The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Matthew Wise, Chair ALCTS New York University
Denise Bennett RUSA Florida Marston Science Library
Eric Delozier LITA Penn State Harrisburg, Library
Vicki Sipe ALCTS University of Maryland,
Baltimore
Gary Strawn ALCTS Northwestern University
Sheila Yeh, Intern ALCTS University of Colorado, Denver
Corine Deliot British Library Sally H. McCallum Library of Congress Bill Leonard Library and Archives Canada
Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger
John Espley AVIAC VTLS, Inc.
Bruce Evans MLA Baylor University Libraries
Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington
Rich Greene OCLC OCLC
Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress
Robert Hall PLA Concord Free Public Library
Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota
Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Susan Moore MAGERT 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
George Prager AALL New York University,
Law School Library
Tina Shrader NAL National Agricultural Library
Sheila Yeh ALCTS University of Colorado, Denver
Jean Altschuler Arnold & Porter, LLP Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works John Attig Penn State University Ana Cristan Library of Congress Tony Fang University of Minnesota Lynnette Fields Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Harry Gaylord Bound To Stay Books Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Mar Hernández Biblioteca Nacional de España John Hostage Harvard Law School John Ilardo State University of New York, Buffalo George Johnston University of Cincinnati William Jones New York University Randy Klinger Capstone Publishers Judy Kuhagen Library of Congress Christer Larsson National Library of Sweden Kristin Lindlen University of Washington Dan Lipcan Metropolitan Museum of Art John Maier Pratt Institute Kelley McGrath University of Oregon Michael Panzer OCLC Nathan Putnam George Mason University Kevin Randall Northwestern University John Reese Backstage Library Works Regina Reynolds Library of Congress Mark Scharff Washington University Adam Schiff University of Washington Raymond Schmidt Wellesley College Linda Seguin University of Maryland Rebecca Thompson Missouri State University Kirill Tolpygo University of North Carolina Ken Wade UCLA Jay Weitz OCLC Raegan Weichert Missouri State University Elaine Winske Florida International University Kathy Winzer Stanford Law Library David Williamson Library of Congress Martha Yee UCLA Film and Television Archive [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.
The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the ALA Annual 2010 meeting in Washington, DC. It was noted that a few minor changes sent via email were incorporated therein. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to accept the minutes; Vickie Sipe (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
The proposal was presented by Kelley McGrath (University of Oregon). OLAC would like a way to cleanly code the original language of moving images as it is something that their users want. Although subfield $h in 041 can be currently used to record original language, there are other types of language information mixed in with original language. The proposal is to redefine subfield $h of 041 more narrowly to record the original language of the main content and to move the other types of information to newly defined subfields: $k for intermediate language and $m for the language code to be the original language of accompanying materials. OLAC also proposes the optional use of subfield $h even though there is no translation involved.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out the definitions for subfields $h and $m in the proposal do not indicate the language code for original language of the primary material and asked whether it is intentional. Kelley McGrath expressed that it is implied in the context but agreed to be more explicit in the definitions.
Bruce Evans (MLA) suggested the need to further parse subfield $m to add an additional subfield for the original language of a libretto because a libretto is very closely controlled to the primary content. Kelley McGrath (University of Oregon) expressed that OLAC is open to the suggestion, understanding it would be better to have separate subfields for librettos and accompanying materials, however, OLAC is also reluctant to introduce too many subfields.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) suggested making subfields $k and $m non-repeatable so as to avoid the problem of relying on order to specify what original language component is being referred to. For example, code 041, subfield $e language code of the libretto, subfield $m original language of the libretto, then repeat 041 for something else.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) was concerned about whether subfield $h would have to be repeated when there is no translation. He suggested adding to the documentation the sentence - "not required to supply the original language if the resource is not a translation.” Kelley McGrath (University of Oregon) agreed and confirmed that OLAC intended for subfield $h to be optional.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) motioned to accept the proposal with the following changes:
1. Definition for subfield $h: to include language code for primary content of the original and the text adjusting to suit; and to add a note that it is "not required to supply the original language if the resource is not a translation."
2. A new subfield $n will be added for original language of libretto and libretto will be removed from the description of subfield $m.
Vicki Sipe (ALCTS) seconded Strawn's motion (above). The motion passed unanimously.
The discussion paper was presented by Sally McCallum (LC). This issue was last discussed in Proposal 2009-01/3, but it was a little too early to understand whether something needed to be dealt with at the time. Sally McCallum (LC) indicated that the issue was revived by cataloging policy specialists in LC's Policy and Standards Division, which was conducting the RDA test. In particular, they wanted to be able to indicate whether an authority record is for a work or an expression. They also pointed out that an authority record could be for a manifestation or an item. Opinions were mixed about whether this information needs to be included in the record, since it is experimental at this time and not clear how it would be used. Since adding to the Leader is highly disruptive, it is proposed that field 883 be used with either code or term for identification. Sally noted that the wording needs to be careful to indicate that the entity specified is represented by the majority of the information in the record. Perhaps loose language is necessary when crafting a definition?
John Attig (Penn State University) expressed concern that leaving this open to loose definition makes it very difficult to get any good results. He suggested that this coding should be used when there is a fairly clean separation of data elements so that the record represents one and only one entity. He expressed skepticism about how useful this code would be unless it fit the definition. Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) pointed out that the paper raised the issue of how to deal with the record for a unique object which contains entities of work, expression, manifestation and item. She suggested the need for guidance about going through the lowest level or the upper level, or in cases where information about all levels are included, that the data element should not be used. John Myers (CC:DA) raised the issue of expression level records. He pointed out that the example of 4.1 “authority record for expression heading: 100 1# $aOndaatje, Michael, $d1943-. $tEnglish patient. $lFrench” is considered a collective expression level record that expresses the general idea of a French translation of that work as opposed to a specific expression level record rendered by an individual translator. The question is whether there is a need to code the difference between the expression record representing group expressions versus an expression record representing a particular expression. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) indicated that the same could be said for specific and collective uniform titles where there is a desire for separate codes for each of them.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) expressed the difficulty in applying the concept of work and expression, etc. She wondered how we would able to accommodate different communities when all the literature indicates different people interpret things differently. John Myers (CC:DA) countered by saying that he conceptually cheered this paper, which fosters the development along the line of FRBR structure. However, he wondered if programmatically, in a shared record environment, we would end up with duplicates across authority and bibliographic records as we would be allowing for implementation with the bibliographic and authority context. Sally McCallum (LC) confirmed that the field would be optional. John Attig (Penn State University) clarified that this field was partly to enhance experimentation with FRBR level in order to support applications that may not exist yet. Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) also agreed that the field would not always be applicable. She worried about the statement in the paper indicating this might help with validating the content of the record with data that is appropriate for that particular level and some records may include fields appropriate to different FRBR categories. She suggested we be careful not to define this so tightly that we cannot have different levels appearing on the same record. John Attig (Penn State University) explained that the only reason to use this is when we are trying to make clean separation and to label the results, so if the data is mixed, the element will not be used. Sally McCallum (LC) remarked that if not using RDA, one may not use this element either.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) questioned whether there are relationship designators of this type yet and thought that “has work” after subfield $i in the examples was odd, asking whether it should be changed to “expression of” instead. John Attig (Penn State University) replied that these are articulations as relationship designator of things that are elements, so “has work”is an element, but not a designator. He indicated that these are unofficial suggestions and are being discussed. In addition, Adam Schiff suggested to have the cross reference from the manifestation title in these expression records.
John Espley (AVIAC) indicated that, for many years, VTLS has been using local fields in creating explicit work, expression, and manifestation records. He stated that he was very happy to see this discussion paper going forward and agreed with John Attig (Penn State University) to sum up the discussion paper as: "you are defining an explicit work record, so you want a way to say it is a work record; you are defining an expression record, you want a way to say it is an expression record; you are defining just the manifestation portion of the manifestation record, you want to say it is a manifestation record; and if you want to combine them all, you would not use this field at all."
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) pointed out the correction needs for the structure of $0 and $w in the examples to contain MARC organization code in parentheses before the control number. Sally McCallum (LC) responded that they are stylized examples.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked whether it is correct to have the proposed name of the field 883 as “entity type” while “frbrgroup1” for that field appears everywhere else in the paper; should the name be changed to “frbrgroup1 entity type"? Sally McCallum (LC) responded “no” and explained the FRBR Group 1 name may change over time, so by having it as “entity type” we don’t have to keep changing the name of the field. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) then suggested that the description of the field should be read as -“identify entity, such as FRBR Group 1 entity.” Sally McCallum (LC) agreed with that as a good point.
Karen Anderson (Backstage Library Works) commented that, lately, there has been a lot of interesting FRBRization in terms of different databases; having these types of fields would be helpful, especially for automation, but emphasized the needs to have exclusive definitions and guidelines on how to use these. She stressed it being a good idea to have these codes in a new field and encouraged the discussion paper to be moved ahead. Mark Scharff (Washington University) also remarked that 15 years ago, if he had a way to identify when an authority record was for a named work as opposed to the one for an expression, authority work would have been a lot easier as he could have told vendors to send changes for work records only. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) seconded and added that the cross references on those expression records are a continuing source of problems.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) pointed out the inadequacy of defining work and expression level labels for bibliographic and authority records without defining the full array of data elements that would be needed to represent such things in those formats. Language was an example; it is unclear how language of an expression or a work would be expressed in an authority record. Another example was subject access in authority records, needed for works and probably for expressions, which is currently undefined in the MARC authority format.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) wondered whether there is some real value that might be seen in authority records and questioned the use of bibliographic records for works and expressions. He asked John Espley (VTLS) for VTLS’s experience with characterizing work and expression records as authority, pseudo authority or semi authority.
John Espley (VTLS) stated that the work and expression are bibliographic records in VTLS’s implementation. The primary reason was to have subjects with the work and there is no way to add subject to authority record. He doesn’t see any problem using bibliographic records, but admitted that expressions are sometimes the most difficult part to define. If the standard is to define in the authority record with appropriate additional data elements, he indicated that they must switch.
Regina Reynolds (LC) reminded the group that the analysis of over 5,000 records created during the RDA testing may give more data elements to clarify and help inform further development. A straw poll determined that the majority would like to continue pursuing this discussion paper. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) then asked for pro and con positions regarding whether this issue should move forward. Sherman Clarke (VRA) stated that he supported the discussion to continue because there may be some value from the analysis of LC’s test records. Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) also agreed that it is worth looking at the results from the test records.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) summarized that there seemed to be two directions being considered: one is to only allow this method for “RDA records” in the strictest sense, and the other is to be experimental, open, and conduct more testing with the types of records we are currently creating. John Myers (CC:DA) expressed different perspective about the situation, viewing it not being a RDA issue, but a FRBR issue. As the community committed to the functional relationship models, supporting entity identification needs to take place. For him, the question was not whether this should go forward, but that the form of identification and the timeline given the RDA testing might be open when going forward. Rich Greene (OCLC) agreed and commented that it is a catalog issue--FRBR is a way of looking at a catalog; RDA is an implementation of the FRBR model terminology. OCLC has FRBRized a database at the work level and is working on a manifestation level using work ID, expression ID, and manifestation ID to reorganize the data and format different displays. He pointed out that these are done without relating to RDA specifically and that RDA testing simply brought this to surface.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested that the definition of “majority of the information in the record” for entity type be changed to “only to be used in the case where the record represents only one of these entities.” John Attig (Penn State University) agreed.
In summary, there was some interest in identifying this information in the record. It will be important to tighten the definitions and provide guidance to users, including restricting the use of the field to those records that are explicitly work or expression (manifestation being the default), rather than a combination. It was noted that this supports applications that may not exist yet, but could be very useful in the future. The topic will be considered to come back for the Annual 2011 MARBI meetings.
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the discussion paper which proposes accommodating all terms listed in RDA chapter 3 by 300 field (for RDA 3.4 info), 340 field (already accommodates RDA 3.5-3.9, 3.15 and 3.20), and with new subfields (for RDA 3.10-3.14). It also proposes four new fields 344-347 to accommodate special groups of carrier characteristics specific to sound, projection, video, and digital files. For specialized notes pertaining to carrier attributes, field 500 may be applicable; however, one option might be to define additional subfield $i for it. Current practice is to put introductory words in subfield $a, then add the specific notes.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) suggested adding subfield $3 (materials specified) to each of the new fields 344-347 for cases where we want to describe things beyond the primary source item. For instance, a sound disc with an accompanying DVD and may want to use field 344, 345, 346, or 347 for that secondary item. Sherman Clarke (VRA) pointed out the potential problem with subfield $i in 500 in case subfield $3 is introduced to field 34X. For example, in the paper, “$i Mount:” in field 500 could really be appropriate as a subfield $3 rather than subfield $i. Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) replied that both could be used.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) wondered whether a new 5XX field has been considered that is a specific note about general media which would be better mapped to RDA.
Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) remarked that when recording information pertaining to special preservation, storage needs, or special types of playing devices, field 340 is used. She wondered whether the definition of field 340 should be broadened to accommodate these new subfields. Sally McCallum (LC) concurred that the definition needs to be broadened and was interested to hear that Elizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) has in fact interpreted it in a broader way.
John Attig (Penn State University) asked whether the intention is to change the name of field 340 or to add “carrier characteristics” to it. Sally McCallum (LC) replied that it is up for discussion, but cautioned that changing the name of a field affects all the related documentation, and it is therefore preferable to just change the definition.
John Myers (CC:DA) questioned the extensibility of addressing future new carriers and future new content formats as we seemed to have pulled in every alphabetical subfield tag in field 340 with very few left and have defined 4 through 7 for field 34X.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) expressed concerns that some of the things brought up fall into the category of technical metadata and should really be in the repository and not be associated with bibliographic records. She believes we may have better ways to handle those things as we develop repositories. Sally McCallum (LC) replied that we might have to pull them out again.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) pointed out a typo in the definition of 345; it should be plural - "characteristics."
Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) commented that examples will be extremely helpful when decisions come back from the committee. She found it hard to figure out how to distinguish dimensions in the 300 field versus the 340 field as both contain a subfield for dimensions and thought guidance would be useful.
In summary, participants agreed that this should come back as a proposal. Examples are needed especially to show when to use field 340. We may need to broaden the definition of field 340; it is used widely in the museum community. Subfield $3 (Materials specified) should be added in the proposed new fields.
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the Library of Congress reports.
New Business: None.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) presented this discussion paper which proposes changes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format so that the RDA elements for production, publication, distribution and manufacture are given separate MARC elements. When previously discussed in a 2008 paper, the committee was not sure whether they needed to be broken out. However during the RDA testing, there was confusion about how to handle these separate data elements for different functions. This paper proposes three options. Option 1 is to use field 260, with a second indicator to specify the statement (0 for production, 1 for publication, 2 for distribution, 3 for manufacture). Option 2 is to add separate subfields for each function (place, name and date of production, publication and distribution) in addition to the currently existant subfields for manufacture. Option 3 is to add new fields which have not been previously defined. It is preferable to leave field 260 as is rather than redefine it to be used in case you don't know or can't designate a particular function. In addition, a new field for date of copyright notice with subfields $a, $3, $6, $8 is proposed. A field tag was not selected depending on what is chosen from the other part of this paper.
George Prager (AALL) asked whether the symbol of copyright date needs to be in the example in 2.2. “$a@2002”? There was uncertainty among members. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) had a copy of RDA 2.11.1.3 "Recording copyright dates" and read the rules to the group. It reads as “Record copyright dates applying the general guidelines on numbers expressed as numerals or as words given under 1.8. precede the date by the copyright symbol (©) or the phonogram symbol (℗), or by copyright or phonogram if the appropriate symbol cannot be reproduced.” John Attig (Penn State University) suggested that we could generate the symbol, only using the date as the data. In case of phonogram symbol, if you wanted to generate the symbol, two separate subfields could be used.
John Attig (Penn State University) asked whether there is a reason to choose “date of copyright notice” as the name rather than “copyright date” as in the RDA. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied it is because of field 542, which is more explicit about different dates relating to copyright information.
Discussion about 2.1 production, publication and distribution:
John Attig (Penn State University) stated that one of the virtues of options 1 and 3 is that they require you to use separate fields for each type of function. One of the examples in option 2 shows different types of information in the same field suggesting that it is possible to mix things up, which would be a bad idea. Options 1 and 3 are cleaner and John Attig (Penn State University) expressed a slight preference for option 3 as it is cleaner to start over with. He thought option 1 would work, but it is not as extensible as option 3. Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) expressed that the AV community prefers options 1 and 3 with slight preference for option 3.
John Myers (CC:DA) stated that feedback from the rare book cataloging community also indicated option 2 is not preferable in terms of the difficulty to apply and to follow in displays. The concern is more of a cataloging standard issue that breaking these data elements out is not consistent with the historical development of publication models in the hand-press era – the printer was the publisher, or the book seller could be the publisher. The division between manufacture, publication and distribution was not as clearly delineated as we see today. There is also an implication that these three functions will not be as clearly defined as we move forward into digital repositories. John Attig (Penn State University) offered two comments: (1) he was glad to see the intention of not making anything obsolete so that we can continue to do what we have being doing for now, and (2) the benefit of extensibility because we may not have all the categories we are eventually going to need. Matthew Wise (New York University, Chair) asked if we have another field available. Rebecca Guenther (LC) replied that we have another block.
Richard Greene (OCLC) commented that he did not care much for option 1 because there is risk involved when getting an indicator to say something and experience has shown that people do not assign indicators correctly. He questioned the intent of using subfields $e and $f in example 2 “260 #3 $e Cambridge : $f Kinsey Printing Company” instead of using subfields $a and $b as expected. He said for training purposes, it would be preferable to have uniform and consistent fields. Sally McCalllum (LC) asked Richard Greene (OCLC) whether he is thinking of making $e, $f, $g obsolete so to use $a, $b, $c consistently in option 1? He replied that when comparing the different options, option 1 was not an obvious solution.
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) therefore proposed an additional option 4 as: define one new field, such as field 264 with an indicator to designate function. Matthew Wise (New York University, Chair) then proposed option 5 as: instead of applying indicator 3 for manufacture, use subfields $e, $f and $g. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested making $e, $f and $g obsolete, which should also apply to option 3 because field 268 is defined as Manufacture statement. John Attig (Penn State University) argued that on the other hand, we have expressed the desire to continue doing what we are doing now; retaining 260 for this new use while making these subfields obsolete does not allow us to do so. However defining a new field and retaining the present definition of 260 would. Rebecca Guenther (LC) concurred that option 4 suggested by Catherine Gerhart (OLAC), with field 260 remaining the same and field 264 as a new field, would.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) expressed preference for option 3 but wondered whether they could continue using field 260 which satisfies the majority of their needs and liked the idea to be able to retain the field. She asked if it is necessary to have both fields 260 and 266 because their intention is to continuously use field 260 and only use others when they really want to go further. John Myer (CC:DA) clarified that it is not an option to have both because we cannot have field 260 $a represent publication, distribution, etc. as well as a publication statement solely.
Sally McCallum (LC) asked John Myers (CC:DA) in rare book cases, whether we need to have separate fields for the same place and agency data which represents several different functions. John Attig (Penn State University) responded that the preference would be to continue doing a single statement (field 260) that is more or less a non-differentiator. Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that we could have a relationship subfield so that the data only needs to be entered once.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) wondered whether we would need an extra field for any function that is not specified, or whether field 260 with the second indicator set to blank for "Unspecified" has an advantage to satisfy non-specification? John Attig (Penn State University) replied that the present definition of field 260 is adequate for non-specific functions. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) then expressed that he was up for option 1 so we would have a general approach for any kind of function with the field 260 second indicator blank, and the specific functions to be added as new indicator values, one for each of the four types. John Attig (Penn State University) stated that option 3 can accommodate the same as well.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) indicated that he has a smaller preference for option 1 because it did not use up all the fields in that block, but does like option 4 proposed by Catherine Gerhart (OLAC). Corine Deliot (BL) expressed that the view from the UK is mixed, but preference is for option 3. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked to give some attention to the notion of "current," as it could apply to any of the different types of 26X field. Right now the first indicator 3 in field 260 is defined as "current/latest publisher", but it needs to be enlarged to encompass all the various functions.
Bill Leonard (LAC) noted that the Canadian Committee on MARC had the same question and also noted that it is CONSER that really wanted them to record "current" and "previous." He was not aware whether CONSER wanted them to record previous manufacture. For them, options 1 and 3 are preferable.
Readdressing 2.2 copyright notice, Gary Strawn (ALCTS) stated he preferred copyright notice be in the 26x block if it could possibly be managed.
The group resumed discussing 2.1 production, publication, and distribution:
Catherine Gerhart (OLAC) proposed making a clean break from field 260, defining a new field with an indicator designating the function. This means using the new field instead of using field 260. The indicators could be value 0,1,2,3, or 4 (no blank), which would force a cataloger to choose an indicator. She believed an indicator with a value is more reliable than a blank indicator.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) suggested that if we take the direction of defining a new field, we could define a subfield $0 in the new field so that we would be able to have a direct link through a control number of a record for a publisher, producer, or distributor.
Corine Deliot (BL) pointed out that the documentation at field 008 position 06 – Type of date/publication status provides examples on the correlation between Type of date/date 1/date 2 and 260 $c. She asked whether this should be examined when the paper comes back. Rebecca Guenther (LC) acknowledged.
In summary, there was support for Options 1 and 3, and little for Option 2. Another option was suggested to define one new field (rather than add an indicator to field 260 or add multiple new fields) with an indicator designating the function. Participants felt that we need to continue to be able to use 260 as we do now if the function is not clear. There was support for the suggestion to add a field for copyright date, preferably in the 26X block of fields. A proposal will be presented at the next meeting reflecting the preferences expressed and exploring the relationship between coding in 008 date fields and any new data elements.
The discussion paper was presented by Rebecca Gunether (LC). It contains four sections dealing with some of the elements in RDA that we didn’t define special places for in MARC. In most cases (3 out of 4), there was a place to code them in the 1XX block before and this discussion paper examines adding a new variable field to give the extra information, as was similarly done for previously approved papers.
2.1. Language of expression
Language of expression, a core element in RDA, is needed to differentiate an expression of a work from another expression of the same work. Whether or not using it in the heading, it might be helpful to have it in the record in case it is needed to differentiate at a later time. There are two options: (1) define a field 041 to include a subset of subfields in 041 from the bibliographic record because not all of the subfields apply expression, and (2) to broaden field 377 defined for associated language in the Authority format to include language of expression. It was felt that it is not necessary to have separate subfields for language of expression but that $a and $b could just be broadened; it would be obvious from the type of heading what the language refers to.
John Attig (Penn State University) pointed out that field 041, even with the smaller list of subfields proposed, does not seem appropriate to use and therefore much preferred extending field 377. Matthew Wise (New York University, Chair) also thought that with bibliographic records representing multiple expressions, it is much cleaner to put it in the authority record.
John Myers (CC:DA) advised that with respect to DP03 and the potential for breaking out work, expression, manifestation, and item records in both authority and bibliographic structures, some kind of coherence in these approaches would be beneficial.
Rebecca Guenther (LC) asked whether we could define language of expression in field 377 of the Bibliographic format and keep 041 as language code for a manifestation. John Attig (Penn State University) advised that if we are trying to put language of expression in both bibliographic and authority records, we need a solution that works in both places and did not think 041 works well in bibliographic for expression. It was noted that broadening the definition should include recording language of family as well.
2.2. Associated institution
Rebecca Guenther (LC) said that field 373 was defined as Affiliation in the Authority format for persons and corporate bodies for RDA. The Associated Institution is a core element for conferences, etc., if the institution’s name provides better identification than the local place name or if the local place name is unknown. It is something to record should it be needed later to break conflict. We could broaden the definition of Affiliation to Associated Institution -- the paper proposes adding subfield $b for Associated institution for corporate body, but subfield $a could be broadened instead of defining separate subfields.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) remarked that NLM does not have any problem broadening field 373 and pointed out that it seemed problematic to be asking for two different kinds of information in the same field (a preferred form of a corporate body and a conference as it appears in the resource being described). Gary Strawn (ALCTS) suggested the use of subfield $0 for linking to a record for the institution. Consideration needs to be given as to whether both the preferred form and the form on the piece needs to be recorded. John Attig (Penn State University) confirmed that we will never record both the preferred form of a corporate body and a name of institution associated with a conference (which is encoded in the form found in the piece) in the same record, so separate subfields are not needed.
2.3. Fuller form of name
Fuller Form of Name, a core element when needed to distinguish one person from another person with the same name. We do have subfield $q in the heading field, but this is the extra information needed to break a conflict later and the paper suggested a new field 378 for Fuller Form of Name.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) questioned “if Gary Lee is the fuller form of name, what would $0 link to in this case? Would it be the authority record for Gary Lee? “ Sally McCallum (LC) suggested that we don't need $0.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) remarked that this could be made to work if the conflicting names need to be disambiguated for the preferred form. He asked whether the conflict could be resolved with existing variants. John Attig (Penn State University) indicated that he does not think RDA addresses this explicitly.
Judy Kuhagen (LC) suggested one subfield for fuller form of surname, and the other for fuller form of given name, surname, etc. since one or the other or both could be used according to RDA. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) wondered if it would be better to name it as fuller form of personal name or fuller form of given name. John Attig (Penn State University) stated that the name in RDA could have been more precise, so it would be fine to name it more precisely.
2.4. Type of jurisdiction
Another RDA element that may need to be added is the type of jurisdiction to break a conflict defining a term for a government other than a city or a town. The paper suggests a new field 334 for type of geographical entity or jurisdiction and with a broader definition for geographical area than RDA gives. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) brought up the interest of having the subfield $0 because in Germany they have records for jurisdiction names.
John Attig (Penn State University) advised that the current scope of RDA is temporary; the chapter of places will eventually include all types of place names, jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional. This definitely should be broadened.
At the end of the discussion, John Attig (Penn State University) suggested we explore the general concept of using data in the record to do something automatically. He said that Gary Strawn (ALCTS) was talking about being able to use the fuller form of name to do something automatic. This is an example of one of those components of a heading that is not a separate subfield currently. He suggested sometime we might want to take a look and see if it is worth defining those, so that we could move data around the record from other fields to where it needs to be for an automatic record.
In summary, proposals for these additional elements will be presented at ALA Annual 2011.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Chair) informed us that in the preparation for Annual, he will be requesting the usual meeting time, but typically, we will probably not be using the Monday meeting time.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila Yeh
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 12/15/2011 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |