The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> StandardsThe Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List
DATE: May 22, 2025
REVISED:
NAME: Adding Subfields $i and $4 to Fields 368, 376, and 381 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats
SOURCE: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
SUMMARY: This proposal seeks to add subfield $i (Relationship information) and subfield $4 (Relationship) in fields 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) and 376 (Family Information) in the MARC 21 Authority Format, and in field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats.
KEYWORDS: Relationship information (AD, BD); Relationship (AD, BD); Field 368 (AD); Subfield $i, in Field 368 (AD); Subfield $4, in Field 368 (AD); Subfield $2, in Field 368 (AD); Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body (AD); Field 376 (AD); Subfield $i, in Field 376 (AD); Subfield $4, in Field 376 (AD); Family Information (AD); Field 381 (AD, BD); Subfield $i, in Field 381 (AD, BD); Subfield $4, in Field 381 (AD, BD); Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression (AD, BD)
RELATED: 2025-01; 2024-DP09; 2022-FT01; 2022-DP05; 2017-02; 2017-03
STATUS/COMMENTS:
05/22/25 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
06/25/25 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Approved as submitted.
11/26/25 – Results of MARC Steering Group review - Agreed with the MAC decision.
Subfields $i and $4 for relationship information have been added to several 3XX fields in the Authority and Bibliographic Formats over time. Proposal 2017-02 added them to field 370 (Associated place) in both the Authority and Bibliographic Format. Proposal 2017-03 added them to field 386 (Creator/Contributor Characteristics) in both the Authority and Bibliographic Format. Most recently, 2022-FT01 added the same subfields to field 373 (Associated group) in the Authority Format. This proposal seeks to define relationship subfields $i and $4 in three additional 3XX fields in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats, paralleling their application in fields 370, 373, and 386. This revised proposal seeks to address issues raised by MAC in response to the proposal previously submitted as Proposal 2025-01, as well as Discussion Paper 2024-DP09.
In Authority field 370 (Associated Place), subfields $i and $4 can express a more specific relationship between the place recorded in the field and the entity in the 1XX field. This is especially useful with subfields $c (Associated country) and $f (Other associated place) since subfields $a, $b, $e, and $g already convey a more specific relationship to the place (place of birth, death, etc.), though the definitions of subfields $i and $4 do not explicitly restrict their use only with subfields $c or $f. Subfields $c and $f could previously be used alone to record other significant associated countries and places, such as the place of burial for a person or the place of recording for an expression, but the relationship to the place recorded is ambiguous without further context. With the addition of subfields $i and $4, these related places can be recorded more unambiguously, and without the need for defining additional subfields for each specific relationship. In Authority field 373 (Associated Group), subfields $i and $4 can express a more specific relationship between the group recorded in the field and the entity in the 1XX field. In Authority field 386 (Creator/Contributor Characteristics), subfields $i and $4 can express a more specific relationship between one or more members of the demographic group recorded in the 386 field and the 1XX entity in the record. These subfields also exist in the corresponding fields 370 and 386 in the Bibliographic Format, where they relate to the resource described by the 1XX/245 of the record.
Following this pattern, establishing relationship subfields $i and $4 in fields 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body), 376 (Family Information), and 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) would provide a relatively open-ended way to express a broader array of relationships that are not currently accommodated by another subfield or field elsewhere in the MARC Authority or Bibliographic Formats. This approach potentially reduces the need for further MARC development to establish specific content designators for each element or relationship that might be expressed in this manner.
In Authority field 368 the new subfields could express a more specific relationship between an attribute or characteristic of a person or corporate body that is recorded in the field and the person or corporate body entity recorded in the 1XX. This would be especially useful in combination with subfield $c (Other designation), but could apply to other subfields as well, such as subfield $d (Title of person). Similarly, for families, the new relationship subfields could express a more specific relationship between an attribute recorded in field 376 and the family named in the 1XX. The relationship subfields would again be most useful in combination with the recently-established subfield $d (Other designation) of Authority field 376, but may apply to other subfields. Lastly, for works and expressions, the relationship subfields would express a relationship between a characteristic recorded in subfield $a (Other distinguishing characteristic) of field 381, and the work or expression in field 1XX in the Authority Format, or the work/expression embodied in the resource described in the 1XX/245 of the record in the Bibliographic Format.
In this proposal, we have revised the definitions of the new subfields as originally proposed in 2024-DP09 and 2025-01, so as to remove reference to use of $i or $4 only with specific subfield(s) within the field. The proposed definitions now more closely parallel the definitions of subfields $i and $4 as found in fields 370, 373, and 386. The proposed definition of subfield $i in field 381 also now differs slightly between the two formats, more closely paralleling the difference in the definitions of $i in fields 370 and 386 between the two formats. As in the previous proposal, we also propose a minor revision to the definition of subfield $2 (Source) in field 368 to specify which subfields it controls, paralleling the definition of subfield $2 in other 3XX fields.
Subfields for other designations or other distinguishing characteristics are found in the MARC Authority Format for persons, families, corporate bodies, works, and expressions. Corresponding elements are found in original RDA (with the exception of other designation of family, which was added to MARC in Proposal 2023-05, without an equivalent RDA element). Though separate elements for "other" designations have largely been deprecated in the move from original RDA, official RDA still allows for other elements or designations to be recorded as part of access points, when needed for identification of the entity, differentiation of the access point, or conformance to a string encoding scheme. For expressions, there is a new official RDA element designation of version, which is mapped to subfield $a of field 381. Other designations found in access points for expressions can include names of translators, publishers, narrators, etc., even though some of these distinguishing characteristics may be manifestation-level attributes. While "other" designation elements are no longer present, official RDA now includes several elements for relationships to non-RDA entities, such as related entity of agent and related entity of work. Some of these relationships could be accommodated using subfields $i and $4 in 3XX fields. As discussed further below, the PCC is exploring ways to extend these relationship elements to include relevant metadata beyond the confines of RDA itself.
In combination with the existing 3XX fields in which subfields $i and $4 are already defined, these new subfields may facilitate mapping relationship statements into MARC from other encoding formats, including cases when they cannot be reliably mapped into a more specific field or subfield, for example, when the entity types, domain, range, and/or other constraints of the relationship cannot be determined. When a relationship is expressed through subfields $i and $4 in field 370, the range is constrained by the field (i.e., associated place), but not the domain. Any entity named in 1XX can have a related place or group in field 370, while the relationship itself could have a more specific constraint (e.g., only persons can have a burial place). Similarly, the range of a relationship in field 373 is constrained to groups. Meanwhile, if relationship subfields are established in fields 368, 376, and 381, the domain is constrained by the field, which corresponds to the type of entity named in the 1XX of the same record. The range is not constrained by the field, but the relationship itself may determine the range.
The use of 3XX fields to express relationships also makes it possible to record a broader array of relationships that cannot be recorded in 5XX fields due to other constraints in a given implementation. For example, field 368 may be used for the relationship between a person established in the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and an award established in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) file, as in some examples below. According to LC/NACO practice, it would not be permissible to record this same relationship using field 550 for the award name, since the entities are established in different authority files. Additionally, current LC/NACO practice requires relationship designators used in 5XX subfield $i to come from the RDA Toolkit, which is not the case for "award received."
As was previously explored in 2022-DP05 (as option 3), subfields $i and $4 in field 381 could potentially be used to express a subject relationship between a work established in a title or name/title authority record in the LCNAF and its subject, whether that subject term is established in the LCNAF, LCSH, or another vocabulary, or whether it is uncontrolled. Discussion of that paper revealed that this option was disfavored compared to the other two options presented: using subfields $i and $4 in field 5XX with source of the subject term in a new subfield $2, or establishing a new subject field in the 3XX block. According to the status comments on 2022-DP05, the Library of Congress indicated "they would neither support development along the lines proposed in the paper nor implement its changes if they were to pass." The Standing Committee on Standards did not pursue a proposal based on 2022-DP05 for this reason.
Discussion of 2025-01 revealed ongoing skepticism about this approach to subject data in authority records for works. While Original RDA Appendix L (Relationship Designators: Relationships Between Concepts, Objects, Events, and Places) was never developed, Official RDA includes the relationship element subject ("a topic that a work is about") as well as more specific relationship elements for specific RDA entities as subjects (subject person, subject manifestation, etc.). The forthcoming LC-PCC implementation of Official RDA will allow recording these subject relationships in LCNAF authority records for works using field 5XX (see the LC-PCC Metadata Guidance Documents for Subject Relationships), but only when the subject entity recorded in 5XX is also established in the LCNAF.
It remains to be seen whether and how the Library of Congress would remove this limitation, or if they would support or implement another means for recording subject relationships in LCNAF authority records when the related subject term comes from another vocabulary or is uncontrolled. The Library of Congress's prohibition would not prevent other communities from making use of other methods for recording subject relationships in their authority records, if MAC chooses to support that development. The definition of these new relationship subfields in field 381 would at least provide one option to do so in the future, without need for further development to pursue other (potentially more complex) options, including those presented by 2022-DP05.
We therefore include one example of a subject relationship in an authority record in section 4.3 below. Use of field 381 for subject relationships in bibliographic records would likely be redundant since the 6XX block is already available for that purpose. Similarly, use of Bibliographic field 381 for certain other relationships such as "award received" may be redundant, since field 586 is available for that purpose. Again, the choice among different available options may depend on systems or other constraints within an implementation, as is already the case with existing fields (e.g., use of field 370 or 551 for a related place).
Discussion of 2024-DP09 and 2025-01 revealed that some communities had concerns about infringing upon the privacy of the person or family being described, when additional information is recorded in this fashion. Several examples in 2025-01 included information about the religion, ethnicity, or disability status of a person, which may indeed be sensitive to record in certain contexts. Catalogers may inadvertently reveal information that was never intended to be public, or they may make biased or incorrect assumptions about a person's religion, ethnicity, or other demographic or biographical history. Other respondents felt that these concerns were valid but misplaced, since potentially private, biased, or misleading information can already be recorded in a variety of 3XX, 6XX, and other fields in the Authority Format. This proposal does not establish new content designators for religion, ethnicity, or medical history, nor does it specifically encourage recording those attributes. It merely enables catalogers to provide additional structure and linked data capability to information that can already be recorded in other ways or in other subfields. Instead of resolving these concerns within the MARC formats, we believe that cataloging communities may wish to develop general best practices or guidelines around privacy of persons and families described in authority records, as well as application guidance for specific fields. Based on a number of factors, including whether a person is alive or deceased and whether they self-identify as a member of a demographic group, biographical information could be considered bibliographically relevant, and in other cases, it might be omitted from a record in the interest of privacy of the entity being described. In theory, this judgment would be applicable regardless of the specific field or recording method used to convey the information.
The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), for example, has charged a Task Group on Privacy in Name Authority Records, and a Task Group on Gender in Name Authority Records, to make implementation recommendations regarding the use or omission of various fields and subfields that may contain information about persons and families, when that information could either harm or misrepresent the person. While the outcomes of the gender task group are not fully known at this time, the PCC has previously decided to end the use of MARC field 375 (Gender) in LC-NACO authority records. The PCC has also restricted recording physical or email addresses for living persons in field 371 (Address). Both of these decisions were made due to a determination that the privacy and bias concerns outweigh the potential usefulness of the data.
The recently-approved final report of the privacy task group includes extensive guidance for privacy-aware authority work, intended to be applicable to "contemporary" (including both living and recently deceased) persons and families, while leaving unresolved questions about the privacy of long-deceased persons and families. Among its many recommendations is a guiding principle about the potential risks of recording demographic information about "physical characteristics, such as a person's skin color, health condition, or observable physical characteristics (weight, height, etc.)" or "information that assigns subjects to fundamental social categories, e.g., gender, race, caste, socioeconomic status, criminal status, sexual orientation, or disability status." There is specific guidance for two of the three fields under discussion by this proposal: catalogers should not use 368 to record such demographic information about a person "unless absolutely needed for identification/disambiguation or preferred by the subject." Catalogers are also instructed to "avoid the use of gendered language if possible" and to "remove demographic group terms that are determined to be potential risks to privacy." Similarly, when using field 376 for families, these identifying demographic characteristics should not be recorded unless necessary for disambiguation. The report also gives guidance for the use of subfield $i where it currently exists in fields 370, 373, 386, and 5XX: "Only use $i (Relationship information) for bibliographically relevant relationships." Similar guidance would presumably apply to relationship subfields in Authority fields 368, 376, and 381, if established. Cataloger and community judgment about what data is bibliographically relevant, what data represents a potential privacy risk, and what data is preferred by the subject, will likely be a matter of ongoing discussion within the PCC and beyond. We have revised or removed examples for contemporary persons that were present in 2025-01 when they potentially contradicted this guidance.
The PCC has previously given consideration to the use of subfields $i and $4 where they already exist in authority fields 370 and 373. The PCC Standing Committee on Standards (SCS) has developed a list of preferred relationship labels for use in field 370 subfield $i, and has planned to do the same for field 373. Potentially, SCS could follow suit with lists of relationships for any other 3XX field in which subfields $i and $4 are implemented. Though many potential relationships could hypothetically be recorded in those fields, certain ones may be discouraged due to privacy or other ethical or practical concerns in some situations, or when considered not to be bibliographically relevant. This would be the case regardless of whether the relationship is expressed by an existing subfield (such as Place of birth or Place of residence), whether subfield $i or $4 is used to express that relationship (such as Country of citizenship or Place of detention), or whether the information is recorded in another location (such as source notes or biographical notes in fields 670 or 678). We believe that the MARC format itself serves as a container for the data, and decisions on the utility and ethics of the data recorded in the format should continue to be developed by communities wishing to implement subfields $i and $4 in a 3XX field, including those currently defined and those that may be established by this proposal.
During discussion of 2024-DP09 and 2025-01, some respondents felt that the relationship being expressed in certain examples was already sufficiently apparent and unambiguous without the addition of subfield $i, in which case the additional label in subfield $i was redundant and unnecessary, or possibly even confusing to users. We have attempted to revise previous examples and provide additional examples in which the relationship is not unambiguous without $i. This includes examples in which there is more than one possible relationship to the same entity, either simultaneously or as the result of change over time, and examples in which a relationship may have multiple values, which may also be true simultaneously or as the result of change over time.
In other cases, respondents felt that certain examples provided in the preceding papers were inaccurate or poorly constructed. For example, some respondents felt that the relationship "religion or worldview" calls for a term for a religion (e.g., "Atheism") rather than a demographic group term (e.g.. "Atheists"). We have again attempted to update the examples in section 4 with a goal of more semantic consistency between the relationship and the associated value. Again, there may be multiple ways to express the same relationship, and the examples reflect a variety of possible practices. Application decisions may best be considered a matter of cataloger judgment or community best practice. As we have seen with the other 3XX fields, these best practices may emerge and be refined with time as experience is gained.
In field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) of the Authority Format, define new subfields $i and $4 as follows:
$i - Relationship information (R)
Designation of a relationship between the attribute of person or corporate body recorded in the 368 field and the person or corporate body entity described in the record. This may be an uncontrolled textual phrase or a controlled textual value from a list of relationships.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in the field.
In field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body), update the definition of subfield $2 as follows (added text underlined):
$2 - Source (NR)
Identification of the source of terms in subfields $a, $b, $c, or $d when they are from a controlled list.
In field 376 (Family Information) of the Authority Format, define new subfields $i and $4 as follows:
$i - Relationship information (R)
Designation of a relationship between the attribute of family recorded in the 376 field and the family entity described in the record. This may be an uncontrolled textual phrase or a controlled textual value from a list of relationships.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in the field.
In field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) of the Authority Format, define new subfields $i and $4 as follows:
$i - Relationship information (R)
Designation of a relationship between the other distinguishing characteristic of work or expression recorded in the 381 field and the work or expression entity described in the record. This may be an uncontrolled textual phrase or a controlled textual value from a list of relationships.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in the field.
In field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) of the Bibliographic Format, define new subfields $i and $4 as follows:
$i - Relationship information (R)
Designation of a relationship between the other distinguishing characteristic of work or expression recorded in the 381 field and the resource described in the 1XX/245 of the record. This may be an uncontrolled textual phrase or a controlled textual value from a list of relationships.$4 - Relationship (R)
Code or URI that specifies the relationship from the entity described in the record to the entity referenced in the field.
Note: Examples illustrate a variety of relationship terms/designators. Some are uncontrolled terms while others have been taken from various sources such as Wikidata property labels, Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT) demographic categories, RDA element names, and the MARC relator terms. Cataloging communities may need to develop best practices for using relationship terms, and might be expected to develop their own lists of terms to use.
Example 1:100 1# $a Tesla, Nikola, $d 1856-1943
368 ## $i Inventor of: $c Tesla coils $2 lcsh
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Austrians $s 1856 $t 1891 $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Americans $s 1891 $t 1943 $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Ethnic group: $c Serbian Americans $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Nominated for: $c Nobel Prize in Physics $2 wikidata/engExample 2:
100 1# $a Undset, Sigrid, $d 1882-1949
368 ## $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Norwegians $2 lcdgt $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060634
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85009109
368 ## $i Award received: $c Nobel Prize in Literature $2 wikidata/eng $s 1928 $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q37922Example 3:
100 0# $a Benedict $b XV, $c Pope, $d 1854-1922
368 ## $i Religion: $c Catholics $2 lcdgt $4 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/rel $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060259
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Italians $2 lcdgt $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060667
368 ## $i Ecclesiastical rank: $d Cardinal $s 1914 $t 1914 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q45722
368 ## $i Ecclesiastical rank: $d Pope $s 1914 $t 1922 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q19546Example 4:
100 0# $a Jerome, $c Saint, $d -419 or 420
368 ## $c Saints $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85116629
368 ## $c Christians $2 lcdgt $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060258
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Canonized saint $2 wikidata/eng $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P411 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q123110154
368 ## $i Domain of saint or deity: $c Librarians $2 lcdgt $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P2925 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060192
368 ## $i Religion or worldview: $c Christianity $2 lcsh $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P140 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85025219Example 5:
100 0# $a Ana de Jesús, $d 1545-1621
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Blessed $2 wikidata/eng $s 2024 $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P411 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2369287
373 ## $i Venerated in: $a Catholic Church $2 naf $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79041716 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n79041716Example 6:
100 0# $a Joan, $c of Arc, Saint, $d 1412-1431
368 ## $c Saints $2 lcsh
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Venerable $2 wikidata/eng $s 1904 $t 1909 $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P411 $1 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q51619
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Blessed $2 wikidata/eng $s 1909 $t 1920 $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P411 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2369287
368 ## $i Canonization status: $c Canonized saint $2 wikidata/eng $s 1920 $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P411 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q123110154Example 7:
100 1# $a Streep, Meryl
368 ## $c Academy Award winners $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Nominated for: $c Academy Award for Best Actress $2 wikidata/eng $s 1982
368 ## $i Award received: $c Academy Award for Best Actress $2 wikidata/eng $s 1983Example 8:
100 1# $a Perry, Antoinette, $d 1888-1946
368 ## $i Nationality: $c Americans $2 lcdgt
368 ## $i Namesake of: $c Tony Awards $2 lcshExample 9:
100 1# $a Ashcroft, James $c (Captain)
368 ## $i Military or police rank: $d Captain $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P410 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q25114211Example 10:
100 1# $a Iveagh, Margaret Burk, $c Viscountess, $d 1673-1744
368 ## $i Noble title: $d Viscountess $2 wikidata/eng $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P97 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q21104416Example 11:
110 2# $a All Souls Church (Portland, Me.)
368 ## $a Universalist churches $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh89001392
368 ## $i Religion or worldview: $c Universalism $2 lcsh $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P140 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85141079
368 ## $i Religion or worldview: $c Christian universalism $2 wikidata/eng $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P140 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q3360416Example 12:
110 2# $a International Committee of the Red Cross
368 ## $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2006004988
368 ## $i Award received: $c Nobel Peace Prize $2 wikidata/eng $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q35637
368 ## $i Award received: $c United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights $2 wikidata/eng $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q27028
368 ## $i Award received: $c Balzan Prize $2 wikidata/eng $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q628457Example 13:
110 2# $a Associatie Nederlandse Tandartsen
368 ## $a Professional associations $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh95005572
368 ## $i Members have occupation: $c Dentists $2 lcdgt $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P3989 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060584
372 ## $a Dentistry $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85036953Example 14:
110 2# $a Architectural Institute of British Columbia
368 ## $a Licensing board $2 wikidata/eng $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q125771287
368 ## $a Regulatory authority $2 wikidata/eng $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q55875130
368 ## $i Licensing body for: $c Architects $2 lcdgt $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060767
370 ## $c Canada $2 naf $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79007233 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n79007233
370 ## $i Operating area: $f British Columbia $2 naf $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P2541 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79058445 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n79058445
372 ## $a Architecture--British Columbia $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh94000502Example 15:
110 2# $a Universidad Alfredo Pérez Guerrero
368 ## $i Namesake: $c Pérez Guerrero, Alfredo, 1901-1966 $2 naf
Example 1:
100 3# $a Denney (Family : $g Denny, Anthony, 1501-1549)
376 ## $a Families $2 lcsh
376 ## $b Denny, Anthony, 1501-1549 $2 naf
376 ## $i Nationality: $d Britons $2 lcdgtExample 2:
100 3# $a Nayak (Dynasty : $d 1529-1736 : $c Madurai, India)
376 ## $a Dynasty $2 wikidata/eng $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q164950
376 ## $i Ethnic group: $d Telugu (Indic people) $2 lcsh $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P172 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85133682
376 ## $i Religion or worldview: $d Hinduism $2 lcsh $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P140 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85060932Example 3:
100 3# $a Kamehameha (Royal house : $d 1810-1872 : $c Hawaii)
376 ## $a Royal houses $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85115587
376 ## $b Kamehameha I, the Great, King of the Hawaiian Islands, -1819 $2 naf $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n93094275 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n93094275
376 ## $i Ethnic/cultural: $d Hawaiians (Polynesian people) $2 lcdgt $4 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/eth $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demographicTerms/dg2015060376
Example 1:130 #0 $a Nevada women's oral histories series
381 ## $i Issuing body: $a Nevada Women's History Project $2 naf $4 isb $4 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/isb $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no00051099 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/no00051099Example 2:
130 #0 $a Report (New Mexico Chile Association)
381 ## $i Issuing body: $a New Mexico Chile Association $2 naf $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60467 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2021078792 $1 http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/no2021078792
381 ## $i Has subject: $a Hot peppers $2 lcsh $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60805 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85062441Example 3:
100 0# $a Aeschylus. $t Oresteia. $l English $s (Buckley)
381 ## $i Translator: $a Buckley $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60385Example 4:
100 1# $a Caesar, Julius. $t De bello Gallico. $n Liber 7. $l Latin $s (Krebs)
381 ## $i Editor: $a Krebs $4 edt $4 http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/edt $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P61085Example 5:
130 #0 $a Beowulf. $l English $s (Alexander). $h Spoken word $s (Pierreson and McMillan)
381 ## $i Translator: $a Alexander $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60385
381 ## $i Narrator: $a Pierreson and McMillan $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60153Example 6:
130 #0 $a Herzog Ernst $s (Version B)
377 ## $a gmh
381 ## $i Edition/version: $a Version B $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P9767Example 7:
130 #0 $a Everything everywhere all at once (Motion picture)
381 ## $i Award received: $a Academy Award for Best Picture $2 wikidata/eng $s 2023 $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P166 $1 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q102427
Example 1:100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400?
240 10 $a Piers Plowman $s (C-text)
245 10 $a Piers Plowman / $c William Langland ; a new annotated edition of the C-text by Derek Pearsall.
260 ## $a Exeter, UK : $b University of Exeter Press, $c 2008.
381 ## $i Edition/version: $a C-text $4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P9767Example 2:
130 0# $a Exorcist (Motion picture : $s Director's cut) $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2021144634
245 14 $a The exorcist : $b extended director's cut / $c Warner Bros.
246 3# $a William Peter Blatty's The exorcist
260 ## $a Burbank, CA : $b Warner Home Video, $c 2010.
381 ## $i Designation of version: $a Director’s cut $a 2000 version $4 http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/P20572
The BIBFRAME data conversion programs do not yet include MARC field 381 from the bibliographic record. Conversion of fields 368, 376, and 381 in authority records would be part of a MADS data conversion. In BIBFRAME, treatment of $i and $4 is already included in the specifications for other MARC fields, and the conversion could be modified to include MARC field 381.
6.1. In field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body) of the MARC 21 Authority Format, define subfields $i (Relationship information) (R) and $4 (Relationship) (R) and update the definition of subfield $2 (Source), as described in Section 3.1.
6.2. In field 376 (Family Information) of the MARC 21 Authority Format, define subfields $i (Relationship information) (R) and $4 (Relationship) (R), as described in Section 3.2.
6.3. In field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) of the MARC 21 Authority Format, define subfields $i (Relationship information) (R) and $4 (Relationship) (R), as described in Section 3.3.
6.4. In field 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, define subfields $i (Relationship information) (R) and $4 (Relationship) (R), as described in Section 3.4.
HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards (11/26/2025) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |