The Library of Congress
>> Especially for
Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
Alesia McManus, Chair RUSA Binghamton University
Renette Davis ALCTS University of Chicago
Amber Meryman RUSA Copyright Clearance Center
Vicki Grahame LITA University of California,
Irvine
Joe Altimus LITA Arizona State University
Gary Strawn ALCTS Northwestern University
Vicki Sipe ALCTS University of Maryland Baltimore
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
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 DNB 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
Renette Davis ALCTS University of Chicago
Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Karen Anspach TMQ Inc. John Attig Penn State University Penny Baker Sterling & Francine Clark Art Institute Jennifer Bowen University of Rochester Anne Champagne Art Institute of Chicago Karen Coyle Independent Consultant Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Les Hawkins Library of Congress Mar Hernandez Biblioteca Nacional de Espana William Jones New York University Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada Elizabeth Lilker New York University Giles Martin OCLC Dorothy McGarry UCLA John Myers Union College Cory Nimer Brigham Young University Ebony Pacheco TLC/CARL Corporation Adam Schiff University of Washington Doug Storer The Library Corporation Becky Thompson Missouri State University Ken Wade UCLA Jay Weitz OCLC Matthew Wise New York University Martha Yee UCLA Film and Television Archives [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. She announced that she would pass around a roster for people at the table to make any necessary changes. She also said that she would pass a paper around for people in the audience to sign.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there were any corrections to the minutes from ALA Annual, 2008, and there were none. Laura Snyder (RUSA) moved to accept the minutes and Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.
Mar Hernandez (Biblioteca Nacional de España) introduced this paper which proposes defining new codes for legal deposits in 008/07 (Method of Acquisition) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format. The proposed new codes are l (Legal deposit) and v (Depository program).
This paper was presented at ALA Annual, 2008, as a discussion paper (MARC Discussion Paper no. 2008-DP06). For the National Library of Spain it is important to make a distinction between resources that are acquired through a legal deposit program established by law and those that are acquired through a depository program by agreement from a publishing institution from other types of deposits. For those institutions that don't need to make this kind of distinction, the general code d (Deposit) can still be used.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked whether code d (Deposit) could be broadened to cover what would be in the proposed new code v (Depository program). John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that deposit means several things and combining them all may not be a good thing. We would need to make sure that d is well defined.
Joe Altimus (LITA) said that if we change the definition of code d, we should also change the name of the code to something like Deposit, unspecified. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked whether d would become "Other" if we make it more general.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked whether code d could be used for Depository program instead of defining a new code v. Mar Hernandez (Biblioteca Nacional de España) responded that the most important addition for them is l for Legal deposit. Corine Deliot (BL) pointed out that in the United Kingdom, the British Library uses d for Legal deposit.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) summarized the discussion by saying that the committee seems to favor changing the definition of d (Deposit) to something like Deposit, unspecified, including legal deposit and other depository programs. We would add code l (Legal deposit) for those institutions which require that level of granularity.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to add code l (the letter L), not add code v, and clarify the definition of code d and its relationship to code e, which will include unspecified deposit and depository programs. Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded. The vote was unanimous to accept the proposal as amended.
Mar Hernandez (Biblioteca Nacional de España) introduced this paper which proposes adding Field 080 to the MARC 21 Authority Format to contain a Universal Decimal Classification Number to be used for name, series and subject records. Field 080 has been defined in the Bibliographic format but not in the Authority format. They would like to have the field in both formats, similar to field 082 for Dewey Decimal Classification, which is in both Bibliographic and Authority formats.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there were any questions. George Prager (AALL) pointed out a correction in the last paragraph before section 3: In the first sentence "full abridged" should be "full or abridged". Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal and Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded. The vote was unanimous approval.
Susan Moore (MAGERT) presented this paper which proposes adding two new codes in 008/22-23 (Projection) to the Bibliographic Format (Maps). A projection method is a conversion that describes the mapping from a mathematical earthmodel to a plane. A variety of projection methods exist, including Cassini-Soldner and Krovak. Libraries in the Czech Republic are involved in extensive cataloging and digitizing of maps and hold a large quantity of maps with these projections. The proposed new codes are bk for Krovak and bl for Cassini-Soldner.
Corine Deliot (BL) said that she thought there was a mistake in the list of existing codes. Albers is the name of a person so "ca" should be Albers or perhaps Albers', not Alber's. Sally McCallum (LC) said she would check on that. Joe Altimus (LITA) moved to accept the proposal and Gary Strawn (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous approval.
Tina Shrader (NAL) introduced this paper which proposes a new field 588 for information useful for administrative or record management metadata. This discussion paper comes out of work with the CONSER Standard Record. Feedback during testing of the cataloging guidelines indicated that "Description based on" and "Latest issue consulted" notes in the record are not useful to the public. It was felt that it would be best to segregate these notes so institutions can choose whether to reorder the notes or suppress their display.
Tina Shrader (NAL) said that the Bibliographic Standards Committee of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of ACRL had expressed objection to suppressing this type of information. The point of the proposal is not to suppress this information but to segregate it so local institutions could decide whether and/or how to display it.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that if we really want granularity, we should define an indicator value. If a cataloger thinks information that would go in a 588 field should be displayed, we would not want that information to be put in a different field. That would be very bad metadata practice.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said that audiovisual catalogers thought this would be very valuable to them. Usually this type of information goes in the first note and that is not the most useful note to see first.
Joe Altimus (LITA) pointed out that UNIMARC has a field for cataloger's data. He doesn't like the field being called metadata control, though. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) agreed. The current name opens it up to any kind of administrative metadata and he doesn't think we want to go there.
Rich Greene (OCLC) said that people at OCLC thought there should be more subfields, perhaps a subfield $i, or indicators for types of notes. He asked if the group had discussed that. Tina Shrader (NAL) responded that they had but they chose to be more general. Les Hawkins (LC) said that they showed the proposal to Robert Bremer (OCLC) who suggested an indicator be used to say whether the field should be suppressed or not. Les said that they can work some more on the structure of the field.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said that in general NLM likes the idea but would like to change the name of the field. They also thought subfield $5 should be added.
Jim Alberts (MLA) thought it would be good to separate out "Description based on" and "Latest issue consulted" notes. He asked whether we would apply this retrospectively and if so how.
George Prager (AALL) said that in general, he thinks it would be great to have an indicator for suppression of the field for all fields. We would want the fields to always display in OCLC, though. Rich Greene (OCLC) said it might depend on which display is used. In Connexion, we would want the fields displayed, but in WorldCat we might not.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) said that she likes the idea of local control whether to suppress the information. The decision might be to suppress the information unless the record is coded as rare book cataloging. She said that in general there seems to be support for adding this field but more work is needed on the scope and structure.
Tina Shrader (NAL) said that they will discuss the ideas presented at this meeting with the aim of coming back with a proposal at ALA Annual, 2009.
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the Library of Congress report. MARC 21 Update No. 9 is now available on the MARC website at http://www.loc.gov/marc/. It came out the last day of October and has gone to the printer. It will also be available in Cataloger's Desktop. The clock for implementation began when the update was posted on the MARC website.
The language code for Moldavian (mol) has been made obsolete in favor of use of the code for Romanian (rum). Moldavian is a variant of Romanian spoken in Moldova.
LC is in the process of switching the code lists so the online version will be the authoritative version. They are considering whether to continue to supply printed editions of the code lists and are interested in knowing if anyone at the meeting still wants them. Sherman Clarke (VRA) responded that some people will want the print and asked if they are PDF documents. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that they originally put them up in PDF format and people objected, but they can always put up PDFs.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked if anyone still wanted an official print version. Rich Greene (OCLC) said most of us didn't know it was still being printed. Rebecca Guenther (LC) responded that they only print when there is a new edition. Sherman Clarke (VRA) reminded the committee that CC:DA had concerns about RDA for places where electricity is a problem or they don't have good connectivity to the Internet. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that they could think about doing a concise version which would be print.
The Library of Congress is putting up a new website - http://id.loc.gov - which will enable humans and machines to programmatically access authority data and other controlled vocabularies at the Library of Congress. This is a re-release of the system and content for LCSH that was put up on a private server under a private domain last year. They want to bring subjects, language codes, country codes, and other LC standards together in one place so people can experiment with the files. If desired people would be able to get whole files instead of coming in and getting one file at a time and overloading the system.
Business Meeting
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) said that she will request the same times for MARBI for ALA Annual, 2009. She explained that she has tried to find an intern but has not been successful. If anyone knows of someone who might be interested he/she should let her know. The intern can be from any of the three divisions. In 2010 when members rotate off, this person could possibly go on the committee. She said the invitation was open to the audience as well. [She has since found someone to serve as an intern.]
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) opened the meeting by asking
committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify
themselves.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) introduced this paper which proposes adding subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier) to the field 510 (Citation/References note) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format in order to provide an active link and immediate online access to a full description of the bibliography cited.
This field is used in the rare book cataloging community to cite sources in which the resource being described appears. There are two potential uses for this. One use is to provide a link to the persistent identifier for the record describing the bibliography cited in the 510. These tend to be recorded in abbreviated forms and the link would provide the full description. The other use is to provide a link to the actual resource that is cited in the 510.
One issue that came up was whether positioning of subfield $u should be significant. There was a suggestion that perhaps it should always be at the end whether it applied only to subfield $a or not.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) reported that in general NLM likes this proposal, but they weren’t sure whether using a persistent identifier was being required. They were also wondering if it would be confusing for users to have subfield $u mean several things - pointing to the actual resource or to a description of the resource. They don’t know if it would be better to use subfield $u for one and something else for the other.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) replied that traditionally we try to tag something for what it is, not how it is being used. In the examples they were trying to demonstrate that you would be able to use persistent identifiers if you chose to do so.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said that this would have other uses besides for rare books cataloging and felt that the documentation should include examples of other non rare book uses as well.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that the position of subfield $u in the examples seems to indicate what it means, i.e., whether the URL points to what is in subfield $a or to the actual location within the source in subfield $c.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that in some OPACs, the URL just goes to the mother page and the user has to scroll down to the resource. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that when this was discussed at LC, they had the same concern, which is why they put the subfield $u next to the name of the relevant resource.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked whether we would ever want to use subfield $u next to both the name of the resource and the location within the resource. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) answered that he didn’t see why we would want both. He assumes that we would want the most specific information.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) said she did not think users would be confused by the link going to the resource in some cases and to a description of the resource in other cases. She said that students are happy there are links and will click on anything. They will figure it out.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) asked if there was a need for a subfield for link text. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) answered that this issue has been raised when adding subfield $u to other fields, but they decided it was not necessary here. Rebecca Guenther (LC) added that some institutions have put text in subfield $3.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there is anything in the proposal that needs amending. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said more examples need to be included that are not rare books.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there was any discussion.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked what we decided about positioning. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said he thinks it’s better to specify that subfield $u goes after whatever is being pointed to.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) said that can be added to the instructions. She then called for a vote. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve; Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of the proposal.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) introduced this discussion paper which suggests broadening the use of field 257 (Country of producing entity for archival films) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to include non-archival materials by renaming it Country of producing entity. It also proposes removing non-repeatable (NR) restrictions on field 257 and field 257 subfield $a. Additionally, it recommends adding subfield $2 (Source) to be able to indicate a controlled list of terms from which information has been taken.
When LC developed guidelines for genre headings, they determined that geographic terms would not be valid. Field 257 has a narrow definition in its use for archival films and OLAC is asking to make it available also for non-archival materials.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that he would be in favor of putting geographic information in form/genre headings because there are others who want to do it too. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) responded that people cataloging media keep lists of genre headings, and the list most often used is the country of production. Even if the change to field 257 is approved, they will still use geographic information in genre headings in addition to 257.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked if the country of producing entity would be France if a film is made with a French cast by a French producer, but happens to be filmed in Tahiti. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said yes.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked whether field 257 would be repeated if a film is made by two production companies in two different countries. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said it would be one 257 with subfield $a repeating. If there are two films on a DVD, produced in two different countries, field 257 would be repeated.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked how a 257 would be associated with a 655. Could we have a 257 that is not associated with a 655? Kelly McGrath (OLAC) answered that a 257 would be associated with a genre heading except in the case where there is more than one film. There are all kinds of characteristics that are scattered in the record and can’t be put together.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that he thinks it is better to pre-coordinate this information in the same field, i.e., the 655. Sally McCallum (LC) asked if OLAC talked to people at LC, asking them to reconsider using 655. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said yes, LC asked them to do this discussion paper instead. Sally McCallum (LC) asked why and Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) answered that there were no studies which showed that users would interpret the geographic area correctly.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked whether OLAC members would actually use the 257. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said that they would probably put it in the records, but they would probably also continue using 655 local fields so their users can browse by country. Even though they would continue to use 655 subfield $z, she supports using the 257 as a mechanism for bringing the two cataloging standards together.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) reminded the group that this is just a discussion paper and called for a straw poll to see if it should be moved forward as a proposal for ALA Annual, 2009. Members agreed that it should be brought forward as a proposal.
Corine Deliot (BL) introduced this paper which proposes new data elements in the MARC 21 Authority Format that are needed to support RDA detail with respect to dates, places, and several other elements associated with the entity for which the record was made. The paper focuses primarily on persons, corporate bodies and families; more study is needed for works and expressions.
This proposal incorporates feedback from Discussion paper 2008-DP04, which was presented at ALA Annual, 2008. At that time MARBI thought it would be good to create separate fields so attributes can be recorded unambiguously. In some cases, these attributes will just be added to the authority record and in some cases they will also be added in appropriate subfields to access points. Wherever appropriate, proposed fields include a date element to indicate the currency of the information in the field. This is not an RDA requirement, but they felt it was important to add for when information changes.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there were any general questions on the paper.
Joe Altimus (LITA) said that we are being asked to approve a proposal with no definitions of fields. The excerpts from RDA seem clear, but those are in the discussion.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked how date associated with place of birth and place of death in field 621 is different than birth date and death date in field 046. Rebecca Guenther (LC) explained that they did not intend the date in field 621 to be used with subfield $a place of birth or subfield $b place of death. It is only to be used with other subfields that may vary over time.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked why we need separate fields for all of these. He would prefer them to be lumped together into one field with beginning and ending date. Rebecca Guenther (LC) said that we discussed this at ALA Annual, 2008, and decided not to lump them all together. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) added that dates associated with a particular element might be different than dates associated with another element.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) expressed concern about the redundancy between these fields and 670. He asked whether there could be a subfield for source of information. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) replied that in RDA, these are different data elements. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked whether having them in different subfields would make them different elements.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) agreed that there would be problems if information has to be recorded in several places. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that a subfield be defined for source of information.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) would like to see a function for linking from one field in the authority record to another authority record. Neither RDA nor FRAD treat these as relationships, but he believes that MARC could go further than RDA. In Germany, they already have the ability to link authority records. He would like to suggest subfield $0 for five of the fields: 621 (place), 623 (activity), 624 (affiliation), 625 (occupation) and 627 (family information).
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) summarized the general issues: lack of definition of fields, need to have an additional subfield for source of information, and desire to add subfield $0 to some of the fields. She asked if there were any other general issues.
Corine Deliot (BL) said that the lack of definitions was not intentional. Definitions from RDA are given and these will be used in the format documentation. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that if the appropriate definitions are from RDA, we can proceed on the assumption that they will be added.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) commented that often we use the same source of information for many of these elements. It won’t reduce redundancy if we have to repeat the source for each element.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if the committee wanted to go through each section and make decisions for that section, and the group agreed that would be a good way to proceed.
046 Special Coded Dates
Cory Nimer (Brigham Young University) pointed out that field 046 (special coded dates) is the only place in the proposal where the dates are computer readable and wondered whether the other dates should also be computer readable.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said he doesn’t see why we need this field. If we remove the restrictions in 621 Oproposed field for Associate place) for date associated with place of birth and place of death, then we don’t need this field at all. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) pointed out that they are different elements in RDA. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) responded that they would be different subfields.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said he can see where Gary is going here. If we had enough subfield codes, we could put the whole MARC format into one field. He said that they are trying to break things up by the type of data in each field.
Rich Greene (OCLC) thought there would be some confusion with input if sometimes people are supposed to put the date with the corresponding information but sometimes they are supposed to put it in a separate field.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked where date of establishment would go if this were not a separate field.
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) said we have not yet tried to address dates associated with works and expressions. When we start looking at other things that need dates, 046 might be a good field to use.
John Espley (AVIAC) asked if we would use the dates associated with the individual elements if we got rid of 046. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) replied yes.
John Myers (Union College) argued against doing away with 046. He felt that there would be difficulty trying to parse starting and ending dates within the other fields.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked how other metadata communities handle dates. Rebecca Guenther (LC) answered that there may be different types of dates.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that he didn’t think we need all 4 elements of birth date, death date, start period, and end period. Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked where start and end dates for establishment and termination of a corporate body would go if those 2 elements were eliminated. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) answered that there could be 2 subfields, start and end, and the definitions would depend on the use.
Corine Deliot (BL) pointed out that we also have the date of an event or the date on which a conference is held. She also expressed concern that whatever we decide now will be extensible for the future.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) expressed concern about how it would be displayed to users in a meaningful way if birth and death dates for persons are combined with start period and end period for corporate bodies. We would not want the display for a corporate body to be "Date of birth".
Rich Greene (OCLC) said that he thinks birth is an event and people think of place of birth and date of birth together. He is concerned that it will be coded incorrectly if date of birth and death are in a different field than place of birth and death.
Corine Deliot (BL) reminded the group that the subfield $d was added to other fields because the information might change over time. The date in those fields is not part of RDA. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) explained that this is data about data, which is out of scope for RDA. The dates in 046 are about the entity. The date in $d of the other fields is data about data. He thinks having dates in 046 is probably cleaner.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) called for a straw vote whether we should keep 046 as it has been proposed, and most people raised their hands. She then asked for a straw vote of people in the audience whether we should keep 046 as it is, and again most people raised their hands.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that sometimes people will say they don’t want a birth date to be used in their heading and asked if we want to define an indicator that says not to use the date in the heading. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that the intention is that you would not automatically include the date in the heading. He doesn’t think an indicator is needed.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked whether we have resolved the question about number of subfields. Sherman Clarke (VRA) responded that we may want displays that are person specific or form specific so he thinks we should keep 4 separate subfields. John Myers (Union College) agreed that we would want to distinguish start and end dates of a corporate body from birth and death dates of a person.
Amber Meryman (RUSA) moved to approve field 046. Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was 5 in favor of and 1 against approving the field.
621 Associated Place
Corine Deliot (BL) explained that the subfields in the 621 don’t reflect RDA elements because they tried to generalize for conferences. Subfield $2 was added to record the source in case someone wants to use a code for source of authority (i.e. in a controlled form).
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) said that they would like to add subfield $0 in addition to the existing subfields, for linking to another authority record.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked about the form of place names in the examples. Many of the examples use abbreviations, but NLM thought RDA was doing away with abbreviations. Corine Deliot (BL) explained that the examples came from RDA, which has instructions on abbreviations in Appendix B. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said that for these elements you do use certain abbreviations.
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) asked what the difference is between subfield $c (Associated country) and subfield $f (Other associated place). Gary Strawn (ALCTS) wondered whether "Other associated place" would be for a place other than place of birth or death. Sherman Clarke (VRA) wondered whether a place other than a country would go in "Other associated place". Jim Alberts (MLA) thought that a city would go in subfield $e (Place of residence/location of headquarters).
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked whether RDA specifies that country should be recorded. Marg Stewart (LAC) explained that with a person, country is what is recorded.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked what changes would be necessary to make the dates machine readable. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) explained that in order to make the dates machine actionable, there should be two subfields, one for beginning date and one for ending date.
Corine Deliot (BL) asked why we would want to make the dates machine actionable. Cory Nimer (Brigham Young University) said that he is interested in being able to search across fields for a specific date range. Corine Deliot (BL) suggested that we get rid of subfield $d for date and add subfield $o for start period and subfield $p for end period.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that subfields $o and $p should not be repeatable. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) added that subfield $0 would be repeatable.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked if we were going to add a subfield for source of information. Sherman Clarke (VRA) said that he likes this idea for some instances, but in other instances he thinks 670 is better. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) responded that he is not arguing to do away with 670 but would like to have both. Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked if it should have been added to 046 too. Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) responded that if we decide to add it for this field, we will add it to all fields in this proposal. Rebecca Guenther (LC) said that LC will come up with a subfield that works.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) suggested also adding subfield $u for link to source of information. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) asked whether the subfields for source of information would be repeatable. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) suggested that we make it consistent with whatever is in 670 subfield $u (it is repeatable there).
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) summarized that we would remove subfield $d, add subfields for start date and end date, which would be non-repeatable, add subfield $0 which would be repeatable, and add a subfield for source of information and subfield $u for link to source of information.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve field 621 with these changes. Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded. The vote was unanimous approval. [Subfields $o and $p were later changed to subfields $s and $t because of a conflict in field 270.]
622 Address
Corine Deliot (BL) introduced this field by saying that subfields $o and $p will be added as in 621 and subfield $t for date will be taken out. (Subfield $d in this field is country, to be parallel with 270 in the bibliographic format.) A subfield for source of information, which will be defined by LC, will be added and subfield $u for link to source of information will be added. (Note that date subfields were later changed to $s and $t.)
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) asked what would be the harm with replicating all of the subfields of 270 in the Bibliographic Format. Rebecca Guenther (LC) explained that some things that are not applicable and may be confusing in the Authority Format.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out that Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) did not include this field in the list for adding subfield $0 and asked if there are any cases where we would want to link to an authority record. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) answered that in their opinion it wouldn’t be useful. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) pointed out that nobody wants to make authority records for addresses.
Corine Deliot (BL) asked whether we should add a subfield for an email address. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) pointed out that there is a subfield in 270 for email address. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said there is an example in RDA of an email address. The documentation will explain that a home page address however should be in field 856.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve 622 with subfield $t replaced by subfields $o and $p, subfield $m added for email address, a subfield added for source of information and subfield $u added. Renette Davis (ALCTS) seconded. The vote was unanimous approval. [Subfields $o and $p were later changed to subfields $s and $t because of a conflict.]
628 Associated Language
Corine Deliot (BL) explained that this field is for the language of the person or corporate body, which is an attribute in RDA. The possibility of using field 041 was discussed at ALA Annual 2008, and it was decided not to use 041, but the 628 is modeled on the 041. We may also want to record URIs for the language code, but that issue is discussed in another discussion paper (Discussion paper 2009-DP01/1).
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if we need to make this field machine actionable and John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that it is machine actionable because it’s a code. Corine Deliot (BL) explained that having this a code would allow displays to be in any language.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked whether someone would use subfield $2 local if they wanted to use the term spelled out. Corine Deliot (BL) said that this field is defined as a code. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) pointed out that examples in RDA have the language spelled out. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) explained that RDA says we can use alternative vocabularies. We are considering MARC codes as alternative vocabularies.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) summarized that we are not making any changes to this section. We are not adding a subfield for source of information or subfield $u for link to source of information.
Laura Snyder (RUSA) moved to approve 628 and Gary Strawn (ALCTS) seconded. The vote was unanimous approval.
623 Field of Activity, 624 Affiliation, 625 Occupation
Corine Deliot (BL) explained that field of activity is a field of endeavor, area of expertise, etc., in which the person is or was engaged. Affiliation is a group with which the person is or has been affiliated. Occupation is a profession or occupation in which the person works or has worked. Because of the similarity between data recorded in field of activity and occupation, we need to be explicit with the definitions from RDA. As in other new Authority fields, subfield $d needs to change to subfields $o and $p, and a subfield for source of information as well as a subfield $u to link to source of information need to be added in these three fields.
Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) said that RDA Appendix K talks about linking a person with a corporate body such as an employer. If we do that here in Affiliation, we may end up doing the same thing in two different ways. This needs to be considered when we look further at relationship designators in Appendix K.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) reminded the group that we should include subfield $0 for all of these fields.
Cory Nimer (Brigham Young University) said that he wondered whether it would be possible to code things along the lines of 657 (Function) for area of activity. This would require the addition of subfields $x, $y, and $z.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out that the questions we had with 257 (Country of Producing Entity for Archival Films) also apply here. We have already taken care of place and don’t want to add it here too.
Joe Altimus (LITA) said there are problems with the examples. The first example has subfield $c in 100 that ends up in 623, but the 3rd example has $c that ends up in 625. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that this is a comment on RDA, not on coding. Joe Altimus (LITA) said that the question is how we define these fields so people can code them properly. Examples in the documentation will need to be clearer.
Jim Alberts (MLA) said that these fields are meant to do different things in RDA and asked whether occupation is from FRAD. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that all three of these elements are from FRAD. He admits that the distinction between the elements is not clear, but that’s an RDA problem, not a MARC problem.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said that we are going to need clear definitions to code these fields correctly, and Rebecca Guenther (LC) responded that the RDA definitions would be included. Sally McCallum (LC) said that more examples could be added as well to clarify. Marg Stewart (LAC) said that these examples actually came from FRAD and Adam Schiff (University of Washington) said there are a lot more examples in RDA that could be used.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) summarized that we will replace subfield $d with subfields $o and $p, add subfield $0 that is repeatable, add subfield for source of information, and add subfield $u in all three fields.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked for a motion to approve fields 623, 624, and 625. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the fields and Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous approval. [Subfields $o and $p were later changed to subfields $s and $t because of a conflict.]
626 Gender
Corine Deliot (BL) explained that RDA defines an element for gender. We will change subfield $d to subfields $o and $p, add a subfield for source of information, and add subfield $u. There will be no subfield $0. There’s a typo in the first example – 621 should be 626.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to approve 626. Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous approval. [Subfields $o and $p were later changed to subfields $s and $t because of a conflict.]
627 Family Information
Corine Deliot (BL) said we will change subfield $d to
subfields $o and $p, add a subfield for source of information,
and add subfield $u. We will also add subfield $0. Rebecca
Guenther (LC) pointed out that there is no subfield $2 and Alesia
McManus (RUSA, chair) said we will add it.
Cory Nimer (Brigham Young University) wondered whether it would
be possible to use an indicator value to designate where the term
came from. Rebecca Guenther (LC) explained that we have stopped
doing that because of the limited number of indicator values.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) expressed concern that subfield $2 might apply to any of the three data elements. Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that’s when you would have to repeat the field.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve 627 with the changes noted and Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous approval. [Subfields $o and $p were later changed to subfields $s and $t because of a conflict.]
Bill Leonard (LAC) presented this paper, which 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. Code lists for use in the new fields are proposed. Adjustments to coded data in 007 are proposed.
This proposal combines recommendations from a proposal (Proposal No. 2008-05/3) and discussion paper (Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP05/3) presented at ALA Annual, 2008. At that time it was decided that there should be 3 new fields for content, carrier, and media types. Bill Leonard (LAC) asked if we should go one by one through the proposed changes.
Renette Davis (ALCTS) asked if there are any general questions, such as the suggestion made by Everett Allgood (CC:DA) on the MARC list that these fields be defined for the MARC 21 Holdings Format as well. Pat Riva (Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec) had responded to Everett’s email message that content type reflects the expression so it should be the same for all holdings. Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) said that if we approve media type and carrier type for the Bibliographic Format, we will also approve them for the Holdings Format.
Bill Leonard (LAC) said he would like to suggest a couple of revisions. The statement in subfield $2 about what to do if more than one source is recorded could move to the input conventions.
Jennifer Bowen (eXtensible Catalog Project) felt that the last sentence under input conventions, which says that each instance of the field must contain only terms in $a subfields or only codes in $b subfields, was unnecessary. Bill Leonard (LAC) replied that they were imagining this would be a way to prevent cataloger error with conflicts between subfields $a and $b. It was agreed that the statement should be removed. It would also prevent the problem of subfield $2 relating to more than one subfield; if data is from two different sources, the field is repeated with a different $2.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that he thinks we need to go ahead with this proposal, but he has been reflecting on the proposal for ISBD area zero. His reading is that the RDA elements are incompatible with the ISBD elements. The only thing we could do is define a separate field for ISBD elements. On the other hand, there is common ground between them, which is the RDA ONIX standard. RDA and ISBD elements are both based on it. They both take attributes from ONIX and combine them in different ways. He thinks we should code the underlying attributes and that way we could combine them however we want to. He believes that this is a problem we will be facing in the future.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) said that he likes the RDA ONIX framework because it is very clear and very structured. He tried to do a mapping of RDA elements and RDA ONIX values and felt that there were some gaps and inconsistencies. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that Tom Delsey (RDA Editor) did a mapping of elements and only some values can be computed from the vocabularies. Some of them need to be extended by what amounts to genre terms.
Joe Altimus (LITA) said that he also looked at ISBD area zero and the main point of divergence seemed to be what is called qualifications. Otherwise there seems to be correspondence. He suggested that we could approve the RDA elements and then add a set of subfields for ISBD area zero for the things that they call qualifications.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there was a motion to approve the proposal, with the two revisions that were noted, i.e., moving the last sentence of subfield $2 to input conventions and striking the last sentence under input conventions.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said NLM was wondering if there is any way to change the term "computer" to something else. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that this is a comment on RDA content and should be addressed to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said NLM was also wondering how we would know which 336 (Content Type) goes with which 337 (Media Type). Bill Leonard (LAC) replied that this could be done with subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number).
Marg Stewart (LAC) pointed out that RDA gives terms that should be recorded, but the display can be something that is more meaningful. Laura Snyder (RUSA) said she has heard some unfavorable comments about the demise of the GMD in the 245 field. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said this is a display issue. If we want to display any of these elements as the GMD, we can do so.
Jim Alberts (MLA) wondered why we have gone back to three separate fields rather than having this information all in one field. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that they are three separate data elements. This was discussed at ALA Annual, 2008, and the consensus of the group was that it should be three fields. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) also pointed out that not all three of these are associated with the same FRBR entity. If we are splitting into work, expression, manifestation, and item records, they should be separate fields.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there were any other comments or questions, and there were none. Renette Davis (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposal and Laura Snyder (RUSA) seconded the motion. The vote was 5 in favor of and 1 against approving fields 336, 337, and 338.
Bill Leonard (LAC) explained that there are also some adjustments that will need to be made to coded data. In the electronic resource 007/01 (SMD), a new code for computer card (k) is being proposed. Two new codes for disc, type unspecified (d) and disc cartridge, type unspecified (e) are also being proposed. A new code for microform slip (h) is being proposed in the microform 007/01 (SMD). A new code is also being proposed in the projected graphic 007/01 (SMD) for other or unspecified type of filmstrip (f).
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there were any comments and there were none.
Bill Leonard (LAC) said that 7 new codes are being proposed in the non-projected graphic 007/01 (SMD) for activity card (a), poster (k), postcard (p), icon (q), radiograph (r), study print (s), and photograph, type unspecified (v). There were no comments on this section.
Bill Leonard (LAC) explained that in notated music, the extent maps to the 008/20 (Format of music). Three new codes for chorus score (h), condensed score (i) and performer-conductor part (j) are being proposed. These codes were taken from the discussion paper at ALA Annual, 2008 (MARC Discussion Paper no. 2008-DP05/3).
Jim Alberts (MLA) pointed out that the 008/20 current value d in section 4.5 should be vocal score instead of voice score. He believes that values i and j are ok but questions the need for h. Laura Snyder (RUSA) replied that chorus score is different from vocal score. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) said that she saw no harm in explicitly defining chorus score. The issue is that chorus score is an RDA value so it needs to be coded.
Bill Leonard (LAC) said that RDA specifies a single list of base material terms for all resources other than microforms and motion pictures. The RDA/MARC Working Group agreed that defining codes across all carrier bases that were not relevant to a particular one was not appropriate and that the existing code lists could support RDA. However, 5 new codes are necessary to cover RDA terms used in Map 007/04, Globe 007/04, and Non-projected graphic 007/04 for leather (v), parchment (w), vellum (n), plastic (i), and vinyl (l).
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there were any comments and there were none.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the proposed changes to coded data and Joe Altimus (LITA) seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous approval.
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced this paper which proposes defining a new field in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats to identify that the record is for a Work, Expression, or a Manifestation. This was discussed at ALA Annual, 2008 (MARC Proposal No. 2008-05/2) and at that time the committee did not consider this a necessary change for the initial implementation of RDA. The committee decided it could be discussed in a future meeting when there is more clarity about FRBR entities and further direction from the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA.
Sally McCallum (LC) explained that they decided to bring it back because confusion still exists on the relationship between entities and the record. They felt it would be better to record this information during the testing of RDA even though it might not be needed in the long run. We tend to think of work records as authority records, but subjects and some elements associated with works are in bibliographic records. The purpose of this field would be to enable creators of records to indicate what Group 1 entity they consider it to be and note what problems they encountered. It might be useful for the test environment, although it’s possible that a local field could be used if the field is not approved.
Jennifer Bowen (eXtensible Catalog Project) said that she is trying to use MARC data in another environment and strongly supports an element that will enable us to identify what FRBR entity the record describes. The problem is defining an element in a bibliographic record that defines a work or expression. Currently a MARC bibliographic record maps to a single FRBR Group 1 entity: manifestation. If a new element is available, people will think they can describe a work in a bibliographic record. She feels that we should think very carefully about the ramifications before going in this direction.
John Espley (AVIAC) said he doesn’t think the decision has been made yet whether works and expressions are authority records or bibliographic records. In VTLS works and expressions are bibliographic records. George Prager (AALL) pointed out that if a record is coded as a work, then only certain fields would be valid.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that declaring something a work record doesn’t make it a work record. In RDA the only legitimate way to determine whether something is a work or expression or manifestation or item is to look at the elements included. Elements belong at one and only one level. Including a code indicates what you have intended, not what you have accomplished.
Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) commented that it is hard to understand how this is intended to be used. If the idea is that a person is intending to create a record that just has work elements, that has to be coded in the leader. She thought it would be difficult to look for a particular field for validation. Using "primary entity type" will be hard to apply. It’s either a particular entity type or it isn't.
Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) said that there are a couple of places in the proposal where it says things like a book manifestation title is also its default work title if it is the only manifestation. That may be true in the current world but in fact, even if they are the same string, a work title and manifestation title are different elements in RDA. In terms of processing they are quite distinct. When we start talking about FRBR elements, they aren’t the same. They may look the same but they are two distinct elements.
Sally McCallum (LC) explained that they referred to primary entity because none of the records at this time are pure. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) wondered if we are intending to apply this to data that isn’t separated, what is the value of it? He thought this was for situations where we are trying to separate out the entities. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that authority records can’t have subjects, so the entities can’t be completely separated. During the testing period, we can’t completely clarify either the record or the definition. We can’t clean out everything that is not a particular entity, but can indicate what the record is primarily.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) wondered what we can do in a scenario 2 environment that will be meaningful and help us get to a scenario 1 environment. What would be appropriate at a scenario 1 environment? In that environment, we will want to code this in the leader because we will want to do validation. He is not convinced that coding this now really gets us anywhere.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said he doesn’t see anything that can’t be inferred from elsewhere in the record. Sally McCallum (LC) said that’s true. If there are subfields in the authority record, we can tell whether it’s an expression or work record.
Jennifer Bowen (eXtensible Catalog Project) said that people trying to use the bibliographic format to describe expressions falls into the category of experimentation to see what works and what doesn’t work. VTLS is also experimenting to see what works. The problem with this proposal is that we are trying to put something into the format before we know what will work. She agrees that there is a limit to what we can do to get to scenario 1 with the current MARC format and its implementations.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) asked if it is easy to build work and expression records from manifestation records. Jennifer Bowen (eXtensible Catalog Project) said yes. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) agreed. Jennifer Bowen (eXtensible Catalog Project) said that if we put this out for the community to use before we have it ready, it could cause more problems.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked whether we need to move forward with this proposal. Is there a use case for the field now? John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said it’s not necessary for RDA. Sally McCallum (LC) said they can use a local field for RDA testing. John Espley said that VTLS already uses a local field.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to reject the proposal. Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) seconded. The vote was unanimous to reject the proposal.
Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress) introduced this paper which explores the use of URIs for controlled values in MARC records to accommodate RDA descriptions. It considers using a URI in place of or in addition to the value in a number of fields in the format where controlled vocabularies are used. It suggests either encoding the data in a new subfield $1 that would be defined in all applicable fields or reusing the existing subfield that would be used for the data in another form, and allowing the URI to be self-defining as such.
The scope of this discussion paper is URIs for controlled values as well as URIs for other records, but not URIs for elements. URIs are currently used in MARC for resources being described as well as for related resources. Earlier today we passed a proposal (Proposal 2009-05) which adds a subfield $u to field 510 where the link could replace or supplement the other data in the field.
The sorts of fields that may require URIs for controlled values are fields with $e and $4 for relators, fields with coded data (e.g. 040, 041, 044, etc.), content type, media type, carrier type, 041, 040, and most fields that have subfield $2 for controlled lists. Identifier links to bibliographic records could also be expressed as URIs. There are two options for URIs. One is to define a new subfield $1 (the number one). If we go that route, we may need some mechanism to relate the subfield $1 with the particular subfield that it relates to or replaces. The other option is to repeat the already defined subfield for the URI. It would be self-defining because of the structure of the URI.
George Prager (AALL) said he understands why we would want URIs for subfield $w and subfield $0 to link to records, but wondered what are the advantages for pointing to a value in a controlled vocabulary? Rebecca Guenther (LC) pointed out that it’s in RDA. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) gave the example that earlier someone had objected to use of the term computer. If we are linking to a value in a registry, we can take the display terminology from that registry. If we don’t want to display the term in English, we can point to a URI that translates the term. It’s very much like an authority file for the values that we are recording.
Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) said that one argument against replacing the value in the field with the URI is that there may be times when you want to have both in the record. Making it either/or could be self-defeating. Rebecca Guenther (LC) responded that it could be repeatable. Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) replied that just because it repeats doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked for comments on the two options. Which would be preferable?
Jennifer Bowen (eXtensible Catalog Project) said that for ease of implementation she would prefer to have URIs in the same subfield across the board, so she thinks subfield $1 (the number one) makes sense. She would encourage us to think broadly about this, even if it doesn’t seem to apply to some fields now. Subfield $1 would be more broadly expandable. This will enable experimentation, since all use cases are not known.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) asked if there were any concerns that this is the last remaining numeric subfield. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said he was actually surprised it was still available. This sounds like the kind of forward looking thing that numeric subfields were defined for.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) said that NLM looked at the discussion questions and wants to make sure that the value is unambiguous. We should not try to make the same subfield do two different things. If we want to use both a term and URI, what would the instructions be? Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) answered that it could be flexible and Rebecca Guenther (LC) aagreed. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) added that there might be a problem once the record gets into a particular system.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) suggested that we look at the first discussion question: Are there additional data elements that could contain URIs representing controlled values in addition to those listed in 3.1? There were no additional elements mentioned.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) suggested that it is necessary to come up with some conventions for what to do if there is more than one subfield that could be represented by a URI.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) said that the answer to the last question in the discussion paper ("Should this mechanism be available in all MARC 21 formats wherever there are controlled vocabularies even if there isn’t currently a perceived need?") is an obvious yes.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) said that she is getting a sense that there is support for moving this forward as a proposal using subfield $1 (the number one). The committee agreed. This will be brought back as a proposal at ALA Annual, 2009.
Discussion Paper no. 2009-DP01/2: Relationship Designators for RDA Appendix J and K
Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) introduced this paper which summarizes the issues involved in accommodating RDA Appendices J and K in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats. These appendices are both new; they just came out with the full draft in November. Both appendices list terms that specify types of relationships. In the case of Appendix J it is among Group 1 entities. In the case of Appendix K it is relationships between Group 2 entities. In our current practice we have ways to identify many of these, but many are less specific. This paper discusses more specific ways to indicate these things that are related.
Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) suggested that we jump to the questions in section 5. Question 5.1: In the bibliographic format, should $e (for X00 and X10)/$j (for X11) and/or $4 subfields in 600/610/611/630 and 700/710/711 that contain $t subfields (i.e., that represent works or expressions) be used to accommodate relationship designators from RDA Appendix J for the preferred access point method of linking? Should $e and/or $4 subfields be added to field 730 to contain these relationship designators?
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) pointed out that the reason subfields $e and $4 are already there is because they are doing something else. Could we have one that indicates the relationship of the person to the work and another one to indicate the relationship of the entity to the work?
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) responded that if they have a person who had two roles, they would have two 700 added entries, one with a subfield for one role and another one with a subfield for the other role. Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) said they do that too.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that the important thing is to record the relationship of the author/title to the work. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that the relationship between the person and the work is covered in Appendix I. That is not part of this discussion paper.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) said they do like adding subfields $e and $4 to 730. Now there is no way to indicate what the relationship is except through the notes.
Corine Deliot (BL) said that up to now, subfields $e and $4 have been MARC related and now we’re going to put RDA designators in these subfields. She asked whether they are compatible. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that there are pre-AACR2 terms in old records. MARC standardizes the codes, not the relator term. AACR and RDA do not have codes, they have relators.
Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) suggested that we look at question 5.2: In the bibliographic format should [there be] a subfield [in] 76X-78X (Linking entry fields) to link via URIs to related resources? Currently there is no such subfield for a URI although some have used subfield $o (Other item identifier). This would accommodate the identifier method of linking.
Jennifer Bowen (eXtensible Catalog Project) said that this is a place where we would be able to use a URI in subfield $1. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) added that these relatorship designators are being registered as vocabularies and this is one of the things that they want to do with subfield $1. John also reminded the committee that in 76X-78X linking entry fields, a URI would point to a designation that says this is a later title. It would not necessarily point to the later title.
Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) asked about question 5.3: In the authority format do we need to enable the use of Appendix J relationship designators in 5XX fields? The ability to do this for work and expression authority heading records may be more efficient than expressing the same relationship in multiple bibliographic records.
Karen Coyle (Independent consultant) asked if there are instances where more than one relationship is needed on an authority record. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) responded that it would be possible to repeat the relationship with different designators. Karen asked how you would know which one relates to the bib record. John replied that he would assume that all are valid for all manifestations of those works and expressions.
Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) asked about question 5.4: Are there problems with using subfield $e in X00 fields to show relationships between resources (i.e. Group 1 entities), where it is currently limited to describing the relationship between a name and a resource? Or is there another alternative, such as a new subfield (although there are few if any available), or new values for subfield $w/0?
Rebecca Guenther (LC) mentioned that Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) had suggested repeating the field and asked whether that would work. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that no, once the decision is made to use subfield $e, that becomes part of the name of the work.
Sally McCallum (LC) said that some time ago there was a relator that applied to the author/title. It didn’t apply to the relationship of the author to the title but rather to the author/title entry as a whole.
John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said he would like to talk about the order of things. As we are figuring out how RDA works, the information about a related work is both an access point and a piece of descriptive information. We may want subfield $e at the beginning of an access point that says something like, "A commentary on ..."
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) asked whether there would still be notes that say something like, "Based on the book ...". John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said not necessarily. If you really want to give the caption followed by the name of the work, why not just use the caption in the access point? This is very much like a linking entry where we use data for two purposes.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) pointed out that we would have to do it in such a way that the connector words wouldn't mess up the headings. It wouldn't work for everything. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said that's a problem with using subfield $e or $4. In some cases it is part of the authorized heading and in some cases it's not, although it is infrequent that it would be part of the access point.
Sally McCallum (LC) said that RDA experts may be able to tell us whether there are options to express these relationships as notes. It might be like linking entries where there is an escape clause that says if the relationship is too complex to express with linking entries alone, use a 580 note. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said RDA doesn't express it like that, but it is very much the same kind of situation.
Martha Yee (UCLA Film and Television Archive) presented question 5.5: Should MARC define codes for the relationship designator terms in Appendix J and K? Martha suggested that it may be a moving target. The Library of Congress has done an extensive critique of Appendix J, so we need to keep in mind that it is possible that it will be revised.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) said that when this was discussed earlier, we felt that it would be good to define MARC codes for those that aren't already defined. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) agreed but said we shouldn't try to do this before the final text is available.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) pointed out that in the Authority format, subfield $w/0 defines a relationship, usually earlier or later. There's something that also says to use subfield $i. If we go to some other technique, we should make that obsolete so we don't have overlap.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) said that it sounds like there are some things that could come back as a proposal for ALA Annual, 2009. John Attig (ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) said there are some tricky issues. Sometimes the relationship term is part of the preferred access point for the work and in other cases it's not. That raises questions of whether we can use the same subfield for both. If that can't be resolved, this might still be a discussion paper. The frequency where subfield $e will end up being part of the work access point is probably not high, but we won't know that until we start using RDA. The potential is there and we need to consider carefully before we decide or we could make a mess out of authority control.
Alesia McManus (RUSA, chair) responded that this may come back as a further discussion paper or as a related proposal for ALA Annual, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Renette Davis
| The Library of Congress
>> Especially for
Librarians and Archivists >> Standards ( 12/22/2009 ) |
Contact Us |