The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Eric P. Delozier, Chair LITA Penn State, Harrisburg
Denise Beaubien Bennett RUSA University of Florida
Edward Kownslar RUSA Texas A&M University -
Corpus Christi
Gary L. Strawn ALCTS Northwestern University
Sarah Beth Weeks LITA St. Olaf College
Matthew Wise ALCTS New York University
Linda Wen LITA University of Arkansas at
Little Rock
Jia Xu ALCTS University of Iowa
Corine Deliot BL British Library Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Bill Leonard LAC Library and Archives Canada
Robert Bremer OCLC OCLC Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance cataloger Bruce Evans MLA Baylor University Libraries Catherine Gerhart OLAC University of Washington Stephen Hearn SAC University of Minnesota Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa John Myers CC:DA Union College Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Morgan Library and Museum Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Patricia Sayre McCoy AALL University of Chicago, Law School Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC
Haiyun Cao ALCTS York University
Everett Allgood New York University Susan Andrews University of British Columbia John Attig Penn State University Thomas Dukleth Agogme Ted Fons OCLC Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Kathy Glennan University of Maryland Qiang Jin University of Illinois William W. Jones New York University John Maier Pratt Institute Dorothy McGarry UCLA Mary Mastraccio Marcive, Inc. Cory Nimer Brigham Young University Michael Panzer OCLC George Prager New York University, Law Library Regina Reynolds Library of Congress Adam Schiff University of Washington Mark Scharff Washington University in St. Louis Rozetta Thorkelson Backstage Library Works Hermine Vermeij UCLA Ken Wade UCLA Janis L. Young Library of Congress John Zagas Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Acting 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.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Acting Chair) asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the ALA 2012 Annual meeting in Anaheim. A few errors were pointed out. Edward Kownslar (RUSA) moved to accept the minutes; Gary Strawn (ALCTS) seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
The proposal was presented by Gary Strawn (ALCTS). He said that this proposal was reworked and simplified based on Proposal 2012-02, which was presented at the Annual meeting in Anaheim. Corine Deliot (BL) wondered why field 673 didn’t have $f for date. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) explained that $f would rarely be used in 673. Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) supported defining $f, which is used extensively in manuscript cataloging in the title field as the date of writing. She said it would be useful to add in 673. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested changing the name of $a to "Title proper". Jia Xu (ALCTS) commented that $u would be useful for identifying source of information, especially in 673 and NACO cataloging. Stephen Hearn (SAC) said that field 670 was a much better place to handle source and did not see a need for $u. William W. Jones (New York University) questioned if the suggested fields would be included in field 111. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) confirmed. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal with the following changes: 1) In fields 672 and 673 change the caption for subfield $a to "Title proper" and for subfield $w to "Bibliographic record control number"; 2) In field definition and scope of both fields, include the 111 tag; 3. Define $f (NR) in 673 for Date. Edward Kownslar (RUSA) seconded. The motion passed.
The paper was presented by Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB). In German speaking countries a series is usually described in an equivalent to a MARC Bibliographic Record. In addition, whenever a series has parts with separate textual, numerical or chronological designations, the parts are described using a field 490, and they are controlled using one of the fields 800-830. A series can have different bibliographic levels: It can be a multipart monograph, or a continuing resource, or a monographic series. For a description of a part of a series, and a lossless conversion to and from MARC, there is a need to distinguish in the MARC record for the part whether the field in the group of 800-830 controls a multipart monograph, or a continuing monographic series. At the moment there is no MARC element containing this kind of information. The paper suggests using subfield $7 in Linking Entry Fields 76X-78X to serve as a model for a new subfield in 800-830.
Question 4.1. Does it seem reasonable to define a control subfield $7 in the Series Added Entry Fields 800/810/811/830 for the need described?
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said defining $7 appeared to be fully redundant to the record that is being linked to. Why is it needed in the 8XX series when the information could be obtained from the linked record? Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) agreed that, generally, it was redundant, but explained that the data would be useful when the linking record was not in the system.
Question 4.2. Should the structure of $7 as defined in the Linking Entry Fields 76X-78X be taken into account?
No one opposed the suggestion.
Question 4.3 a) Should all 4 positions be taken over from 76X-78X $7 to 800-830, accepting redundancies between field numbers in 800-830 and position /0, and indicators in 800-811 and position /1, respectively?
Question 4.3. b) Or should only position /2 and /3 be taken over, accepting a difference in the structure of 76X-78X $7 and 800-830 $7?
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that he did not see the point of defining two positions that will never be coded. Sherman Clarke (VRA) commented that the difference in structure was acceptable since $7 is defined differently in field 533.
Question 4.4. Can 008/12 (Type of series) in the Authority format be used as an alternative solution to what is being proposed in this paper?
No need to discuss this question.
The discussion paper will be presented as a proposal in next meeting.
Bill Leonard (LAC) introduced the paper, which aimed to find a mechanism that enables the text of the relationship designator to display in a user-friendly way, while continuing to accommodate the complete designators defined in RDA. RDA relationship designators found in RDA Appendix J, Relationships between Works, Expressions, Manifestations and Items, sometimes use parenthetical qualifiers to indicate the type of related entity. This method could be a source of confusion for the public. It was recommended to use MARC field 787 with the relationship designator in $i. The paper also recommended the use of 76X-78X $4 to record a relationship code between FRBR Group 1 entities. A list of relationship codes corresponding to RDA Appendix J may be established.
John Attig (Penn State) stated that the RDA JSC preferred a general level solution rather than a MARC or RDF solution. He said the core of this has to be the unambiguous definition of the relationship. The JSC is working on that issue and will also be looking into the display issue. The JSC thinks that these will probably have to be recorded separately. A place where you can explicitly record the display text is a good idea. Record the URI or the notation code or the preferred label of the term in $4 or something equivalent to $4. Subfield $i could be used to record the unqualified designator. He strongly recommended against the repeatable subfield $i because it would be hard to express in RDF. He said the JSC agreed with the direction of the paper--that there needs to be some way of identifying the specifics of the relationship--and that they will take the discussion of this paper into account when they draft their own paper for the JSC. The timeline for a revised proposal, however, would not be earlier than the Annual Conference.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) reminded the group that $4 was removed from the original versions of Proposal 2013-05 and Proposal 2013-06, and that the usefulness of $4 for the new fields proposed in those papers should be discussed in tomorrow's meeting.
John Attig (Penn State) recommended not limiting the changes to just 787, i.e. all of the 76X-78X linking entry fields should be included because the community seems to have decided to take advantage of the existing semantics. He added that the paper should also apply to the Authority format, with focus on the 5XX fields.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) asked whether subfields $i/$4 (designating the type of relationship) would be the right choice, or whether subfield $7 (designating the type of related entity) would fit better.
John Attig (Penn State) responded that the nature of the related entity is inherent in the definition of the relationship as defined in RDA. Subfield $7 would thus be redundant.
Sally McCallum (LC) said that $4 was generally used for relationships in RDA Appendix I rather than the types of relationships in Appendix J, and that further examination should be made to mark the distinction.
A future proposal is pending after further review of the issues mentioned above.
Bill Leonard (LAC) introduced the paper. Proposal 2012-06 defined subfield $q (Qualifying information) in field 028 in the Bibliographic format. Similarly, this paper proposes defining $q in fields 020, 022, 024, and 027.
Regina Reynolds (LC) indicated that there are pros and cons to adding $q to field 022. We should consider practices of the ISSN International Centre, the US ISSN Center and CONSER. Although the ISSN Network recommends that publishers display the multiple ISSN associated with the different medium versions of each resource on each version, it does not permit repeating field 022 and neither does CONSER. The current practice in both the ISSN Network and CONSER is to record the ISSN of the version being described on the record in 022 $a and record other ISSNs in 776 fields that provide the relationship link to the other medium versions. In CONSER, if the resource displays the ISSN of other versions, the other ISSNs are sometimes also recorded in 022 $y. This accommodation was made because some libraries do not index the ISSN in field 776 and prefer all ISSN to be recorded in field 022. Repeating field 022 and using a $q qualifier would require use of indicator values to designate one 022 field to contain the “official ISSN” that would appear in the international ISSN Register. This solution would avoid misuse of field 022 $y as now happens when $y contains ISSNs of other medium versions. If a date subfield were also added to a repeated 022, records could also accommodate cases where two ISSN had been assigned to separate date spans covered on one record. However, repeating field 022 and using a qualifier may cause confusion and problems from the perspective of both national and international ISSN practice.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) said that, in order to express that the ISSN in a field with subfield $2 is the one relevant for the ISSN context, the German National Library has considered adding $2 in 022 to specify that a particular ISSN was authorized by a specific national ISSN center. Regina Reynolds (LC) responded that 022 $2 is not intended to be used that way.
Corine Deliot (BL) pointed out two misunderstandings in the paper. Firstly, RDA 2.15 requires recording multiple identifiers for the manifestation that is described; therefore, there should be only one ISSN for the manifestation described. Other related ISSNs should be recorded in 776. Secondly, rather than what is mentioned in the second paragraph of section 2.2. of the paper, current practice is not to routinely "record identifiers for formats other than the one described on the record in 022$y, (Incorrect ISSN)", but to record these in field 776; 022$y is only used in exceptional circumstances, e.g. a wrong ISSN in print version for an online version; it is not, as the paper states, “used as a catch-all subfield to provide access for variety of correct ISSNs such as those for other formats of the resource or for an entirely different resource.”
Regina Reynolds (LC) explained that different systems might set up their indexing mechanism differently. Some might not index 776, so they prefer putting other ISSNs in 022 $y.
John Myers (CC:DA) wondered if the 022 field should be dropped or deferred from future proposals because of divergent and conflicting opinions.
Corine Deliot (BL) said that she thought after MARBI passed Proposal 2012-06 defining $q in field 028, that the original intent of a future proposal would be to focus on identifiers that already had existing qualifiers that needed to be subfielded. To that extent, field 015, which allows for recording qualifying information in $a, would be within the scope of the paper and should have been included. Field 022 currently does not allow recording qualifying information and should therefore be discussed separately. A discussion paper solely focused on field 022 would be preferable.
Patricia Sayre McCoy (AALL) pointed out that, even though we can discuss 022 separately, we still face the same issue in 020 when you have ISBNs for multiple formats recorded on a single piece.
Everett Allgood (New York University) responded that field 776 is already used to record other ISBN manifestation level entities.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) agreed that field 015 should be included in a future proposal along with standard identifier fields 020 and 024, identifying the need for a $q.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) said that we should limit ourselves to those fields where we are already recording qualifiers in an existing non-separate subfield.
The paper will return as a proposal for the ALA Annual meeting.
Sally McCallum (LC) reported that Update No. 15 (September 2012) was now integrated into the online full and concise MARC formats. The documentation includes changes approved at the MARBI meeting in June 2012. She also mentioned that CDS was no longer going to print the MARC Concise Formats, but that NDMSO would provide printable pdf files of the concise formats on the MARC website. NDMSO would monitor whether those files were regularly downloaded.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS, Acting Chair) announced that the MARBI meeting at 2013 Annual Conference would be at the usual time. He thanked Haiyun Cao (ALCTS) for volunteering to record the Midwinter meetings without an appointment from ALCTS. Since Haiyun Cao (ALCTS) will unable to attend the 2013 Annual meeting, he called for any non-voting members to volunteer to be the secretary.
Bruce Evans (MLA) introduced the proposal. Proposal 2012-05, which previously proposed making 250 repeatable, was not adopted. In this proposal, LC reworked on this issue with MLS, proposing the repeatability of 250 not only for notated music, but for serials and books.
Sally McCallum (LC) wondered whether it would be preferable to record a single unparsed edition statement in one 250 field for all format information, and omit the subfield $b which does not serve much of a purpose. There are other fields where you could parse the information in a retrievable manner. Is this a statement for people just to read? If so you do not need to parse it out, nor do you need $b, and you do not need to repeat the 250.
Bruce Evans (MLA) said that the RDA JSC decided to continue to use the 254 field, Musical presentation statement at the recent Chicago meeting. JSC preferred that the 254 field was mapped to the RDA Edition Statement element.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS) worried that, if several edition statements were combined into a single 250, they might be transcribed in different orders, resulting in inconsistency of that data element.
Bill Leonard (LAC) commented that Canadian Committee on MARC relied on non-repeatable 250 text strings. If there were more than one 250 field, different orders of 250 fields would result in different results.
John Myers (CC:DA) wondered if the JSC should reconsider their position. Musical presentation statements are information unique to notated music, so they shouldn’t apply to 250, which is a general field for all formats.
Corine Deliot (BL) believed repeatable 250 was useful beyond music materials. Susan Moore (MAGIRT) agreed that it was useful for cartographic materials for different editions and different topographic sheets.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Eric Delozier (LITA, Chair) seconded. The motion passed.
Ted Fons (OCLC) introduced the paper. OCLC and some national libraries would like to have clearer coding that disambiguates records from national bibliographies in WorldCat. MARC 21 does not provide an unambiguous method for identifying records from national bibliographies. The paper suggested several solutions to identify the source of the record, its existence in a national bibliography, and identification of the national bibliography.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) asked how this would work in an environment where records were being constantly changed. Also, how is a record defined as being from a national bibliography?
Corine Deliot (BL), Matthew Wise (ALCTS), Patricia Sayre McCoy (AALL), and Bill Leonard (LAC) all questioned the usefulness of this proposal.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed support for the need discussed in the paper and said that the German National Library will seriously consider providing the information in their MARC data indicating whether a record is part of the national bibliography.
Ted Fons (OCLC) explained that distinguishing records from national bibliographies than other sources would be useful for large scale systems. Even though it seemed not quite useful for local bibliographies, it might be useful in the future from the discovery perspective.
John Myers (CC:DA) also questioned the definition of national bibliographies. He wondered if there was any working group or representatives from national bibliographies showing strong interests in this paper.
When asked whether they preferred a single code or multiple codes, Ted Fons (OCLC) replied that OCLC preferred multiple codes because one entry might have more than one bibliographic record.
Jia Xu (ALCTS) commented that the OCLC database had new records in English based on records from Chinese and Korean national bibliographies in original languages, but that those English records were not considered from national bibliographies. Field 040 is thus necessary.
Sally McCallum (LC) suggested approving the single code solution because there was not much need driving the implementation. LC will create a specific and an unambiguous code that will identify a national bibliography in a record (in field 042). There will be no need for changes to the MARC documentation and no need to bring back as a proposal for the time being.
Bruce Evans (MLA) introduced the proposal and its background. In 2012, as recommended in MARC Proposal 2012-07, a new code value k for extent of notated music was defined in MARC 21 008/20 (Format of music) to provide a direct equivalent for the RDA term vocal score. Since the creation of the above-noted code was necessitated by the April 2012 update of RDA, which revised the definition of “Vocal score” to include the possibility of accompaniment being omitted, the definition of code value a, c, d and z are not valid anymore. The proposal therefore suggests defining a new code l (Score) in 008 and redefining code values a (Full score) and z (Other).
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked to clarify the definition of “solo performer or electronic media” in 2.1. He wondered if a work made by an electronic media with multiple sound tracks should be considered a full score or a single score. Bruce Evans (MLA) replied that the definition was spelled out in RDA. Definition of “ensemble” also brought some discussions.
Corine Deliot (BL) commented that the definitions of code "l" and "a" were confusing as it was not clear from them why you would use one code rather than the other.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal with understanding that further explanation and discussion about some definitions was needed from MLA. Gary Strawn (ALCTS) seconded. The motion passed.
Bruce Evans (MLA) introduced the proposal which was based Discussion Paper 2012-DP02. The new Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus for Music (LCMPT) will be used to populate 382 (Medium of Performance) fields in both authority and bibliographic records. This proposal therefore, suggests new authority fields to accommodate these records, which include 162, 462, 562, and 762.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) questioned whether singular or plural format should be used for the terms. It was confirmed that singular format would be used except when multiple instruments had to be performed together. In that situation, a subfield would be used to indicate the quantity of instruments.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Matthew Wise (ALCTS) seconded. The motion passed.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) introduced the proposal, which was based on Discussion Paper 2012-DP04. The implementation of LCGFT will strip off some aspects of works and expressions that are now expressed in combination with form headings in LCSH, such as the audience for a resource, which needed to be recorded in other fields. The proposal suggests defining a new field, 385 - Audience Characteristics, in the Bibliographic and Authority formats with subfield $m for Demographic group designator (NR). Subfield $4 was also suggested for coded value of demographic group.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) wondered what vocabulary would be used. Janis Young (LC) replied that controlled vocabularies would be used with $2.
Patricia Sayre McCoy (AALL) asked where the proposed demographic groups on the list came from and whether more demographic groups would need to be added in the future. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) replied that the terms were derived from the kinds of groups represented in LC subject headings for literature. He also said that it was not a set static list and that it was possible that more group terms would be added. The list could be maybe be maintained by an ALA committee and any suggestions for list changes were welcomed.
Sally McCallum (LC) expressed concern about who would maintain the list of demographic groups. NDMSO would not be able to. She suggested that LC's Policy and Standards Division maintain the list.
John Myers (CC:DA) questioned what distinguished the role of $u from $0. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) explained that adding $u-URI was just for the forward thinking of linked data. Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) commented that $u was not needed because $0 would cover all other standard numbers.
John Myers (CC:DA) raised up another issue that the definition of 155 $x might need to provide some guidelines to clarify that the subfield was not intended to record Audience Characteristics.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) asked why demographic groups use singular, not plural terms. Janis Young (LC) explained that the demographic groups were considered as a label of the data, not controlled vocabulary. Patricia Sayre McCoy (AALL) agreed that the purpose of this new field was for programming faceted searching and displaying, so plural terms might be confusing.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested adding $n as a coded analog for demographic group coded value.
Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) moved to approve the proposal by renaming subfield $m "Demographic group designator term", adding $n for "Demographic group designator code", and dropping $u. Denise Beaubien Bennett (RUSA) seconded. The motion passed.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) presented the paper which was based on Discussion Paper 2012-DP05. The paper proposes establishing a new 386 field in both the Bibliographic and Authority formats to record group categories of creators and contributors of works, expressions, and persons. Providing a place to record these attributes of creators and contributors is particularly important for the full implementation of the Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT).
Corine Deliot (BL) raised the issue of overlapping between the name authority field 374 - Occupation and suggested field 386 in terms of scope. She also pointed out that while the paper included examples of 374 using terms in the singular, current NACO best practice is to use controlled vocabularies, which means that normally plural terms from LCSH are used. Field 374 and field 386 therefore seemed to be duplicates as far as recording occupation information in name authority records is concerned. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) acknowledged that there was some overlap but he explained that the two fields would serve different purposes. 374 is to provide potential qualifiers for inclusion in the authorized access point; and 386 is to support faceted access to the entities described.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS) pointed out that time period needed to be indicated if 386 was used for name authority records. Kathy Glennan (University of Maryland) commented that this proposal would work better in work/expression records, but not name authority records. Adam Schiff (University of Washington) explained that this proposal was originally for work/expression records but also could be used for individual authors if applicable.
Jia Xu (ALCTS) suggested dropping occupational group and gender group from field 386 because of their overlapping with 374 and 375. Janis Young (LC) cautioned that that would only be useful if systems were designed to perform a thorough faceted search on both 386 and 374/375 fields. Matthew Wise (ALCTS) added that dropping occupational group and gender group from 386 would only apply for name authority records. Work/expression records still need them.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) suggested deferring the contents about name authority records from the proposal and accepting the contents about work/expression records.
Corine Deliot (BL) expressed concern about the issue of personal information protection and author self-identification.
Gary Strawn (ALCTS) moved to approve the proposal with Adam Schiff’s suggestion to remove references to name authority records and with the following amendments: 1) Rename subfield $m "Demographic group designator term"; 2) Add subfield $n "Demographic group designator code "; 3) Drop $u from the list of subfields. Matthew Wise (ALCTS) seconded. The motion passed.
Stephen Hearn (SAC) introduced the proposal, which was based on Discussion Paper 2012-DP03. The implementation of LCGFT will strip off some aspects of works and expressions that are now expressed in combination with form headings in LCSH. The chronological origin aspect of a work’s content is one such element, which needs to be recorded elsewhere. The proposal suggests, in the Bibliographic and Authority formats, defining two new subfields in field 046 (Special Coded Dates): $o - Single or starting date for aggregated contents, and $p - Ending date for aggregated contents. The proposal also suggests revising the definition of first indicator value blank and defining two new first indicator values for field 648 (Subject Added Entry-Chronological Term) in the Bibliographic format in order to specify the date/time period covered or depicted, or the date/time period of creation or origin.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) added more contents to the proposal. He suggested adding a new field 348 or 388 (Chronological term representing date or time of period of creation or origin of work/expression) either as an amendment or a new proposal. He explained that even though new indicator values in 648 presented the date/time period of creation or origin of work/expression in the original proposal, 648 was actually for subject aspects. Creation or origin of work/expression was not a subject aspect, therefore, it should be recorded in 348 or 388 as an attribute in authority records.
John Myers (CC:DA) commented that the new field did make the original proposal more comprehensive but that it needed more discussion.
Jia Xu (ALCTS) moved to approve the original proposal as submitted and defer the suggestion adding a new 348 or 388 for a new proposal. Sarah Beth Weeks (LITA) seconded. The motion passed.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS) announced that it was unlikely there would be a social event at the Annual meeting to mark the demise of MARBI due to scheduling conflicts. He also said that he looked forward to working with the MARC Advisory Committee to continue revision of the MARC standard.
Matthew Wise (ALCTS) moved to adjourn the meeting. Denise Beaubien Bennett (RUSA) seconded.
Eric Delozier (LITA, Chair) adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Haiyun Cao
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 06/20/2013 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |