The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Matthew Wise, Chair ALCTS New York University
Denise Beaubien Bennett RUSA University of Florida
Edward Kownslar RUSA Texas A&M University -
Corpus Christi
Gary L. Strawn ALCTS Northwestern University
Sarah Beth Weeks LITA St. Olaf College
Linda Wen LITA University of Arkansas at
Little Rock
Jia Xu ALCTS University of Iowa
Haiyun Cao, Intern ALCTS York University
Corine Deliot BL British Library Bill Leonard LAC Library and Archives Canada Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress
Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc. Bruce Evans MLA Baylor University Libraries Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Richard O. Greene OCLC OCLC Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa John Myers CC:DA Union College Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Morgan Library and Museum Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Patricia Sayre-McCoy AALL University of Chicago Law School
Haiyun Cao ALCTS York University
Everett Allgood New York University John Attig Penn State University Heidi Frank New York University Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Mary Huismann University of Minnesota Beth Iseminger Harvard University Damian Iseminger New England Conservatory Ed Jones National University William W. Jones New York University Christer Larsson National Library of Sweden Mary Mastraccio MARCIVE Dorothy McGarry UCLA Ellen McGrath University at Buffalo Law Library Joan Mitchell OCLC Kate Moriarty Saint Louis University Adrian Nolte Public Library, Essen, Germany Michael Panzer OCLC George Prager New York University Law School Adam Schiff University of Washington Kathryn Stine California Digital Library Ken Wade UCLA Janis L. Young Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) opened the meeting by asking Committee members, representatives, and liaisons to introduce themselves. A Committee roster was passed around the table; and all were asked to “check in” and to annotate their entries with any corrections.
Regarding the agenda, Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) moved item 9, Business meeting, to between item 2 and 3.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the ALA Midwinter 2012 meeting in Dallas. Being none, Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the minutes; Sarah Weeks (LITA) seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) announced a statement from ALCTS. The ALCTS Board approved to dissolve MARBI as of the conclusion of Annual 2013 and create a joint ALCTS-LITA Metadata Standards Committee with liaison from RUSA with the similar charge of MARBI: “The ALCTS/LITA Metadata Standards Committee will play a leadership role in the creation and development of metadata standards for bibliographic information. The Committee will review and evaluate proposed standards; recommend approval of standards in conformity with ALA policy; establish a mechanism for the continuing review of standards (including the monitoring of further development); provide commentary on the content of various implementations of standards to concerned agencies; and maintain liaison with concerned units within ALA and relevant outside agencies.”
Sally McCallum (LC) stated that the LC MARC Advisory Committee would maintain the current meeting format, including proposals and discussion papers and will continue working with international partners for improving the MARC format.
The proposal was presented by Gary Strawn (ALCTS). The proposal was created from Discussion paper No. 2012-DP01 from the 2012 Midwinter meeting. Field 670 (Source Data Found) in the MARC 21 Authority Format contains citations of sources in which information related to the entity represented by the authority record was found. This information would be of significant use to a program attempting to reassign headings in bibliographic records only if the information is in machine-actionable format. The proposal suggests defining a new field 672 in the MARC Authority format.
The initial discussion of the proposal raised considerations that the Gary Strawn (ALCTS) felt were too many and too important to be dealt with at the meeting. He therefore decided to withdraw the proposal. However, the paper was discussed so as to provide guidance for the subsequent paper.
Referring to the third example in the Background section, Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested using subfield $t, rather than subfield $a, for the title in order to leave $a for a related name.
The following questions were discussed:
1. Subfield $4: There does not appear to be a code that means "subject". Is such a code needed? Instead of a code in subfield $4, could this aspect be represented by an additional indicator value? If so, do we also need an additional indicator for "both by and subject of" for autobiographies?
John Attig (Penn State) was not sure how $4 would be used or why one would need to know that the access point is used for a subject. Patricia Sayre-McCoy (AALL) also wondered about the value of this subfield. Corine Deliot (BL) said the BIC Bibliographic Standards Group preferred three indicator values to indicate the broad relationship between the title and the entity (non-subject, subject, subject and other), which will be easy for the machine to manipulate. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) would like to add a parallel subfield $w (Bibliographic record control number), except $0 for a link to an authority record, for a link to a bibliographic record. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked everybody in the room to vote for two options: leaving $4 for the subject aspect in the proposal, or removing it. Majority voted to remove.
2. With the exception of subfield $x, the proposed subfields with alphabetic codes are an amalgam of those defined for bibliographic 245 and 7XX fields. Will this be confusing? Should the 672 field instead draw its subfields exclusively from the 245 field, or the 7XX fields? (Numeric subfields will be the same in all cases, and are not shown. In each alternate, as in the main proposal, the use of subfield $h is not proposed.) Can both modes of recording titles be accommodated?
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) suggested only useful titles should be put in this field, judged by catalogers, not those too generic titles and over-used titles. Different functions of names should also be clarified, such as actor or editor. Richard Greene (OCLC) reminded that there would be no human judgment involved. John Myers (CC:DA) also express concern about how much the proposed field could help machine-manipulation. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) believed this proposal would not only help the machine to do the job, but would also help catalogers to differentiate whether titles are from the same name. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) agreed this field would be useful when two authors have the same name, because we can easily differentiate them from this field.
3. (The following question assumes that at the time the 672 field is implemented, the LC/NACO authority file still contains aggregate authority records for undifferentiated personal names.) Can the 672 field be used in authority records for undifferentiated names? If so, systems must take care not to sort the 670-672 fields in strict tag order, but instead 672 fields must be allowed to be scattered amongst the 670 fields.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked everybody in the room to vote for two options: one for leaving the subfield codes as is; the other for using uniform title, or other way of qualification, to indicate the author. 14 persons voted for option 1 and 11 persons voted for option 2.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked for a vote on two other options: simple coding as proposed, or rich coding. The majority voted for simple coding. As a result, the decision was to remove the subject aspect subfield.
The majority also agreed on a suggestion for a reworked proposal: consider using two fields 672 and 673 to make clear the distinction between titles related to the entity and titles not related to the entity.
The proposal was presented by Michael Panzer (OCLC). This proposal discusses the ways of indicating machine generation of classification metadata (Dewey number) and identifying the underlying process. Two options are proposed: 1) a proposal that addresses the immediate need of documenting information about machine generation of classification data in 082, 083, and 084 fields by defining additional subfields $i, $u, and $1; 2) a second approach that suggests a possible way of dealing with these issues in a more general and encompassing manner with the introduction of a new data provenance field 883 and field link type p for subfield $8. In both options, the intention is to describe provenance of data that are fully machine-generated, or generated by some named process other than intellectual assignment.
Option 1 provides basic level of information: 1) whether a classification number was machine-generated, 2) the generating process or activity, 3) the agent responsible for the process, and 4) a basic confidence measure. In option 2, the new field could be used to explicitly specify the provenance of metadata recorded in other fields via subfield $8. With this approach it would be easier to 1) distinguish between provenance of information recorded and provenance of the recorded data itself, 2) align the way data provenance is documented with emerging standards from other communities, 3) provide a full account of data provenance without having to deal with the heavy use of subfields in certain fields like 6XX. Option 1 has higher impact on MARC data and lower impact on the MARC format. Option 2 is the opposite.
John Attig (Penn State) preferred option 2 because it seems to scale better, although it does rely on $8 linking, which has limited application. Michael Panzer (OCLC) said option 2 is more future-proved because the data is easier to convert to new metadata format. And in large bibliographic utilities or national libraries, $8 is widely applied. Richard Greene (OCLC) did not agree to have other information other than URI in $u because that would make the subfield not actionable. He suggested another subfield for other information. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) asked why the floating point value is between 0 and 1. Michael Panzer (OCLC) explained that floating point value 0-1 is commonly used for scale format. Patricia Sayre-McCoy (AALL) expressed concern about how to evaluate the scale objectively. Corine Deliot (BL) asked whether the confidence measure would apply to option 2. Michael Panzer (OCLC) replied that this notion had not been discussed yet, so it might be possible.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve option 2, change $u only for URI and add subfield $a for the name or description of the process. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) seconded. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested choosing another subfield code, not $1, for confidence value because $1 is usually used for control subfield code. $c was suggested. The motion was approved unanimously.
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that Update No. 14 (April 2012) was now available on the MARC website. It was integrated into the documentation for each of the Online Full and Concise formats that are maintained on that site. Current plans are to produce two updates to the formats each year, around April and September. In the past updates were produced annually. The MARC 21 updates are now only online, no longer printed.
LC made available several LC classification schedules on its linked data web service (ID.LOC.GOV), which provides access to LC authority and vocabulary data as Linked Data. The new additions include B, M, N and Z for religion, philosophy, music, art, information technology and information science. She welcomed feedback to the linked data service.
The proposal was presented by Bruce Evans (MLA). RDA instructions on recording identifiers for the manifestation have provisions to add a qualification after each identifier when the resource bears more than one identifier of the same type or when identifiers for parts of the resource are recorded. Identifiers for manifestations covered by these provisions include publisher’s numbers for sound recordings and video-recordings, which are encoded in field 028 of the MARC Bibliographic format. The existing content designation does not support recording qualification in field 028. RDA instructions currently require using a combination of field 028 and field 500. It would be more efficient if defining a subfield in 028 for both indexing and display even when qualification needs to be recorded. This proposal suggested subfield $c in field 028 for qualifying information. He also supported the suggestion from the Canadian Committee on MARC that the subfield chosen be one that is available in all the relevant fields, promoting consistency to facilitate ease of coding.
Richard Greene (OCLC) agreed that putting all the information in one field made sense. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested changing $c to $q. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) moved to approve the proposal with $q for Qualifying information. Jia Xu (ALCTS) seconded. The motion passed.
The proposal was presented by Bruce Evans (MLA). In 2009, three new code values for extent of notated music were defined in MARC 21 008/20 (Format of music) to provide direct equivalents for RDA terms chorus score, condensed score, piano conductor part and violin conductor part. When these values were added, a vocal score was defined in RDA as “a score showing all vocal parts, with accompaniment arranged for one or two keyboard instruments.” The definition did not provide for the possibility of the accompaniment being omitted. With the April 2012 update of RDA, the definition of “Vocal score” was revised to read “A score showing all vocal parts, with the instrumental accompaniment either arranged for keyboard(s) or other chordal instrument(s) or omitted.” Now that vocal scores with accompaniment omitted are included in the RDA definition, either value c or d is applicable to vocal scores since d is for “a score for a vocal work with the accompaniment omitted.” The RDA term “vocal score” no longer has a direct equivalent in MARC 21 008/20. The proposal suggested defining code value k for Vocal score, a score showing all vocal parts, with the instrumental accompaniment either arranged for keyboard(s) or other chordal instrument(s) or omitted as well as redefining code values c and d for no longer being applied to vocal score.
There was no discussion. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) moved to approve the proposal. Jia Xu (ALCTS) seconded. The motion passed.
The proposal was presented by Corine Deliot (BL). The proposal states that it is useful to have this information recorded in separate content designation. It also suggests that the definition of field 368 be broadened. The options were presented. Option 1: Change field name to "Other attributes"; broaden field definition and scope; define $d "Other designation associated with the person" and $e "Title of the person"; Change the caption of subfield $c to "Other designation associated with the corporate body." Option 2: Change field name to "Other attributes"; broaden field definition and scope; define subfield $d as "Title of the person"; broaden the definition of subfield $c to relate to whatever entities.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) wondered whether the field name "Other Attributes" might be too generic, and that there might be a conflict with main attributes. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked if there was any preference to any of the two options. John Attig (Penn State) said he preferred Option 1 because it made explicit the distinction between the two RDA elements. He was also concerned that we were trying to make a single field do too much. Corine Deliot (BL) did not agree with that. She gave as examples field 373 (Associated group) and 377 (Associated language), which were applied for both person and corporate body. Bruce Evans (MLA) suggested adding subfield $s (Start period), $t (End period), $u (Uniform Resource Identifier) and $v (Source of information) to the proposal for consistency with similar fields 370, 371, 372, 373 etc. Edward Kownslar (RUSA) moved to approve Option 2 with additional subfields $s, $t, $u and $v. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) seconded. The motion passed.
The proposal was presented by Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair). With the implementation of RDA, data from notated music recorded under AACR2 in the 254 field, and certain data recorded in the 245 field, will be recorded in the 250 field. The result is that not only will standard edition statements be recorded in field 250, but also statements typical of musical works, such as the physical format of the music and the voice range. Music resources often contain information relevant to several of these categories. Consequently, under RDA, a single 250 field in a bibliographic record may record several entirely different statements in one field. These discrete elements including their respective languages and punctuation have to be sorted out by the end user in order to make the field intelligible. Were each separate statement given its own 250 field, that area of the bibliographic record would be much easier to understand. Therefore, the proposal suggested that field 250 be repeatable in Bibliographic format.
Bruce Evans (MLA) said the MLA community supported the proposal. Several people were concerned about the possible misuse of a repeatable 250 and the impact to MARC documentation. John Myers (CC:DA) gave an example of a DVD, which was Director's cut and Widescreen edition. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) explained that this proposal was only for the presentation statements of music materials, which sometimes need separate edition fields. Richard Greene (OCLC) said this proposal would have very limited usage. He would like to know if 254 would be used in RDA or not. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) thought probably not. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) commented that, from his understanding, RDA requires only the dominant edition statement in 250 and other edition information in a notes field. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) stated that the musical presentation statements were not equivalent to edition statement so she thought 250 was not the proper field for that, unless we specified that this proposal was only for musical presentation statements. Otherwise, this proposal would open to too many unclear situations. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said that actually more information from 245 $c than 254 would be moved to 250 according to the proposal. She suggested only moving 245 $c information to repeatable 250, but not 254 information. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) worried that it would be hard to decide what information in 245 $c could be considered primary edition information to put in 250. As for the information in 254, he asked whether we could rename the 254 field something like musical presentation statement or RDA edition statement for musical presentation. John Myers (CC:DA) thought that would be more problematic. Patricia Sayre-McCoy (AALL) said this proposal might need further discussion from the Music Library Association. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) moved to approve the proposal. Edward Kownslar (RUSA) seconded. The motion was voted down and the proposal was rejected.
She stated that all four discussion papers were created through the genre/form project. She gave an example to explain that LCGFT would not include information mentioned in the four discussion papers. That information would need to be recorded somewhere and be better indexed and keyword searchable. More discussion papers will be created in order to record other subject aspects that will not include LCGFT. LCMPT is just one of the examples.
Richard Greene (OCLC) felt genre/form was a "IS" factor and subject was an "ABOUT" factor. He questioned why LCGFT was too narrowly defined and where the subject matter left by LCGFT would go. Janis Young (LC) clarified that LCGFT was a LC decision, not the subcommittee's. By giving the definitions of genre and form, she pointed out that the genre/form factor was very different from those factors in the four discussion papers so it needs to be treated separately. And the data in MARC subfields is very difficult to migrate to a new data format. John Attig (Pen State) thought genre/form should be treated as a type of relationship, rather than as a type of entity. If so, it would be possible for LCGFT to retain all this information that seems to have fallen off the tree.
Bruce Evans (MLS) introduced the paper. In March 2012, the Library of Congress announced its intention to develop in collaboration with the Music Library Association a new medium of performance vocabulary for music, Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus for Music (LCMPT). The need for the new vocabulary grew out of the work underway in an existing collaboration between the Library of Congress and the Music Library Association to develop the music component of the thesaurus, Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT). Many LCSH headings with eligible vocabulary for LCGFT also contain medium of performance terms, but they are out of scope for LCGFT. Medium of performance is now recognized as its own bibliographic facet that should have its own vocabulary.
The discussion paper suggested that a new set of fields needed to be defined for medium of performance authority records. Traditionally, headings tags in the Authority format have matched the corresponding bibliographic fields in which those headings are used. Field 382 has been defined in both Bibliographic and Authority formats as medium of performance. However, the corresponding 182 in the Authority format is not available. It is already defined as Heading – Chronological Subdivision. The paper suggests field 152 as a possibility, as it is currently unused, it is in close proximity to the 155, and it ends with the same digit (2) as the 382. However, it is used for hierarchical place names in the Bibliographic format 7XX fields (752). If authority records were created for hierarchical place names in the future, it would be desirable to use the 152 for them. Another "semi-mnemonic" tag would be 142, which is open.
The following questions were discussed:
1. 382 (BF, AF) has already been authorized as the field in which medium of performance terms will be recorded. The corresponding 182 (AF) tag is not available, but the 152 and the 142 tags are available. Would the "mismatch" cause problems? Also authority field 152 was in the past defined in the Canadian MARC Communication Format: Authorities as Established Heading - Reversed Geographic Name. Is there as great a concern about re-using authority tags as there is for bibliographic tags?
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) did not feel that a mismatch of field tags between bibliographic record and authority record would cause any problem. He supported Reinhold Heuvelmann’s (DNB) opinion that instruments are objects and are already represented in 150 authority records for subjects; for example, Violin. We might just need to expand the 150 field scope to also represent medium of performance of music. John Myers (CC:DA) suggested that the 15X fields, 14X, 16X and 17X fields have lots of options. Bruce Evans (MLA) expressed that the music cataloging community preferred 142.
2. All current fields in the 1XX range of the Authority format have the title “Heading.” LCMPT terms will be better described as index terms. Should the LCMPT authority file have a different name for the 1XX -- that does not begin with "Heading"?
Sherman Clarke (VRA) thought headings were also kind of indexed terms. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) felt these terms would function more as terms, rather than headings.
3. The 382 field, as it has been defined, does not work in the same way as many other controlled fields. Multiple terms will be valid in each 382, in repeatable subfields $a, $b, and $d, and combined with numerals in subfields $n and $s to create a meaningful medium of performance statement. Will having multiple, separate terms in a single field pose special problems for citing authority records?
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) wondered how different systems would handle this issue. And he also wondered whether such parsed data could be searched when more than one 382 field could be present in the same bibliographic record. John Myers (CC:DA) was also concerned about how the terms in separate subfields would be linked to corresponding authority records.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) introduced the discussion paper. The ALCTS SAC Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation is working on LCGFT. The committee has been considering what to do with numerous characteristics currently included in LCSH used as form headings, which are not in the scope of LCGFT. One of these characteristics is the chronological origin aspect of a work, especially for describing collections/aggregated works.
The discussion paper suggested several options.
For the Bibliographic format, Option 1 is field 045, Time Period of Content. While the 045 is well suited to representing chronological information in a standard format, the varying semantics of the field presents a problem. If it is necessary to convey the date created in field 045, one solution would be to define second indicator values to identify explicitly the distinction between time depicted and time of origin. The field would also need to be made repeatable so that it could be used to represent both a period depicted and a period of creation.
Option 2 is field 648, Subject Added Entry – Chronological Term. This field is implied to represent the period depicted rather than a period of origin. To enable the expression of this distinction, additional values could be defined for the first indicator.
Option 3 is field 046, Special Coded Dates. New subfields need to be defined in field 046 since the existing subfields are problematic.
For the Authority format, the paper suggested field 046, Special Coded Dates. New fields need to be defined to represent specifically the dates of an aggregated work’s contents.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) expressed her concern that since the RDA subject standard had not been written yet, we did not know the right direction to go about this issue. Others responded that the JSC (Joint Steering Committee for development of RDA) seemed to not have an interest in developing RDA chapters for subjects.
The following questions were discussed:
1. Does MARC need a place to encode date or period of creation in particular for the content of published collections/aggregated works?
John Myers (CC:DA) thought the answer was yes.
2. Would field 045 provide additional useful capabilities if it could be used for date or period of creation for all types of resources?
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) felt it worked for music catalogers. Janis Young (LC) personally thought, as a book cataloger, training to use 045 and 046 fields was an issue. The training could be difficult. John Myers (CC:DA) commented that using indicators in 045 was a solution, but not a perfect one. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) wondered how the coded data in 045 and 046 could be translated to data searchable or displayable for end users. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded that, usually when users searched by topical headings, the coded data in 045 or 046 could be translated and displayed as facets for narrowing down the search results. He also felt that a vocabulary needed to be defined or developed if we coded fields 045 and 046 for searching.
3. Is there redundancy between 045 and 046 for printed music, sound recordings, and naturally occurring objects? If so, should the redundancy be eliminated?
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) thought the two fields contained different types of dates so we should clarify which field represents which types of dates.
4. Would field 648 be a useful way to collocate works based on controlled vocabularies for time periods of creation?
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) answered “yes.”
5. Is there a better alternative to consider? Would it be useful to enable the Bibliographic format 045, 648, and 046 fields all to carry chronological origin data?
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) believed the more the better. All the 3 fields should be available to represent different aspects, such as 648 for more generic date and 045 for more specific date.
6. Is the use of an indicator value in 046 and/or 648 fields to specify the meaning of a date as either that of creation or of coverage appropriate, or is there a better approach?
No discussion on this question.
7. Should a change made to the Bibliographic 046 also be made in the Authority 046?
Several people said “yes.” No further discussion.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) introduced the discussion paper. With the development of LCGFT, some aspects of works and expressions that are now expressed in combination with form headings in LCSH will be out of the scope for LCGFT, and may need to be recorded elsewhere in bibliographic and authority records. One such aspect is the audience for a work or expression. The discussion paper proposes that a new MARC 21 3XX field for audience characteristics be established in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats because audience aspect is one of the work or expression’s attributes and intended to be indexed or controlled. Even though in Bibliographic format, 521 is for target audience notes, it is not suitable for the purpose because it is free text notes and not indexed or controlled. In the Authority format, there is currently no place to record information about the intended audience of a work or expression. Because SAC deems the existing fields for audience inadequate for the purposes of discovery and faceting or linking with genre/form, the paper suggests establishing new field, 3XX - Audience Characteristics, in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats. 10 different kinds of audience groups are considered: age groups, disability groups, ethnic groups, gender groups, language groups, nationality or region groups, occupational and vocational groups, religious groups, social groups, and other groups. The committee was not sure about culture groups because it might not be the same as nationality and region groups.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked if the subfield $a was repeatable for different facets of audience aspects. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded that the subfield $a was repeatable. And the field was also repeatable for vocabularies from different thesauri to be indicated in $2. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) cautioned that, if the subfield $a was repeatable and we intended to control the audience aspects by authority record control number, then the control number subfield $0 also has to be repeatable. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded that we could make the subfield $0 repeatable.
The following questions were discussed:
1. Do you agree that audience characteristics can be considered an attribute of works and expressions?
Several people answered “yes.”
2. Do you agree that the 3XX block is preferable to the 6XX or any other block of tags for recording index terms for audience characteristics? (See also question 3.3 below). Should the tags used in the bibliographic and authorities be the same if possible?
Several people expressed their concerns that using 3XX and not 6XX might cause confusion and make catalogers' work more complicated as it is too far removed from LCGFT, which is already located in the 6XX block. Janis Young (LC) said there was a strong logical reason to use the 3XX block because audience aspect was not subject, but attribute of work and expression based on RDA. John Myers (CC:DA) stated that we already put some non-subject aspects in 6XX block, except genre/form, such as 656 for Occupation, 657 for Function, and 662 for Hierarchical Place Names, etc. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) thought, wherever we would put the audience aspect, we should consider the users’ needs, not catalogers’. John Myers (CC:DA) stated that it did not matter which field we put it in since the system would be able to display it wherever the users prefer.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested a straw vote. The vote result supported a 3XX tag in both Bibliographic and Authority formats.
3. Would it be better to revise the 521 field to allow it to serve as a place to record controlled vocabulary and terms intended for indexing and faceting?
No, there was no support for this from the group.
4. A separate discussion paper covers creator/contributor categorizations for works and expressions. It recommends a different 3XX field for this information. Do you agree that two separate 3XX fields for audience characteristics and for creator/contributor categorizations are preferable to a single field?
The answer was “yes", it is better to use two separate 3XX fields for audience characteristics and for creator/contributor categorizations.
5. If a new 3XX is established, there will be some overlap in the information recorded in bibliographic records in the 3XX and 008/22. Given that the 008/22 is inadequate to record all the possibilities for target audience, should its future use be reconsidered? Should we make it obsolete and just use the 3XX instead? If so, should a subfield be included in the 3XX to allow coded values to be recorded like the ones currently used in 008/22 (and new ones as well)?
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) preferred to keep all of them for different granularity. Corine Deliot (BL) felt putting all the information in one 3XX could keep data consistency and make it easier for maintenance. So it was better to migrate all the 008/22 data to the new 3XX field. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) clarified that, if we decide to make 008/22 obsolete, we would need to add a new subfield in 3XX field for 008/22 codes. After further discussion, the majority voted to not make 008/22 obsolete. As for the second question about whether a new subfield should be added to 3XX, even though 008/22 code would be kept, Richard Greene (OCLC) thought it was not a mature question. We should wait until the controlled vocabulary was created. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) was not sure if there was a need to create a new vocabulary — who would maintain it? But it could be a MARC code list with 3 digits for audience. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) said, from his perspective, it would be a list of values in $2 for the source of term and the second subfield for the term. Janis Young (LC) said that, in a linked data world, if we used natural language terms, we could link the terms to their authority record number, or the URI for linked data. So the 3XX field would need a subfield $u for the URI.
6. The proposed definition of 3XX is “A category of persons for which a resource is intended.” This focuses on the specific audience for the resource. Should the new 3XX also be used for categories of persons representing the intellectual level for which the content of a described resource is considered appropriate?
The answer was “yes." The definition should be rewritten to also include the intellectual level for which the content of a described resource is considered appropriate.
7. If a compound string like Asperger's syndrome--Patients is needed from a particular controlled vocabulary, what is the best way to record it in the audience characteristics field? Does the 3XX need to also include subdivision subfields? If so, is just the topical subdivision $x needed?
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said, in the medical cataloging community, they rarely used compound terms, such as disease-patients. They usually recorded the disease and patients separately. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) felt, as a facet, pre-coordinated terms are needed for specific group of audience; for example, the patients of the specific disease. It was concluded that compound string would not be used in 3XX field.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) introduced the discussion paper. Similar to Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP04, with the development of LCGFT, the category of persons who created/contributed to a work or expression, which are now expressed in combination with form headings in LCSH will be out of the scope for LCGFT, and may need to be recorded elsewhere in bibliographic and authority records. In literature and music, headings that include creator categorizations are commonly used in LCSH for collections, anthologies, and other aggregate works.
In LCSH, The category of creators can be found in several situations:
MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats do not currently provide a suitable place to record this aspect in a way that will facilitate resource discovery. What is needed is a facet for categorization of creator/contributor that can be linked with other aspects such as genre/form and which can be controlled by authority records representing the specific categories. This discussion paper proposes that a new MARC 21 3XX field for creator characteristics be established in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats. In the Bibliographic format, there are no existing fields used to provide access to the category or class of creators and contributors of a resource. On the authority side, creator/contributor categories will also need to be recorded in records for works and expressions, at least in the case of authorities for collections/aggregate works by various creators and for works/expressions whose authorized access point consists of a title only.
The following questions were discussed:
1. Do you agree that after LCGFT implementation that it will continue to be necessary to record in bibliographic records group categories for creators/contributors of compilations/aggregate works who share a particular characteristic?
The answer was “yes.” It should be recorded.
2. Do you agree that creator/contributor group categorizations can be considered attributes of works and expressions? If so, should they be recorded in work and expression authority records, particularly for compilations/aggregate works? What about other work and expression authority records?
The answer was “yes.” It is one of the attributes of works and expressions.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) commented on two points. Firstly, the definition of compilations/aggregate works was not yet clearly modeled. Secondly, he agreed that creator/contributor group categorizations were attributes of works and expressions.
3. Do you agree that individual persons have attributes for categories of groups to which they belong (e.g., ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation groups)? Do you agree that such categories could be useful and should be recorded in personal name authority records?
The answer was "yes." It was agreed that individual persons have attributes for categories of groups to which they belong and should be recorded in personal name authority records. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) felt there should be some guidelines on how to identify the creators/contributors.
4. Do you agree that the 3XX block is preferable for this data than 6XX or any other block of tags? Should the tags used in the Bibliographic and Authority formats be the same if possible?
The answer was “yes."
5. Do you agree that two separate 3XX fields for creator/contributor group categorizations and for audience characteristics are preferable to a single field?
The answer was “yes.” Patricia Sayre-McCoy (AALL) asked if the subfield in this 3XX field was repeatable. Adam Schiff (U of Washington) confirmed that.
6. Would it be better to build related links between the geographic and nationality vocabularies rather than inputting the nationality term along with the associated country in the personal name authority record?
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) explained that LCSH did have terms for nationalities, but did not have terms for other entities, like for certain other groups of people. He gave an example: literature from Canada vs. literature by Canadians, to show the difference between country of origin and nationality, or the place’s name where the group of people is from. He wondered how these two concepts could be put in the system so users could get the same results no matter which terms were used for searching. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) added that this could be more complicated for music catalogers because some musicians moving from one country to another would not like to be identified by their country of origin or previous nationalities, so we could only have them to self-identify. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded that we could consider RDA field 370 (Associated Place) which was more generic than nationality. Corine Deliot (BL) stated that nationality could not be inferred from the RDA associated country. It could be a city or a state, etc. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) expressed concern that the term "culture" can sometimes refer to nationality but sometimes not. So it is not clear what a single 3XX field would represent without indication. For example, what does French represent: either the French culture or the French nationality?. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) responded the Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation was considering 10 separate subfields for different kinds of group categories. They also considered using related subfields, such as $i or $4.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) said all 9 current MARBI members were asked to remain on because of ALCTS's decision to dissolve MARBI after next year's Annual meeting. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) asked members to speak about several members who have finished their term. Bill Leonard (LAC) and Sally McCallum (LC) spoke about Margaret Stewart's (LAC) long service to MARBI. Marg is retiring in September 2012, so her replacement as liaison, Bill Leonard (LAC), attended the meeting in her place. Richard Greene (OCLC) spoke about the contributions over a long period of time from John Espley (AVIAC) who would retire soon. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) announced that Eric Delozier (LITA) would take over the chair of MARBI next year and Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) would step down to a voting member. In the 2013 Midwinter MARBI meeting in Seattle, the meeting will probably have the same routine. In the 2013 Annual meeting in Chicago, the Committee will consider having the meeting on Sunday evening if needed and there is no conflict.
Respectfully submitted,
Haiyun Cao
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 01/29/2013 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |