The Library of Congress
>> Especially for
Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
Alesia McManus, Chair RUSA Binghamton University
Joe Altimus LITA Arizona State University
Renette Davis ALCTS University of Chicago
Vicki Grahame LITA University of California,
Irvine
Amber Meryman RUSA Copyright Clearance Center
Nathan D.M. Robertson LITA University of Maryland
Vicki Sipe ALCTS University of Maryland,
Baltimore
Laura Snyder RUSA University of Alberta
Gary Strawn ALCTS Northwestern University
Matthew Wise, Intern ALCTS New York University
Corine Deliot British Library Sally H. McCallum Library of Congress Bill Leonard 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
Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota
Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
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
Matthew Wise ALCTS New York University
Jean Altschuler Arnold & Porter Law Firm Karen Anspach Anspach Consulting John Attig Penn State University Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester Carroll Davis Library of Congress Bonnie Dede University of Michigan Harry Gaylord Bound To Stay Bound Books Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Les Hawkins Library of Congress Mar Hernandez Biblioteca Nacional de España George Johnston University of Cincinnati William Jones New York University Judy Kuhagen Library of Congress Elizabeth Lilker New York University Kristin Lindlan University of Washington Yael Mandelstam Fordham Law Elizabeth Mangan Library of Congress (retired) Kelley McGrath Ball State University John Myers Union College Adrian Nolte Public Library, Essen, Germany Chris Oliver McGill University Kevin Randall Northwestern University Regina Reynolds Library of Congress Elizabeth Robinson Library of Congress Caroline Saccucci Library of Congress Adam Schiff University of Washington Marc Truitt University of Alberta Ken Wade University of California, Los Angeles Paul Weiss Sage Library System Martha Yee UCLA Film & Television Archive John Zagas Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Introduction of members
Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves. A committee roster was passed around the table and all were asked to annotate their entries with any corrections.
Approval of minutes from MARBI's January 2009 meetings
Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the ALA Midwinter 2009 meeting. Being none, Laura Snyder (RUSA) moved to accept the minutes and Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Proposal No. 2009-07: Definition of field 883 (Source of description, etc. note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Tina Shrader (NAL) presented the proposal which intends to define a new note field, 883 (Source of description, etc. note). She briefly explained the history of the proposal. Sally McCallum (LC) explained why the 883 field was chosen. Renette Davis (ALCTS) expressed support for the proposal, agreed with Everett Allgood (CC:DA) that the field should be repeatable, and that “Cataloger-shared information” would be a better name for the field. She also agreed that “General information” should be the name for subfield $a and noted that there were not any examples included in the proposal of electronic resources.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) noted that the definition of subfield $l should be “latest part consulted” and questioned the meaning of the code “EZB” in subfield $5 of the example. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) stated that her Library would like to see an eye-readable note. She also feared that people would agonize over what content should go into this field, e.g., acquisitions information. Is the use of subfield $5 necessary or appropriate? George Prager (AALL) suggested that the concern about display was a systems issue. Les Hawkins (LC) explained that “EZB” is an OCLC code. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) expressed concern about subfields $d and $l, and their use with and their relationship to multipart items. Do the examples apply only to those institutions given in subfield $5?
Renette Davis (ALCTS) agreed with Adam Schiff (University of Washington) that a subfield $p should be included for “provider”. Rich Greene (OCLC) asked whether there was a real need for so much detailed structuring of this information. Renette Davis (ALCTS) agreed. Tina Shrader (NAL) responded that the large number of granular subfields could be employed by systems to generate display labels. Joe Altimus (LITA) suggested that system templates and macros could provide these same labels. Sally McCallum (LC) asked to which specific systems he was referring. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said that both could be used. George Prager (AALL) thought that language-neutral data could be useful in the international exchange of records. Jim Alberts (MLA) agreed that natural language should remain an option. Everett Allgood (CC:DA), agreeing with Rich Greene (OCLC), felt that a greater number of subfields makes the cataloging process more confusing and less efficient.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked whether these subfields represent separate elements in RDA. John Attig (Penn State University) reported that they do, although it is formulated as eye-readable text. Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) thought that users would find this information helpful. Tina Shrader (NAL) stated that a similar structure of multiple subfields with differing levels of use already exists in the 505 and 502 fields. Cathy Gerhart (OLAC) disagreed; unlike those in the 505 and 502 fields, the data in the 883 subfields will be dependent upon display labels. General discomfort was expressed about using this field in two different ways. Joe Altimus (LITA) agreed. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) believes that communities will set standards for their particular use of this field. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) also suggested that these communities could come to MARBI for guidance. Cathy Gerhart (OLAC) expressed concerns about how far down this field is in the MARC sequence of fields (8XXs). Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) suggested that it be made a 5XX or 0XX field.
George Prager (AALL) asked Tina Shrader (NAL) whether it would be better to just pass the proposal without all of the granular subfields, just to get the field into the format. She responded that having the field was more important than worrying about the subfielding. John Myers (Union College) expressed concern about how complicated it will be for serials catalogers to understand the meaning and use of this field. Is its function beyond the understanding of the average serials cataloger? Everett Allgood (CC:DA) remembered that this type of information was being “lost” in the 5XX fields and that it needed to reside elsewhere, more prominently, in the record. He and Renette Davis (ALCTS) agreed that the field is necessary, with or without subfielding. Jim Alberts (MLA) questioned whether this field, lacking a clearly defined scope only of serials, would be used for all materials.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) motioned that field 588 (Cataloger’s note), including only subfields $a, $5, $6, and $8, and being repeatable, be approved. Joe Altimus (LITA) expressed concerns about not having consulted with all of the affected communities, naming the music community as an example. John Attig (Penn State University) stated that this motion deviates significantly from the original proposal, which may cause difficulties with RDA alignment. Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded the motion. The motion was not approved.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved that the group should come back with another proposal. Tina Shrader (NAL) expressed confusion about what was expected in that proposal. Corine Deliot (BL) asked for more discussion, particularly with additional communities. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) echoed that the field has now been broadened beyond its original scope, i.e., serials cataloging. Joe Altimus (LITA) stated that a specific definition needs to be identified. Tina Shrader (NAL) responded that the current proposal includes that definition only for serials, but that with the broadening of the field’s usage, as discussed here, that definition would no longer apply. Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded the motion; but Renette Davis (ALCTS) withdrew the motion.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) made a motion that field 588 (Source of Description, Etc. Note), including only subfields $a, $5, $6, and $8, and being repeatable, be approved. The examples would need to be adjusted. George Prager (AALL) suggested that usage should be driven by cataloger’s judgment. Corine Deliot (BL) questioned the use of the word “Etc.” in the field’s name. The title of the field and subfield $a should be “Source of Description Note”. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The motion was approved.
Proposal No. 2009-08: Changes to field 257 (Country of Producing Entity) for use with non-archival materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Cathy Gerhart (OLAC) presented the proposal, which would rename the 257 field (Country of Producing Entity), make it and subfield $a repeatable, and add subfield $2 (Source). Sherman Clarke (VRA) wondered whether the data in subfield $2 would come from different vocabularies. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) suggested that multiple subfield $2s in different vocabularies could be linked with a subfield $8. Susan Moore (MAGERT) stated that the broadened definition of the field would be useful for the maps community. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked whether subfield $2 would be required. John Attig (Penn State University) was concerned about the ambiguity of the field without the subfield $2. Stephen Hearn (SAC) questioned whether the authorized name of the Source would need to be kept in sync with current practice. Many felt not. Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) and John Attig (Penn State University) stated that there are no rules, in AACR2 or RDA, for recording the Source. Cathy Gerhart (OLAC) felt that the field description might include policies for the use of the subfield $2. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) pointed out an error in the last example; the first title should be in a 130 field and that both of the forward-slashes (257 and 730 subfield $8s) should be back-slashes.
Elizabeth Mangan (LC, retired) stated that references in the Proposed Changes should be changed from “film” to “resource”, broadening the scope. Also the punctuation in the examples needs to be corrected; and perhaps more examples are needed for other types of resources and varying punctuation conventions.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved that the proposal be approved as amended; Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded. The proposal was approved.
Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP05: Making 008/39 (Cataloging source) obsolete in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Les Hawkins (LC) presented a discussion paper which explores the making of 008/39 (Cataloging source) obsolete. He explained that coding has been inconsistent and that system-validation has been problematic. PCC members feel that the information is useful for the sorting of records. However, subfield $a of field 040 (Cataloging Source) could be used for that purpose.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked about older Library of Congress records that lack the 040 subfield $a. Rich Greene (OCLC) stated that OCLC has rebuilt those records, and that OCLC is in favor of this change because 040 subfield $a is more reliable than 008/39. Corine Deliot (BL) stated that more consultation is necessary in the United Kingdom. And she suggested that rather than making the byte obsolete, that coding practice could be changed and that systems could just ignore it. Since a value of “blank” cannot be used to express non-use of the byte (since it already means something else), then a fill character would need to be used to express non-use. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that it would be better to make it obsolete, in order to avoid questions of use into the future. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) expressed ambivalence about the two options. Sally McCallum (LC) asked Rich Greene (OCLC) about the perceived number of incorrect “blank” codings. He was unsure of the number, but asked for more information about how cataloging departments are using this byte for workflow routing.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) polled the committee and the audience as to their preference for a proposal at Midwinter 2010. There was an overwhelming expression to make the byte obsolete.
Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP04: Adding codes for “online access” and “direct access” in 008 for Form of item in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
George Prager (AALL) presented the discussion paper which would attempt to introduce additional coding to distinguish between online and direct access electronic resources. Option 1 (making code “s” for electronic obsolete and adding two new codes for online and direct access) seems to be preferred. However, code “r” is not available for use; instead, subfield $o was suggested for “online”. Renette Davis (ALCTS) likes the idea of differentiating between online and direct, but wondered about networked resources. Nathan Robertson (LITA) asked about the functionality of such differentiation. Joe Altimus (LITA) also wondered, but thought that users could potentially pre-select their preferred type of resource. Rebecca Guenther (LC) wondered whether the definition of “online” included the concept of “freely available”. Most agreed that it did not. Concerns were expressed about the sharing of such records and the meaning of this byte in different environments. Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) said that we must be very careful in using this data for both local and national (international) functions, i.e., mixing apples and oranges.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) expressed concerns about whether we really know why we want to capture this information. Les Hawkins (LC) added that local electronic resource management systems make this even more complicated. Renette Davis (ALCTS) clarified that this would not be used in the “one-record” approach (one record covering both the print and electronic resource). Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) cautioned that the proposal must include specific directions for use. John Attig (Penn State University) added that this is only the beginning of a much more complicated use of the byte; and he prefers Option 3 (retaining “s” as a broader category as well as defining two more specific codes). Nathan Robertson (LITA) stated again that it is difficult to determine whether a resource is online or direct-access. Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) clarified that this is determined by how the resource is issued, not by how it is distributed locally.
The committee and audience were polled; and the general feeling was that the paper should be moved forward as a proposal, concentrating on Option 1.
Regarding the questions for discussion, Kelley McGrath (Ball State University) felt that resources of type “m” (Computer file) in Leader/06 need to be included. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) felt that code “o” would work best for “online”, since it is mnemonic.
Reports
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that the MARC webpage now includes a list of all of the changes which have been approved, so far, that are necessary for RDA implementation.
Business meeting
Alesia McManus (RUSA) reported that she will be stepping down as Chair of MARBI; she is taking a position on the RUSA Board. Laura Snyder (RUSA) will be the new Chair, starting with the Midwinter 2010 meeting.
Proposal No. 2009-09: Adding new codes to Music 008/18-19 (Form of composition) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Mar Hernandez (Biblioteca Nacional de España) presented the proposal to add codes for four traditional Spanish forms of composition. Jim Alberts (MLA) stated that these forms of composition may already be coded using the previously-approved IAML codes. He also felt that, since the IAML codes are more specific and the list is more-frequently updated, perhaps all practice should be switched to that list of codes. He also felt that the code “tl” should be defined more specifically as a Spanish form, rather than as a broader form of musical theater. Corine Deliot (BL) agreed with the latter. Sally McCallum (LC) asked what the common term would be for this type of music. Jim Alberts (MLA) did not know of any term that was broader than the specific Spanish usage. Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked whether it might fall under “musical theater”. Jim Alberts (MLA) felt that that “musical theater” was usually perceived to represent American musicals of the 20th-century.
Jim Alberts (MLA) pointed out that the 047 two-character codes have not been added to since their original inception. He reiterated that the IAML codes are much richer and flexible. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) stated that she will write a letter to propose the “lyric theater music” code for the IAML list. John Attig (Penn State University) questioned whether we would want to open the door to further additions to the 048 list. Renette Davis (ALCTS) reminded the committee that MARBI has typically approved proposals such as this when solicited from a specific community. Joe Altimus (LITA) agreed that we could do this, but that the definitions of these codes needed to be better fleshed out.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved that the proposal be approved with the name of the “tl” code being changed to the Spanish term, “teatro lirico”. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded. Rich Greene (OCLC) reminded the committee that such codes also apply to the 047 field. The proposal was approved.
Proposal No. 2009-10: Adding subfield $3 to field 534 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Mar Hernandez (Biblioteca Nacional de España) presented the proposal to add a subfield $3 (Materials specified) to the 534 field, so that individual parts of a resource that are reproduced might be designated. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved that the proposal be approved as written, with added examples; Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded. The motion was approved.
Proposal No. 2009-06/1: Accommodating Relationship Designators for RDA Appendix J and K in MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
Rebecca Guenther (LC) presented the proposal to encode information on relationships between resources and persons/corporate bodies to accommodate for RDA entity relationships. Subfield $i has been used for such a textual designation of some types of relationships in the past. By adjusting the definition of subfield $i, the Appendix J (resource to resource) and K (name to name) relationships could be accommodated. Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) stated that subfield $i has typically included only eye-readable data, but he wonders about its use for controlled and machine-readable data. Stephen Hearn (SAC) is concerned about using the subfield for two different types of data. Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out that the order of the subfields in the “Pippi Longstocking” example is inconsistent. John Attig (Penn State University) pointed out that the 400 field should actually be a 500 field. Many felt that the relationship illustrated in the example was incorrect, mixing different RDA entities. Sherman Clarke (VRA) requested a new example. Stephen Hearn (SAC) asked for two examples, each representing a different type of relationship.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) wondered about the usage of the term “contained in (work)”, particularly about the parentheses. Will it appear this way in the display? Subfield $i does contain display text. John Attig (Penn State University) felt that this is an applications issue which needs attention. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) also wondered about the redundancy between the subfield $i text and the indicator. And she pointed out the redundancy between the descriptive text and the coded text. John Attig (Penn State University) pointed out that all are not required. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) stated that different communities will have different practices. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) wondered whether there ought to be an input convention requiring subfield $i to always be at the beginning of the field. John Attig (Penn State University) added “except when it’s not”.
He then asked about the suggestion to use the 787 field as a catch-all field, and which method would be used to identify the relationship. Renette Davis (ALCTS) expressed her preference for using the 787 field for merged-with titles. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) pointed out several typos with indicators in the examples.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested that the subfield $4 (Relator code) for name to resource relationship should also be added to the 4XX and 5XX fields in the authority format, and that the definition of subfield $i should also include relationships in the 4XX fields. Although the subfield is already defined there, its name should be changed. Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) asked what that name should be. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) pointed out that subfield $i can only be used when subfield $w/0 is employed with code “i”.
Joe Altimus (LITA) asked again about previously identified problems with the availability of additional subfields. Renette Davis (ALCTS) wondered about using both subfields $i and $4 together, one being eye-readable and the other coded.
John Attig (Penn State University) felt that the paired usage of subfields $i and $w/0 might hold the solution. Perhaps by using subfield $i alone, without subfield $w/0, could represent a different usage. Or perhaps using subfield $i with a subfield $2, making the meaning of subfield $2 ambiguous.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) expressed concern about subfield $i appearing only in the 5XX referenced heading. But several in the audience agreed that the 5XX in the paired authority record would include a statement of the reverse relationship. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) confirmed that RDA would require this back-and-forth relationship between authority records.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) summarized the suggested changes to the proposal so far: add subfield $4 to the 4XX and 5XX fields, adjust the definition of subfield $i (and change the name, to be provided by LC), and that a code to indicate that a relationship designator is used in subfield $i or subfield $4 needs to be added to subfield $w/0. Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved that the proposal be approved as amended; Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded. The proposal was approved.
Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP06/2: Enhancing Field 033 and Field 518 for Place and Date of Capture in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) presented the discussion paper about how the place and date of an event are recorded. Two methods for increasing the granularity of this data were suggested. Jim Alberts (MLA) felt that adding a subfield $d to the 033 field would not gain any advantage. Susan Moore (MAGERT) expressed interest in using the 518 field for recordings of aerial spatial data and the 033 field for the date of situation (i.e., the date that the map represents, not the year that the map was drawn). Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) expressed that this use of the 518 would be very unusual.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) described the difficulties of recording such information for compilation CDs with multiple recording dates and locations. Cathy Gerhart (OLAC) cautioned against adding free-text data in a field which typically has included only coded data, such as the 033 field.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested adding subfields $0 and $2 to the 033 field in order to link to outside lists of places for the subfield $d information. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) wondered whether the parsing of the data in the 033 and 518 fields would be done in both places, or if it was an either-or option. Jim Alberts (MLA) noted that the 033 field is not universally used. Cathy Gerhart (OLAC) agreed, stating that she usually sees it in less than half of all records. Martha Yee (UCLC Film & Television Archive) reported that for films, it is used more consistently.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) asked whether this level of granularity is beneficial. Sally McCallum (LC) felt that it would be beneficial in the 033 field, but still wondered about the 518 field. John Attig (Penn State University) felt that there was benefit in dividing the data in both places. Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) reminded the committee that the Australian community agrees with the division. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) reiterated a concern about having free text in the 033 field. A straw poll indicated that the committee and the audience were split in their feelings. But Jim Alberts (MLA) said that a more controlled version of the place name in subfield $d might be more palatable. All options should be included in a future proposal, including examples that employ subfield $3.
Responding to a question from Everett Allgood (CC:DA), Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) briefly explained the current uses of 033 subfields $b and $c.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) sensed that there was support for this to be presented as a proposal at the 2010 Midwinter meeting, which was confirmed by a straw poll.
Proposal No. 2009-06/3: New coded values for RDA media carriers in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the proposal which adds coded values for microfilm roll, and film roll, and object. Laura Snyder (RUSA) moved to accept the proposal; Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded. The proposal was approved.
Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP06/1: URIs for controlled values in MARC 21 records
Rebecca Guenther (LC) presented the discussion paper about using subfield $l for controlled-value URIs. The discussion paper had returned to the committee because of several outstanding questions from the 2009 Midwinter meeting. The meaning of the subfield is dependent upon its position, in regard to other subfields, within the field. Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) stated that an additional level of MARC encoding would be needed, beyond record-field-subfield, to clearly describe the relationship of subfield $l to other subfields. The establishment of this additional level is not likely. Examples in the proposal were provided in both MARC 2709 and MARCXML syntax, those in MARCXML being easier to code.
Joe Altimus (LITA) doubted that the MARCXML xlink:href coding would work very well. But Rebecca Guenther (LC) said that this is just one possibility; more specific attributes could be assigned. Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) wondered whether there is a precedent for this. Rebecca Guenther (LC) responded that this would be the first time that MARCXML would be used in this way. Perhaps a better method could be defined in MARC 2709. Joe Altimus (LITA) mentioned that currently there were very few MARCXML implementations. John Attig (Penn State University) noted that this is not required for RDA implementation, but is merely an exploration into new territory. He suggested that we see how it looks in classic MARC before moving on to MARCXML use. Several wondered about the value of providing this capability. Rebecca Guenther (LC) and Sally McCallum (LC) felt that we are not able to judge the value of such a mechanism without testing it in a real system. Could it be implemented as a provisional subfield?
Stephen Hearn (SAC) suggested that one possible solution would be to have two parallel fields, one with all of the text and another where only those applicable pieces of data (perhaps existing in multiple subfields) would be replaced by a URI (with any “irreplaceable” data being left as is). This would be similar to the field 880 (Alternate Graphic Representation) mechanism currently in the format.
Joe Altimus (LITA) reiterated that he was still unsure as to why we would want to provide such a mechanism. Specific cases of use need to be explored. The ability to update authorized headings via URIs might be one benefit. Uses should accommodate both local and international sharing of the data.
As a separate issue, Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) suggested that a discussion paper be prepared to look at the necessity of keeping MARC 2709 and MARCXML in sync.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair), upon consultation with Sally McCallum (LC) and Rebecca Guenther (LC), sensed that further consideration and discussion would be necessary before this discussion paper could go forward as a proposal. However, John Attig (Penn State University) thought that perhaps something concrete could be brought forward at the 2010 Midwinter meeting.
Proposal No. 2009-06/2: Transcribing Series and Subseries ISSNs
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) presented the proposal to make the subfield $x repeatable in 490 fields to accommodate the ISSNs for both the series and the subseries. Regina Reynolds (LC) and her constituents have concerns about how each ISSN will be related to the correct title, based solely upon its position within the field. She suggested that using two separate fields would resolve this issue. When questioned about how then the relationship between the two series would be reflected, she responded that catalogers often do not know the relationship anyway, but just blindly put them into the same 490 field. Judy Kuhagen (LC) stated that the same ambiguity exists for volume numbering of series and subseries.
Everett Allgood (CC:DA) said that the working group had actually had difficulty in finding examples of series and subseries where both had ISSNs. Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) reiterated his belief that MARC 2709 is incapable of reflecting this level of relationship at the subfield level, since it is limited to using the order of the subfields to determine their relationship. Judy Kuhagen (LC) stated that the examples in the proposal include ISBD punctuation, thus making the relationship clearer. But when using RDA, the lack of such punctuation might make the relationships even more ambiguous.
Judy Kuhagen (LC) wondered whether a different subfield had been considered by the working group. Everett Allgood (CC:DA) responded that it had not been a popular solution, one which would require even more subfields to be implemented for the subseries information.
Sally McCallum (LC) wondered whether this problem grew out of the fact that the Library of Congress has abandoned the use of 8XX fields for series. The audience responded that it had not. It is a problem because the ISSN is a transcribed piece of data in the 490.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved that the proposal be approved as written, with a friendly amendment by Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) to make corrections to the punctuation in the examples. Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded. The proposal was approved.
Discussion Paper No. 2009-DP06/3: New data elements in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Format for Works and Expressions
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) presented the discussion paper which explores additional data elements, in both the bibliographic and authority formats, to represent relationships between RDA Group 1 entities. A number of new fields were previously approved in the Authority Format in the 62X range, but it was suggested that those be changed so that all new fields, including those in this proposal, be assigned to the 3XX range. Thus, dummy tags (in uppercase letters) were used throughout the paper. George Prager (AALL) prefers Option 3.3 (changing the tags to 3XX) as being the cleanest solution. Several agreed.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved that the substance of point 3.3 be approved; Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded. The proposal was approved.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) noted that some of these relationships are already supported by the formats. John Attig (Penn State University) felt that new fields should be used for those elements which are not already supported. Martha Yee (UCLC Film & Television Archive) agreed; these elements serve an entirely different function. Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) disagreed. Because of the shortage of fields, he recommended using existing fields for dual purposes whenever possible. Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked whether an indicator would be used to differentiate such dual uses. John Attig (Penn State University) answered that it would need to be.
John Espley (AVIAC) shared his concern about having redundant data in a record, two pieces of data which may be identical, but which serve different purposes, such as “Form of work” and “Genre/Form” (655). Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) responded that RDA requires this redundancy. Kevin Randall (Northwestern University) thought that such practices might be remnants from AACR2 practice. But Paul Weiss (Sage Library System) countered that the JSC perceives these elements as being separate and distinct. Judy Kuhagen (LC) expressed that such redundancy could be useful for indexing and for library users. Most agreed that “Form of work” should be included in the 3XX block.
A field for the “Date of work/Date of expression” element will also be moved forward in a proposal for Midwinter.
Sally McCallum (LC) questioned the scope of “Other distinguishing characteristic of the work/Other distinguishing characteristic of the expression”. RDA does not define this element any more clearly. Several questions were raised about the qualification of the “Harlow” motion picture example. But Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) cautioned that the committee was straying into the realm of cataloging content. A field for the “Other distinguishing characteristic …” element should be proposed at Midwinter.
Corine Deliot (BL) referred the committee to question 5.4. She asked whether it made sense to create the elements listed there and why they had not been defined in the discussion paper. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) explained that those elements which were not included in the discussion paper had been avoided due to lack of expertise in the working group.
And it was determined that fields for “Medium of performance”, “Numeric designation of a musical work”, and “Key” elements should also be proposed at Midwinter. John Attig (Penn State University) and Alesia McManus (RUSA, Chair) felt strongly that recommendations should be solicited from the music library community. Perhaps an indicator could be used to signify whether the Key is a transposition.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Wise
| The Library of Congress
>> Especially for
Librarians and Archivists >> Standards ( 07/09/2010 ) |
Contact Us |