The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards

MARC Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List

MARC PROPOSAL NO. 2025-06

HARMFUL LANGUAGE ADVISORY: In order to demonstrate the need for the proposed subfield, this proposal contains historical language that is offensive and harmful (primarily racist terminology in title statements in the examples).

DATE: June 4, 2025
REVISED:

NAME: Defining a New Subfield for Context of Title Statement in Field 245 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

SOURCE: The Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) of the Rare Book and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of ALA (American Library Association); co-sponsored by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging Advisory Committee on Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Belonging, and Accessibility (PCC EDIBA)

SUMMARY: This proposal seeks to define an optional subfield $z for "Title statement context note" to field 245 (Title Statement) in the MARC Bibliographic Format to meet the reparative description need for immediate contextualization of racist, homophobic, ableist, and other biased, prejudicial, or hateful language, especially as found in transcribed titles of many special collections resources.

KEYWORDS: Field 245 (BD); Title Statement (BD); Subfield $z, in field 245 (BD); Title statement context note (BD)

RELATED: 2024-DP02; 2025-DP01

STATUS/COMMENTS:
06/04/25 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.

06/25/25 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Approved, with the the amendment that the terminology "harmful language" in the proposed definition of subfield $z be removed and the definition reworked editorially to remove the prospect of value judgments.

11/26/25 – Results of MARC Steering Group review - Agreed with the MAC decision.

11/26/25 – Amendment to proposal (by RBMS): During the MARC Advisory Committee Annual meeting on June 25, 2025, the Committee voted to approve Proposal 2025-06, with the proviso that the terminology "harmful language" be removed editorially to remove value judgement from the definition of the new subfield $z. During the discussion, similar terms – pejorative, hateful, and offensive – were also noted as containing value judgements. MAC members expressed concerns that the use of these terms could set a precedent for enshrining value judgments in the MARC formats. Additionally, members expressed concerns that the field could be misused to deliberately mischaracterize a resource or to express an agenda or viewpoint that is itself harmful.

As requested, the RBMS liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee has consulted with the proposal authors to revise the proposal's definition of subfield $z in field 245 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, to address this concern, as well as to address MAC members' requests for clarification about input conventions, punctuation, and subfield order.

The proposal authors note that the subfield was intentionally narrowly scoped as a result of MAC comments on the preceding Discussion Papers 2024-DP02 and 2025-DP01, that expressed concerns regarding scope creep – that is, that the new subfield would be used to provide contexts for titles outside of the specifically articulated use case of harmful language. Therefore, in the discussion section of the proposal, the authors cited already-published definitions of harmful language from the Library of Congress's Subject Headings Manual, memo H1992: Offensive words and the RBMS Controlled Vocabulary for Rare Materials Cataloging definitions for "Prejudicial works" and "Hate works", both of which are accepted cataloging standards and published on the Library of Congress website. This was done in an effort to demonstrate precedent for identification of harmful language or content, and to more clearly define and scope the new subfield and its use.

With the explicit instruction that the word "harmful" and its synonyms be omitted from the definition as containing value judgements, the definition has, by necessity, again broadened in scope to be more neutral about the note's content. We acknowledge that this expanded use case for the new subfield $z does not prevent its use for harmful language advisory notes as originally intended, while potentially encompassing other situations commonly encountered in titles of rare, early, and special collections materials. Rather than leaving the definition entirely open-ended, we have named title statements with obsolete, misleading, or ambiguously sourced language, since these types of language could also be usefully contextualized for users using the subfield, whether or not that language is also "harmful" according to the above definitions.

The Cataloguing Code of Ethics (2021) affirms that "neither cataloguing nor cataloguers are neutral" and calls for catalogers to "take responsibility for our cataloguing decisions and advocate for transparency in our institutional practices and policies.” However the subfield $z is ultimately defined in the MARC standard, we believe that value judgements have been and will continue to be an inseparable part of cataloging work. And in response to the latter concern noted above, we note that deliberate misrepresentation of resources is already possible (for example with notes, subject headings, classification, or intended audience fields). With this in mind, we encourage communities wishing to responsibly and transparently contextualize historical or contemporary harmful, pejorative, or offensive language in cataloging records to update their descriptive standards, application profiles, or best practices documentation to accommodate the new subfield and to discourage inappropriate application of 245 $z and other available fields.

We submit the following revised definition for the consideration of the MARC Steering Group:

$z - Title statement context note (NR)
Note providing immediate explanatory or historical context for the title statement, for example, when it uses obsolete or misleading language or when it is from an unclear source. The note is written in a form that is adequate or intended for public display.

Subfield $z generally follows subfield $c or the last coded subfield in field 245. It is enclosed in square brackets.

Proposal 2025-06 also stated that the several provided examples were intended to illustrate to MAC our specific use case related to harmful language content, but due to that objectionable content in many of the examples, we did not intend them all to be included in the more public-facing MARC Format documentation for field 245. Instead, we offer a smaller selection of examples for consideration, in an attempt to minimize the replication of harmful language in the MARC Format itself, while still reflecting the broader scope of the revised definition of subfield $z above as examples of historical and obsolete language (which may or may not also meet a definition of "harmful" language). At the suggestion of the MARC Steering Group members, we also offer examples showing the use of subfield $z in isolation, omitting the other fields that contain harmful language. The additional examples below use the mark of omission as found in other truncated examples in the 245 field documentation:

245 10 $a Jicarilla Apache Brave and Squaw, lately wedded. Abiquiu Agency, New Mexico $h [graphic] / $c T.H. O'Sullivan, photo. $z [Title transcribed from back of original item].

245 14 $a The grand defect, or, Ellen and her cousin Julia / $c written for the American Sunday-School Union by a deaf and dumb lady ; revised by the Committee of Publication. $z [Title statement provided by publisher in 1847].

245 10 $a … $z [Title based on the organization's official name].

245 00 $a … $z [Language advisory: title from 1942 newspaper caption].

Lastly, it was noted during MAC discussion of Proposal 2025-06 that the definition of subfield $c also needed to be revised in order to allow a subsequent subfield $z in the field. Appendix J (Data Provenance Subfields) also shows an example of subfield $7 following a subfield $c in field 245, contrary to this definition. The proposed revision is underlined:

$c - Statement of responsibility, etc.
First statement of responsibility and/or remaining data in the field that has not been subfielded by one of the other subfield codes.

In records formulated according to ISBD principles, subfield $c contains all data following the first slash (/). Once a subfield $c has been recorded, no further subfield coding of field 245 is possible, with the exception of subfields $z or $7.

12/04/25 – Results of MARC Steering Group review - Amendment approved.

Proposal No. 2025-06: Defining a New Subfield for Context of Title Statement in Field 245

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. Current Definition of Field 245

Field 245 is currently defined, in part, in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format as follows:

1.2. Introduction

Discussion Paper 2024-DP02, originally entitled "Adding Subfield $i to field 245," was first presented at the Midwinter 2024 MAC meeting. During the discussion it became clear that the paper did not adequately convey the unique purpose of the new subfield, nor did it enumerate the many options that were considered before coming to the conclusion that adding a subfield to field 245 offered an appropriately simple and speedy solution to a pressing need in reparative description. A straw poll of attendees at the meeting revealed strong support for the concept, and the committee voted in favor of inviting resubmission as a discussion paper. It was resubmitted as Discussion Paper 2025-DP01 and presented at the Midwinter 2025 MAC meeting. This revised discussion paper was entitled "Defining a New Subfield for Context of Transcribed Title Statement in Field 245 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format." It proposed defining subfield $z for this purpose instead of subfield $i.

During the discussion of 2024-DP02, there had been concerns that a 245 subfield $i would be used more broadly and flexibly by catalogers than was scoped in the original discussion paper (that is, strictly as context for a transcribed title in the case of harmful language). While the presence of subfield $i in field 246 (where it is defined as "Display text") served as a useful precedent for this proposal, repeating it in field 245 could also predispose catalogers to use the new subfield in the same fashion. Using subfield $i implicitly suggests that the subfield would be placed preceding the 245 $a, as it is used in field 246 and other fields. This placement of subfield $i could potentially interfere with the function of the second indicator value for initial non-filing characters at the beginning of the title.

In response, the authors of 2025-DP01 changed the proposed subfield to subfield $z, which is not otherwise used in the transcribed 24X, 25X, or 26X MARC Bibliographic fields, in order to underscore that the proposed subfield has a distinctive purpose. Elsewhere in the Bibliographic Format, subfield $z has a variety of definitions. When it is similarly defined as a public note (e.g., in fields 046, 583, 856, etc.), there is not a consistent subfield order convention. Responses to the previous discussion papers revealed a preference for displaying the content of subfield $z at the end of the 245 field, since interpolations within the field can interfere with string-based searching. However, institutions that do wish to display the content of the 245 subfield $z preceding the title or elsewhere can achieve that by programming their OPAC accordingly.

Discussion Paper 2025-DP01 also explored whether the text of subfield $z should be prescribed, partially prescribed (e.g., always start with "Language advisory"), or left to cataloger's judgment. Discussion of the paper revealed mixed opinions. While full prescription of the language would prevent the flexibility needed to contextualize resources, partial prescription may simplify cataloger input through templates or constant data, ensure consistency for users, and lessen the likelihood of scope creep or misuse of the new subfield. Other commenters felt that this question does not need to be answered within the MARC definition of the subfield, but rather by the rare materials cataloging community and others who are implementing the subfield. More detailed language guidance, input conventions (such as bracketing or punctuation), and examples might be developed and included in content standards like Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (RDA Edition) (DCRMR)  or Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), or in separate best practice documentation maintained by institutions or specialist communities. In the meantime, the examples in Section 4 demonstrate a variety of possible note formulations.

2. DISCUSSION

As before, we wish to clarify that the issue is not simply one of recording metadata provenance. Concerned members of the special collections community, particularly those in public services, brought a specific problem to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Steering Group of the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee. Namely, the transcribed titles that form the bedrock of special collections cataloging can unintentionally act as gatekeepers when they appear in search results. This is especially true for titles of prints, photographs, ephemera, and other resources for which devised titles could reasonably be expected. Users familiar with bibliographic conventions may understand that racist, homophobic, ableist, and other biased, prejudicial, or hateful language, referred to as "harmful language" henceforward, in an unbracketed title statement represents the resource in its own words, not the words of library staff. Note that the use of square brackets to identify supplied and devised information in Title Statements is required according to DCRMR (0.1.7.2). Complaints from users reveal that this convention is not widely understood.

For many users, the online catalog is the first point of encounter with library collections. This is especially true for special collections materials, which users cannot physically browse in the library. Understood in the context of remote research and the need to page materials in closed stacks, the online catalog becomes one of the most public-facing elements of library services for special collections. In keeping with the ACRL Code of Ethics for Special Collections Librarians' mandate to "strive to improve collections access for all users" (emphasis ours), it behooves us to consider the online catalog as part of this commitment to equitable access. We must treat how materials are presented in our online catalogs with great seriousness if we are to ensure that users from diverse backgrounds are not turned away before they even reach the reading room. Although this paper focuses on applications to special collections cataloging for these reasons, users encounter transcribed and supplied title information in catalog records created according to a variety of descriptive standards, and the proposed subfield is not restricted to special collections applications.

Many institutional catalogs provide combined access to general and special collections, using a variety of current and legacy descriptive standards and conventions, with varying practices for transcribing, bracketing, omitting, interpolating, and supplying information, as well as for indicating when such interventions have been made by the cataloger. So, even experienced catalog users may not be able to readily discern whether all or part of a title statement is supplied or transcribed in any given record. Compared to standards for printed materials, standards for manuscripts and archival collections tend to place less emphasis on transcription. According to DACS and Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials: Manuscripts (DCRMMSS), for example, titles are usually devised rather than transcribed, and square brackets are generally not used. Though cataloger-supplied title statements for manuscripts and archival collections may also contain harmful language, these statements could more readily be revised by subsequent catalogers and archivists as part of reparative redescription efforts, without interfering with expectations of representation through transcription.

Still, it was noted during discussion of 2025-DP01 that even some cataloger-supplied title statements can benefit from contextualization instead of revision, if they include harmful language in the names of organizations, places, and collections, for which adequate replacement language may not be available. For example, the devised title of an archival collection originating from a corporate body would normally be based on that body's established name, even if its name contains harmful language. A title context note would still be useful in such a case. So, while we maintain that transcribed titles are the primary use case for the new subfield $z, we have adjusted the proposed definition of the new subfield to allow for its use with non-transcribed titles, and we have provided additional examples of devised titles for archival collections below.

This subfield will give catalogers the option to integrate contextual information at the point of encounter. It is not intended to warn users about harmful language, but to explain its presence. Broadly speaking, catalogers can identify titles appropriate for immediate contextualization based on the definitions of "Prejudicial works" and "Hate works" in the RBMS Controlled Vocabulary for Rare Materials Cataloging. That is, harmful language is language that "exhibit[s] bias in relation to a particular group or groups of people based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, ability, creed, national origin, etc." or language that "express[es] hatred or advocate[s] harm toward a particular group of people." As another general guideline, the Library of Congress's Subject Headings Manual, memo H1922: Offensive Words (September 2024) defines slurs and pejoratives as "... derogatory terms that insult, disparage, offend, or denigrate people according to their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexuality, occupation, social views, political views, etc." The memo notes that usage and intent of a slur or pejorative may change over time, and that general usage may differ from how a word is used internally by members of the group named by a term. It also considers these cases separately from other profanities, vulgarisms, expletives, etc. that are not considered slurs or pejoratives.

We acknowledge that harmful language can appear anywhere in a full catalog record, and that methods to contextualize that language within the record already exist, as we discuss below. This paper addresses the specific need for contextualization within the MARC 245 (Title Statement) field for several reasons. The title statement is typically the first and most prominent representation of the resource in a catalog record display, and the one field virtually always guaranteed to be present outside the full catalog record when that record is represented elsewhere (e.g., brief search results, exhibition shortlists, digital image captions). Harmful language appearing in resource titles may also serve as a preliminary indicator that the content of the resource as a whole may contain similarly prejudicial or hateful viewpoints or depictions.

2.1. Rationale for Change

Accurate transcription is one of the fundamental principles of rare materials cataloging (DCRMR Introduction, section i.01.32). Scholars and librarians have long depended on it for identifying specific editions, distinguishing between similar resources, and collocating instances of the same resource across multiple institutions. Special collections are now expanding beyond this traditional scholarly audience, but being unable to provide immediate context for harmful language in transcribed titles hinders libraries in making the new audiences feel welcome.

For traditional users of special collections, the absence of square brackets typically means the same thing as the presence of quotation marks in the everyday world. That is, generations of scholars knew that unbracketed titles in library catalogs represent exact transcriptions from the resource itself, while square bracketed titles represent titles supplied from another source or devised by the cataloger. As discussed above, these conventions are inconsistently applied within catalogs, and unfamiliar to newer audiences in special collections, so a list of search results that presents prejudicial or hateful language without additional context unintentionally creates a hostile environment.

Bibliographic field 245 is, by far, the most prominent space where users encounter transcribed metadata. Not only is it the primary display in search results lists, it typically dominates the top of the record display. In addition, field 245 often represents the library resource in contexts outside the OPAC (e.g., in internet search results, digital humanities data mining, and downloaded citations), and its content may be re-used – for example, mapped to Dublin Core as the title of an image, which may travel elsewhere on the internet and be re-used for a variety of purposes. Several community-based groups and guidelines make clear that best practice is to preserve but immediately contextualize creator-sourced original description containing harmful language. Examples include: the Anti-Racist Description Resources (October 2019), from the Anti-Racist Description Working Group of Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia; The Metadata Best Practices for Trans and Gender Diverse Resources (version 2.5, November 7, 2023) from the Trans Metadata Collective; the Best Practices for Queer Metadata (version 1.2, July 15, 2024) from the Queer Metadata Collective, and the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials (April 9, 2007) from the First Archivists Circle. When the content of the 245 field travels outside of the context of the OPAC, contextualization present in other fields is lost. For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate and beneficial to embed the context in which a harmful title was created within the Title Statement field itself. Placing this information only in a note, even a linked note, is insufficient.

Many of the standards for inclusive description that have been developed for special collections acknowledge the issue of harmful language in transcribed information. There is a tension between the need to represent collection materials as they present themselves (DCRMR Introduction, section i.01.322), while also adhering to the principle articulated in the Cataloguing Code of Ethics (updated September 2022) to approach standards "critically and advocate to make cataloguing more inclusive." Crucially, it is not currently possible to include contextual information at the point of contact with harmful titles. Some guidelines, such as the "Guidelines for Addressing Bias in Archival Description and Catalog Records" (Orbis Cascade Alliance, Unique and Local Content Program Unique Material in the SILS and Archives West Standing Groups, 2021), speculate that discovery layers and brief search results will one day be able to display specific 5XX notes contextualizing harmful transcribed language in bibliographic records, but we need a solution that will work now. This topic has also surfaced in inclusive description discussions and workshops including a presentation by Treshani Perera (Harmful Language in Transcribed Titles: A Case Study, at the OCLC Cataloging Community meeting, 2 February 2024) discussing both the earlier version of this presentation (from Less Talk, More Action: Adventures in Inclusive Metadata, ATLA webinar, October 10, 2023), and her own local practice of adding bracketed content warnings to title fields. This proposal responds to user comments and directly addresses a need expressed by catalogers working on inclusive descriptions.

2.2. Other Plain-text Options Considered

Straightforward techniques for qualifying or removing harmful language in the Title Statement field that were considered and rejected include the following:

2.2.1. Redacting Problematic Words

The established traditions of disguising words by replacing letters with asterisks or dashes, or for omitting words using ellipses, both fail to meet user needs in special collections for several reasons. For example:

2.2.2. Enclosing the Title in Quotation Marks

Using quotation marks to indicate that a title is directly transcribed from an item has the following problems:

2.2.3. Devising a Title Statement and Treating the Transcribed Title as a Varying Form of Title

Devising a Title Statement in field 245 and moving the transcribed title to Bibliographic field 246 (Varying Form of Title) is appealing for its simplicity. Field 246 subfield $i already exists to provide context for the title that follows, and systems already index field 246 as a Title field. The field's indicator values provide further means to specify the source or type of title and the display and indexing behavior of the field. However, it also does not meet our needs:

2.2.4. General Note (Field 500)

Special collections catalogers already make frequent use of the general note field to provide information about the source of the title in field 245. Indeed, such a note is mandatory when cataloging pictures according to Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Graphics) (DCRMG 7B3.1). It does not adequately meet the need for context expressed in this paper for two key reasons:

2.2.5. Source of Description Note (Field 588)

In addition to sharing the problems identified with using a General Note (field 500) in 2.2.4., above:

2.2.6. Biographical or Historical Data (Field 545)

While this note field is suited to provide historical context, especially in archival descriptions, it also does not meet our needs. In addition to sharing the problems identified with using a General Note (field 500) in 2.2.4., above:

2.2.7. Harmful Language Advisory/Content Warning

A broadcast advisory statement (such as boilerplate language in a banner or pop-up in an OPAC display) can be a useful option as a general reminder that library catalog records represent works as they present themselves, and that transcribed title information is important for conveying authentic history. This solution can also be implemented in an institution's display layer independently of MARC. However, it does not meet the needs for providing context:

2.3. Code-based Options Considered

Much of the recent development in MARC involves meeting cutting-edge and future needs in a world of linked data and machine-actionable data. Adding a new free-text "Context of transcribed title" subfield may seem like a backward-looking solution. Code-based options that were considered and rejected include the following possibilities:

2.3.1. Subfield $7 (Data provenance)

Conceptually, subfield $7 is a promising solution. After all, providing context for harmful language in a transcribed title statement relates to the provenance of that statement – it originated with the creators and producers of the resource itself.

However, neither the $7's scope nor its implementation align with the proposed scope for subfield $z. The $7 carries many kinds of data provenance information including language, related manifestation, and source consulted, among others. In theory, eye-readable display capabilities could be developed based on particular parenthetical codes, but the time and effort needed to create and maintain new codes and to configure systems to publicly display certain – but not all – data provenance codes as eye-readable information prevents responsive implementation. As was observed during discussion of 2025-DP01, it is also possible to record free-text notes in the subfield $7 alone, without accompanying coded values. While this approach is perhaps simpler for the cataloger, it would make it even more difficult for a machine to identify and parse only certain subfield $7 values for selective display in an OPAC. If all subfield $7 values were to be displayed to the reader, additional data provenance information of many types and presentations would also be displayed unintentionally. Unless a new subfield $7 code value were developed specifically to identify certain subfield $7 values as public or non-public, display of the subfield $7 would be an all-or-nothing presentation, including both codes (which are opaque and confusing to the user) and the free-text information which could include title context notes or any number of other data provenance information not originally intended for public display.

Ultimately, the audiences for subfields $z and $7 are different. As proposed, the subfield $z directly speaks to end users about the presence and source of harmful language, whereas the broader scope of information in the subfield $7 is likely to be of direct interest to catalogers or to machine-actionable processes and wouldn't be expected to directly display in the OPAC. Due to this difference, the subfields $z and $7 could instead complement each other and be used simultaneously; for example, "$7 (dpeloe/dpsfz) eng" could be used to indicate that the language of the note in subfield $z is English, or "$7 (dpeaa/dpsfz) DFo" could indicate that the Folger Shakespeare Library added the subfield $z note. In the context of shared cataloging, this use of subfield $7 could help explain to other catalogers why the subfield $z note is present, what standards or guidelines were followed in the note's construction, or other administrative details.

2.3.2. Bibliographic Field 883 (Metadata Provenance) with $8 Field Linkage

Instead of directly embedding Context of transcribed title in the title statement, control subfield $8 could be used to link the 245 (Title Statement) field to an 883 (Metadata Provenance) field. Currently, MARC field 883 is not intended for public display, but in theory the undefined second indicator could be defined to signal display or not. If context for a harmful transcribed title were provided in 883 $a, linked to the 245, and set to display, it would theoretically be possible for the context to display alongside titles in search results and record displays, similar to the way that $6 links different script representations to field 880, which can then be set to display alongside the primary parallel field.

Like approaches involving notes, using subfield $8 field linkage does not ensure that the context remains associated with the title outside the MARC environment. It also shares the technical disadvantages found with using the $7 (Data provenance) subfield. Namely, displaying it publicly alongside the title in search results and record pages would require a great deal of planning and development. While it could ultimately be very useful to have the option of displaying Metadata Provenance alongside associated fields, the urgent need to provide context for harmful transcribed titles requires a simpler solution.

2.4. Summary

Although the options explored above do not fulfill the use case for the new subfield $z, the options are not mutually exclusive. Rather, the proposed subfield $z could be used in combination with these other options, depending on local system capabilities, the cataloging standard being used, and other considerations. The proposed subfield $z will add to the existing toolkit of options to contextualize harmful language in the title field by allowing catalogers to tie this information directly to the field in which it appears, offering an efficient and user-focused response to instances of harmful language.

3. PROPOSED CHANGES

This paper proposes using new subfield $z in field 245 to provide a brief contextual note about a title statement containing harmful language, especially as encountered in transcribed titles of rare and special collections materials and as characterized by the definitions of "Prejudicial works" and "Hate works" in the RBMS Controlled Vocabulary for Rare Materials Cataloging.

In field 245 (Title Statement) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, define subfield $z as follows:

$z - Title statement context note (NR)
Note providing context for a title statement containing harmful language recorded elsewhere in the field. The note is written in a form that is adequate or intended for public display.

4. EXAMPLES

Note: Examples show a variety of possible wordings for the context note. Most are formatted according to Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials practice: information interpolated within a transcription field, including the General Material Designation if present, is enclosed within square brackets. As noted above, examples containing offensive and harmful historical language have been provided in order to demonstrate the need for the proposed subfield across a variety of resource formats, not necessarily with the intent to publish them in the MARC Format.

Example 1

245 10 $a Jicarilla Apache Brave and Squaw, lately wedded. Abiquiu Agency, New Mexico $h [graphic] / $c T.H. O'Sullivan, photo. $z [Title transcribed from item]

Example 2

245 10 $a The grand defect, or, Ellen and her cousin Julia / $c written for the American Sunday-School Union by a deaf and dumb lady ; revised by the Committee of Publication. $z [Title statement provided by publisher in 1847]

Example 3

245 10 $a Nigger war bride blues / $c words by Jimmie Marten, music by Mitch LeBlanc $z [Language advisory: title from cover]

Example 4

245 00 $a G-men, sheriff aides, hunt Jap spies Los Angeles, Calif. $z [Language advisory: title from 1942 newspaper caption]

Example 5

245 14 $a The origin of civilisation and the primitive condition of man : $b mental and social condition of savages / $c by Sir John Lubbock. $z [Title transcribed from title page]

Example 6

245 12 $a A list of American organizations for cripples / $c compiled by Douglas C. McMurtrie $z [Language advisory: title dates to 1916]

Example 7

245 10 $a L. S. Alexander Gumby collection of Negroiana, $f 1800-1981 $z [Title uses Gumby's name for his collection]

Example 8

245 10 $a Oriental Club of the City of New York records, $f 1896-1982 $z [Title based on the organization's official name]

Example 9

245 00 $a Your Shell Map of 1960 Winter Olympic Games, Squaw Valley, California $z [Place name changed to Olympic Valley in 2022]

Example 10

245 00 $a Sauvages de l'Amérique. $z [Title from image caption]

5. BIBFRAME DISCUSSION

No special provisions anticipated. The BIBFRAME conversion programs can be modified to accommodate this change.The MARC-to-BIBFRAME conversion could place this note within the title resource. An example:

<bf:title>
<bf:Title>
   <bflc:nonSortNum>4</bflc:nonSortNum>
   <bf:mainTitle>
The origin of civilisation and the primitive condition of man
   </bf:mainTitle>
   <bf:subtitle>Mental and social condition of savages</bf:subtitle>
   <bf:note>
   <bf:Note>
     <rdfs:label>[Title transcribed from title page]</rdfs:label>
     </bf:Note>
   </bf:note>
</bf:Title>
</bf:title>

6. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

In field 245 (Title Statement) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, define subfield $z (Title statement context note) (NR) as described in section 3.

HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
( 12/04/2025 ) 		Legal | External Link Disclaimer Contact Us