an analysis of the use of URIs for controlled values in MARC records is needed.
Corine Deliot (BL) stated that the British Library prefers defining field 62X for language since what is needed in the authority format is different from what is defined in field 041 (Language code) in the bibliographic format.
Giles Martin (OCLC) stated that the MARC language code list does not contain all of the languages spoken in the world. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that the ISO 639-3 (Codes for the representation of languages: Part 3: Alpha-3 code for comprehensive coverage of languages) list includes all individual languages used in the world. Codes from this list may be used in the proposed field with the source specified in $2.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that RDA includes several elements related to activities of a person or corporate body. Each element could be defined in a separate field or one new field could be defined with multiple subfields. For instance, if a controlled list would be used for the data (for instance, field of activity), it might be necessary to define subfield $2 (Source), in which case a separate field would be preferable. It also might be useful to include dates associated with either of these properties that could be recorded either as a range or in two subfields as start and end date.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that subfield $2 (Source) is missing from the proposed field 624 (Affiliation). Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that this was an error and should be included. Repeatability of the field and subfields needs to be specified in a future proposal.
There was no discussion about this section, since no changes are needed to accommodate this information.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that RDA defines an element for gender (of a person). This information does not seem to be easily grouped with any other new element discussed in this paper. A new field could be defined. Subfield $2 (Source of term) could be included to allow for specifying the source of a controlled vocabulary. Ms. Guenther (LC) also stated that the proposed field 626 (Gender) is repeatable and all of the subfields are repeatable except subfields $d (Dates associated with gender) and $2 (Source of term).
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) stated that an ISO standard (ISO/IEC5218 “Information technology -- Codes for the representation of human sexes") exists for gender. It contains four values. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that the JSC examined this ISO standard and decided not to use it. Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that users can use any list that is specified in subfield $2 (Source of term).
Rebecca Guenther (LC) stated that RDA includes elements for additional information about families that has not been recorded in separate elements previously. She suggested that a new field could be defined for additional information about the family.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked for a definition of a type of family. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied that type of family includes traditional families and clans. Family is usually described by a surname. There is a RDA list of specific type of family that includes such terms as clan, tribe and dynasty.
Jacqueline Samples (ALCTS) asked if dates are needed in the proposed field 627 (Family information). Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that this might be needed since family membership can change over time. Charles Husbands (Harvard University, retired) stated that there are many types of dates. How would users indicate what calendar is used? Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that there is currently no standard that deals with calendars. However, type of calendar could be indicated in the proposed field 627 (Family information). John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that RDA does not specify that dates should be recorded for most of the proposed data elements. This is considered to be data about data.
John Espley (AVIAC) introduced the paper that proposes defining subfields for the academic degree for which a work was presented, the granting institution or faculty, the year a degree was granted, dissertation number and miscellaneous information in field 502 (Dissertation note). It also proposes defining the second indicator position as “Level of content designation.”
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) stated that it is not clear if subfield $o (Dissertation number) is used in both basic or enhanced records. It was clarified that both basic and enhanced records can contain a subfield $o. She also asked if there is a prescribed order for the proposed subfields. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) replied that RDA is not a display standard, therefore, it does not indicate order.
Karen Coyle (Independent Consultant) stated that there is no need for an indicator to be defined as “enhanced field.” Whether it is basic or enhanced is obvious from the subfields that are presenting the field. Likewise, she suggested that subfield $o be defined as “Dissertation identifier" or simply “Identifier”.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked the group if the second indicator value (Level of content designation) in bibliographic field 505 (Formatted contents note) has been useful for processing, since 505 was used as a model for this proposal. John Espley (AVIAC) responded that in the VTLS system, the second indicator (Level of content designation) is ignored. Rich Greene (OCLC) responded that OCLC uses the second indicator value (Level of content designation) in field 505 (Formatted contents note) for validation but only as an internal check.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked if subfield $u (URI) should be defined in field 502 (Dissertation note) to link to specific theses. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that field 856 (Electronic location and access) would be coded instead.
Paul Weiss (Independent Consultant) asked why subfield $g (Miscellaneous information) is proposed to be added in field 502 (Dissertation number). John Espley (AVIAC) replied that the RDA MARC Working Group wanted to add a subfield to include any data that doesn't fit in any other subfield.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned to amend the proposal by not defining the second indicator (Level of content designation). She also motioned to define subfield $o as “Dissertation identifier”. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 8-0 in favor of the proposal as amended.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) introduced the paper that discusses the recommendations on items that are not included in the RDA/MARC proposals and discussion papers for encoding RDA using MARC 21. The RDA MARC Working Group recommends that no changes to MARC 21 are needed for these items.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) stated that during the Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee favored adding another value to Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) to avoid processing the combination of codes in Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) and Leader/19 (Multipart resource record level). However, the RDA MARC Working Group discussed how adding a new value for Multipart monograph in Leader/07 (Bibliographic level) may be very difficult to implement, introduce redundancy in the Leader, and be incompatible with existing records. Leader/19 (Multipart resource record level) already identifies those monographs that are multipart monographs. The RDA MARC Working Group thus recommended using the existing value “m” in Leader/07 (Bibliographic level), along with Leader/19 (Multipart resource record level), values “a” (Set), “b” (Part with independent title) and “c” (Part with dependent title) to identify multipart monographs.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that RDA requires that a term be recorded, not a code. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) also wondered if the MARC definition of multipart monographs maps directly to the RDA definition of multipart monograph. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that the RDA MARC working group will consider these issues in the near future.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) stated that at the Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee originally recommended recording script in field 041 (Language code), using the codes in the ISO 15924 (Codes for the representation of names of scripts) standard.
Based on the outcome of its April 2008 meeting, the JSC confirmed that the names of the script codes in ISO 15924 (Codes for the representation of names of scripts) would be used to indicate script in RDA. The JSC also slightly revised the scope of the Script element to: “Script is the set of symbols used to express the written language content of a resource.”
After further study, the RDA MARC Working Group concluded that script is represented in RDA as a textual note, not as a coded value. Therefore, MARC 21 bibliographic field 546 (Language note) may be used to indicate the script and thus no changes to the format are required.
Paul Weiss (Independent Consultant) questioned the first example in Section 2.2 (Script). He wondered why the parenthetical data was not encoded in subfield $b (Information code or alphabet). John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied that the first example may be just an annotation. He recommended to keep it as is.
Marg Stewart (LAC) stated that in its Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee favored defining new content designation in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)) for distributor. The RDA MARC Working Group decided against that since the RDA elements may be currently mapped in field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)) subfields $a (Place of publication, distribution, etc.), $b (Name of publisher, distributor, etc.) and $c (Date of publication, distribution, etc.) and as there has not yet been demonstrated a need to provide further granularity for the field.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that the RDA elements do not map cleanly with the current coding in field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Marg Stewart (LAC) replied that this fact was recognized, however, the RDA MARC Working Group could not find a need for more specific granularity.
Corine Deliot (BL) stated that in its Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee discussed coding copyright date in the newly defined field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) subfield $g (Copyright date). However, further discussion suggested that field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)) would be a more appropriate place to encode copyright date because field 542 (Information relating to copyright status) may not be implemented by all institutions.
After further study, the RDA MARC Working Group noted that the use of “c” and “p” for the copyright and phonogram symbols is an AACR stipulation, as the symbols are a part of the MARC-8 character set. Therefore, the use of the “real” symbols will themselves be flags for the date information, if RDA says to include the symbols whenever they apply. Currently, they are not recorded when the copyright date substitutes for the missing publication date. The RDA MARC Working Group therefore concluded that continuing the current practice of recording the copyright date in field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)) is sufficient to provide access to the copyright date when it is a surrogate for the date of publication. The working group also found that there is little to gain in creating a separate element in field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint)), except for the sake of providing a discrete element for indexing of the copyright date, which can be done from the copyright and phonogram copyright symbols. However, there does not seem to be a critical bibliographic need for this.
Paul Weiss (Independent Consultant) stated that the solution posed by the RDA MARC Working Group will not provide an exact mapping from MARC to RDA. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) agreed.
Everett Everett (CC:DA) asked if there is no publication date, should users preface the copyright date or use the copyright symbol. Corine Deliot (BL) responded that the copyright and phonograph symbol would be used as flags for these dates.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) stated that in its Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee suggested considering coding field 363 (Normalized date and sequential designation) for the numbering of serials by adding caption information to this field. However, the RDA MARC Working Group members discussed the numbering of serials at length both within the group and with others in the CONSER community. Because the RDA element subtypes for serials are largely considered “holdings” data, the working group felt that encoding this holdings data at the level of granularity required by RDA in the MARC 21 Bibliographic record is redundant and represents a duplication of effort and data input. The serials community currently favors unformatted numbering statements. For example, the CONSER Standard Record recommends unformatted numbering statements. For these reasons, the RDA MARC Working Group decided to record the RDA numbering of serials elements in field 362 subfield $a (Dates of publication and/or sequential designation).
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that since holdings data contains information about individual piece holdings, he supported the RDA MARC Working Group's decision.
Marg Stewart (LAC) stated that the RDA MARC Working Group concluded that labels could indeed be generated for RDA element names using MARC 21 field tags or subfield codes. The RDA MARC Working Group agreed that a general principle could be applied, namely, display labels can be system-generated based on a field tag or subfield code if an application desires them, in the preferred wording and language of the application. This is already common practice in the community for labeled displays.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) asked if the display data will be meaningful to the end user. Can this data be mapped to appropriate element designation in the future?
There was no discussion about this section.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) stated that in its Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee expressed concern that the RDA appendix for “Data about data” would not be developed in time for a proposal presented at the 2008 annual meetings. An indication given unofficially by the RDA editorial team (the editor, the JSC secretary, the JSC chair) to the RDA MARC Working Group was that the appendix on data about data will not be part of the initial release of RDA. The RDA MARC Working Group agreed that it would be inefficient to pursue this further until the appendix has been written. Once the appendix is drafted, reviewed by the constituencies, and is approved by JSC, the RDA MARC Working Group and/or the MARC Advisory Committee may reopen this issue.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) reported that the RDA appendix for “data about data” will not be written.
There was no discussion about this section.
There was no discussion about this section.
There was no discussion about this section.
John Espley stated that in its Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee agreed that an appendix about ISBD punctuation would be very useful in the RDA documentation. The committee was reminded that the MARC Input Conventions are guidelines only and are not compulsory.
Since ISBD punctuation will be dealt within an appendix in the RDA documentation and no changes of punctuation will be initiated by RDA, the RDA MARC Working Group concluded that no changes of punctuation practices are required in MARC 21. Punctuation guidelines may, however, need to be organized differently in the documentation for they currently occur in several places, such as the main body of the text and under the Input Conventions sections.
John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) stated that RDA suggests the possibility that punctuation is not required to be stored in records. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) asked if RDA will recommend punctuation between elements. John Attig (Pennsylvania State University) replied that punctuation within the element must be recorded as part of the data.
Marg Stewart (LAC) stated that in its Midwinter 2008 meeting, the MARC Advisory Committee agreed that defining subfields for the new RDA authority elements could provide similar granularity of RDA. Users could choose more or less granularity since different communities have different needs. After some discussion, the RDA MARC Working Group defined technique as an attribute of expression used to describe content. Because of this, the Working Group decided that technique should be recorded in MARC 21 bibliographic field 500 (General note).
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) stated that attributes of expressions belong more in authority records than in bibliographic records. She wondered why this data is being coded in bibliographic records. John Espley (AVIAC) replied that it has not been fully decided whether works and expressions are to be encoded in either authority or bibliographic records.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacqueline Radebaugh
| The Library of Congress
>> Especially for
Librarians and Archivists >> Standards ( 03/30/2009 ) |
Contact Us |