The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards
Sally H. McCallum LC Library of Congress Hong Cui LAC Library and Archives Canada Thurstan Young BL British Library Reinhold Heuvelmann DNB Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Catherine Gerhart, Chair UW University of Washington Everett Allgood, Secretary NYU New York University
Lourdes Alonso Viana BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España Sherman Clarke VRA Freelance art cataloger Rachel Decker AALL Chapman University Tamara Fultz ARLIS/NA The Metropolitan Museum of Art Yoko Kudo OLAC University of California, Riverside Lucas Mak PCC Michigan State University Libraries Susan M. Moore MAGIRT University of Northern Iowa John F. Myers CC:DA Union College Jackie Parascandola RBMS University of Texas at Austin Karen A. Peters MLA Library of Congress Elizabeth Plantz NLM National Library of Medicine Regina Reynolds LC/ISSN Library of Congress Adam L. Schiff SAC University of Washington Libraries Jay Weitz OCLC OCLC John Zagas LC Library of Congress
Karen Anderson Backstage Library Works Allison Bailund San Diego State University Ardie Bausenbach Library of Congress Jennifer Bazeley Yale University Gaëlle Béquet ISSN International Centre Barbara Block GBV Common Library Network, Göttingen, Germany Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library, Ontario Christopher Carr Concordia University Chew Chiat Naun Harvard University Charlene Chou New York University Bonnie Dede University of Michigan Andrew Dunnett Library and Archives Canada Kevin Ford Library of Congress Paul Frank Library of Congress Deborah Fritz TMQ Inc. Kathy Glennan University of Maryland/RSC Chair Juha Hakala National Library of Finland Dietrich Hakelberg University of Erfurt, Gotha Research Library, Germany Shelby Harken University of North Dakota Matthew Haugen Columbia University John Hostage Harvard University Meda Hotea ETH Zürich, Switzerland Sarah Hovde University of Maryland Damian Iseminger Library of Congress/RSC Technical Team Liaison Officer Kyla Jemison University of Toronto Audra Kackley St. Tammany Parish Library, Louisiana Cate Kellett Yale University Caroline Kent British Library Francis Lapka Yale University Nancy Lorimer Stanford University Shana McDanold DC Public Library Elizabeth Miraglia University of California, San Diego Hayley Moreno OCLC Diane Napert Yale University Cory Nimer Brigham Young University Adrian Nolte Essen Public Library, Germany Jeanette Norris Yale University Iris O'Brien British Library Kate Peck University of California, Berkeley Veronica Ranieri Library of Congress Pat Riva Concordia University Karen Ross Library of Congress Ricardo Santos Biblioteca Nacional de España Michaela Scheibe Berlin State Library (SBB), Germany Sandy Sumano San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Jessie Tam Thurgood Marshall State Law Library Manon Theroux Library of Congress Hermine Vermeij UCLA Meta van der Waal-Gentenaar Koninklijke Bibliotheek Sophie Wei Public Services and Procurement Canada Deanna White ISSN International Centre Jodi Williamschen Library of Congress [Note: anyone who attended and is not listed, please inform LC/Network Development and MARC Standards Office.]
Preliminaries
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) began with an explication of the online meeting protocols and voting procedures.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) performed a roll call and asked committee members to introduce themselves. 17 MAC voting members were present on June 28; 18 members were present on June 29.
Approval of minutes from MAC January 2022 meetings
The minutes of the MAC Midwinter meeting, held online on January 25-27, 2022, were approved without correction.
Fast-track proposals
Two fast-track proposals were approved since the Midwinter meeting:
Business Meeting/Library of Congress report/ Other
Sally McCallum (LC) presented the LC Report on Examination of MARC Title Authorities (shared via the MARC listserv on 23 June 2022) and asked for feedback. She explained that work on BIBFRAME had driven LC to consider taking the steps which are set out in the report. Recent developments in MARC have seen a great deal of duplication emerging between the Authority and Bibliographic formats, when the former was conceived primarily to describe agents and subjects. If the description of title authority information were to take place in the Bibliographic format, then fields would need to be added for the recording of series information.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) queried how title entry links from a bibliographic record would operate in a scenario where no title authority was available.
Sally McCallum (LC) explained that this would be done by linking from one bibliographic record to another bibliographic record (acting as a hub) instead of an authority. In a MARC implementation underpinned by BIBFRAME, 7XX MARC fields in the bibliographic record would play the role previously performed by authorities. This would offer the opportunity for broader control than that which is now possible, or something which is analogous to what the community already does.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) commented that, while the focus of LC's analysis may have been on NACO author-title authority records, he wondered whether it also included consideration of coordinated Series Authority Records (SARs) in the LC/NAF authority file and serial/continuing resource bibliographic descriptions in library bibliographic files. CONSER and the continuing resources community have a long history of creating, maintaining and coordinating these authority and bibliographic descriptions. Doing so helps expedite processing for GLAM institutions that may prefer to analyze, trace or classify monographic series titles (i.e., serials) similarly to or differently from other collections. PCC practice(s) encourage(s) CONSER and NACO participants to consider and maintain serial bibliographic records and LC/NAF Series Authority Records in tandem. There is concern that with an automated initiative to convert MARC title authorities into bibliographic records, there will be duplicated overlap with some existing serial and continuing resource descriptions.
Sally McCallum (LC) responded that MARC title authorities are converted to hubs in a BIBFRAME system. She acknowledged that the configuration of title authorities as hubs could undergo improvement and invited the community to let LC know if any elements were found to be missing.
John Myers (CC:DA) added to Everett Allgood's (NYU, Secretary) comments by noting that in a pre-MARC environment some series were classed together as serials. Equally, the description of some serials transitioned to those of series over time. The choice of whether to describe continuing resources as a whole run or to analyze their individual parts could be a local collection decision.
Sally McCallum (LC) thanked MAC for its additional feedback regarding PCC continuing resources and NACO practices.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) closed the discussion by noting that further feedback to LC’s paper could be posted on the MARC List.
NOTE:
Full pre-meeting feedback commentary of the MARC proposals and discussion papers can be accessed on the MARC Listserv at: https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind2206&L=MARC
PROPOSAL 2022-07: Modernization of Field 856 Second Indicator and Subfield $3 in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-07.html
Source: OCLC
Summary: This paper continues the modernization of the existing field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) in all MARC formats by clarifying the use of existing Second Indicator (Relationship) values, defining new Second Indicator values for component parts of resources, and updating the definition of subfield $3 (Materials specified).
Related Documents: Proposal 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2000-07; 2019-01; 2020-03; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; 2018-DP11; 2020-DP01; 2022-DP01; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised August 1999; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised March 2003
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There is general support for this proposal. The main objection from many commenters is that implementation will be complex and if some implement and others don’t it will be messy. There were some specific requests including ones for more clarification of indicator 2 and using some phrase other than "as a whole" in the definition. Also, there is concern about what the implications of the word "online" in the definition might be on legacy data. For example, there is a question as to whether "online" precludes pointing to materials only available via FTP.
MAC Discussion:
Jay Weitz (OCLC) introduced the proposal.
Hong Cui (LAC) noted that some sections of the paper use the phrase "complete" while others use "as a whole".
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that use of each term was meant to offer consistency: "complete" is used in relation to the resource, while "as a whole" refers to the bibliographic record.
Thurstan Young (BL) questioned the use of the phrase "as a whole" and wondered whether the term "online" was applicable for some other electronic resources (e.g., ftp files, email, etc.).
Hong Cui (LAC) pointed out "as a whole" is the phrase used in the current definition.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) suggested retaining "as a whole" as it is in the original definition.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that there was no intention on the part of OCLC to change anything regarding the scope of coverage with the 1st indicator values in the 856 field; not within this paper, at least.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) suggested going back to the term "remote electronic" to cover ftp files not perceived online, and also distinguish remotely available resources from tangible electronic resources (e.g., CD-ROMs, DVDs, etc.).
Jay Weitz (OCLC) concurred with Regina's suggestion subject to MAC's agreement.
Thurstan Young (BL) also raised other concerns with the paper, specifically the definition for 2nd indicator value "2" and the field definition for subfield $3.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) commented that much of the detailed, practical guidance information may be moved into LC's “Guidelines for the Use of Field 856” document which is currently under revision. There was general MAC agreement that the revisions and practical guidance outlined at this meeting should be included in the Guidelines document.
John Myers (CC:DA) expressed concern with the description in this proposal of 856 2nd indicator value "blank".
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that he had not intended to imply or disregard John Myers' (CC:DA) interpretation. Instead, in practice, OCLC does not want catalogers to use 2nd indicator "blank" (i.e., No information provided) – they would really prefer catalogers to always specify one of the other indicator values.
John Myers (CC:DA) responded that 2nd indicator value "blank" was used commonly by folks who either don't know the exact or correct relationship of the online resource to the resource described in the bibliographic record, or who don't want to take the time/resources to determine these specifics.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that the proposed changes to "blank" were intended to bring its definition into line with the current definition of the 2nd indicator itself ("Relationship between the electronic resource at the location identified in field 856 and the item described in the record as a whole." [emphasis added]), as well as the current definitions of 2nd indicator values "0" and "2". The proposal also brings the other existing values ("blank" and "1") and the two new proposed values ("3" and "4") into line with that wording.
A straw poll vote requesting guidance for the 2nd indicator value "blank" definition showed a slight preference of 9 in favor of making the change while 7 were against.
Thurstan Young (BL) requested that, among the other suggested changes, OCLC should consider removing the term "literal" from the phrase "literal component part" within some of the 856 2nd indicator value definitions.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following editorial revisions.
PROPOSAL 2022-08: Recording Persistent Identifiers and File Formats in Field 856 of the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-08.html
Source: ISSN International Centre, Paris, and the National Library of Finland
Summary: This paper proposes redefining two obsolete subfields in field 856 (Electronic Location and Access) to record persistent (PIDs) in $g and track non-functional URIs in $h. It also proposes making subfield $q repeatable, and amending $u to substitute the term "PID" for "URN".
Related Documents: 2022-DP02; 2020-DP01; 2022-06; 2018-DP11; 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2019-01; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised August 1999;Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised March 2002
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
While most commenters say they support the proposal, there is general consensus that further adjustments are necessary. Australia is the one contributor that does not support the proposal, being content for everything to remain as is in terms of $u coverage. One of the major points against the proposal is the repeatability of $u; most responders think it would be preferable to repeat the 856 field rather than to repeat the $u in the same 856. However, it was also noted that the $u is already repeatable and always has been. There is some confusion about whether the PID would be recorded in $u, $g, or both. OCLC continues to wonder if PID's are more stable than any other url that would lead to this special treatment. Making the transfer of non-functioning URLs to the $h optional is a welcome approach; many institutions would otherwise find keeping the urls up to date overly burdensome.
MAC Discussion:
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland (NLF)) introduced the proposal.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) noted the community's ongoing confusion regarding implementation of the changes set out by the proposal, and its concern that subfield $u remains repeatable in field 856. A question remains as to how non-functioning URIs are identified and how updates are implemented. Likewise, there is a question as to whether PIDs require a discrete subfield to record them.
Juha Hakala (NLF) responded that distinguishing PIDs with their own specific subfield was a matter of principle. A PID is a kind of identifier and it is unlike a URL. Generally speaking, the PID is also more stable than a URL.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) responded that this explanation addressed his concerns to some degree. However, he was still skeptical as to how reliable any electronic address can be in the long term and the usefulness to differentiate in separate subfields in the future.
Juha Hakala (NLF) responded that PIDs are not addresses. A software resolver links them to one or more addresses. When implemented properly, they remain immune to change.
Ardie Bausenbach (LC) commented that LC would continue to use subfield $u to record all of these links, whether they are PIDs or URls, etc. The proposal appeared to make the use of $g optional and not a requirement.
Juha Hakala (NLF) responded that it was perfectly fine for libraries to continue to record both PIDs and URLs in subfield $u, but in time he believed that most MARC users would come to embrace subfield $g as they recognize the relative stability of PIDs.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) expressed a preference for splitting rather than lumping PIDs and URLs together, when possible. This would support searching functionality.
Thurstan Young (BL) questioned whether subfield $g would be repeatable. The proposal did not make that point clear.
Juha Hakala (NLF) responded that, pragmatically speaking, it would be preferable to make both subfield $g and $u non-repeatable, and simply repeat the 856 field, as necessary. But because subfield $u is already defined as repeatable, that might require a separate MAC decision. Therefore, he had a slight preference to make $g repeatable in order to parallel current $u repeatability.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) expressed concern with section 3.3 of the proposal which deals with extending the scope of subfield $q (Electronic format type) to encompass the PRONOM unique identifier language. At the DNB, electronic publications are collected at scale. Rather than relying upon the trustworthiness of PRONOM UID, it might be preferable to distinguish between PDF and EPUB versions, etc.
Juha Hakala (NLF) responded that the idea was to provide catalogers with the means/subfield to provide the specific electronic version, but catalogers are not required to do so. Long-term, it was necessary to record specific electronic version information for preservation purposes. PRONOM is unfortunately facing technical challenges, but it is the only remaining system for file format specification with a high level of accuracy.
Hong Cui (LAC) commented that LAC would not use subfield $q, because they encode file format information elsewhere.
John Myers (CC:DA) commented that the repeatability of $u in field 856 currently has a constraint placed upon it. He felt this constraint should be maintained in order to avoid a chaotic outcome in terms of implementation. The proposed subfield $u revision offers no guidance on when to prefer repeating field 856 and when to repeat subfield $u within a single 856 field.
Juha Hakala (NLF) responded that, while it might be out of scope for the MARC documentation itself, a link from this could be provided to best practice guidelines which indicate the circumstances under which field 856 or subfield $u should be repeated.
MAC Action:
Proposal approved, with the following editorial amendments:
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP06: Defining a New Field to Record Electronic Archive Location and Access in the MARC 21 Formats
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp06.html
Source: ISSN International Centre, Paris, and the National Library of Finland
Summary: This paper describes defining a new field 857 (Electronic Archive Location and Access) to enable libraries to specify a persistent identifier or location of the resource in a digital archive repository or Web archive, and record the name, date ranges, and completeness of relevant archived content.
Related Documents: 2022-DP02; 2020-DP01; 2022-06; 2022-07; 2018-DP11; 93-4; 97-1; 99-06; 2019-01; DP 49; DP 54; DP 69; Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised August 1999;Guidelines for the Use of Field 856, Revised March 2002
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There is a range of support for this paper. Australia and Canada indicate support, the former seeing a distinct need for a unique place for their digital preservation master URL to be mapped to. OCLC and Germany do not support. The rest do not indicate their support but bring up a number of issues: 1) that it is a bad idea to mirror all the indicators and subfields from the 856 in field 857, even if they are not needed (though first indicator values 0, 2, 3 were not carried over by the paper authors as they were deemed irrelevant in field 857); 2) that there is no allowance made for a change in the name of an archival agency; 3) that there should be more clarity provided as regarding exactly what is coded where; 4) that a distinction should be drawn between completeness and the number of times an archive has been saved using different subfields; 5) that there should be more examples of application provided. Britain points out that the $e is labeled as "Archive harvesting date range" in one location and "Archive content date range" in another. Kevin Ford (LC) points out that it would be very beneficial if the dates could be coded using EDTF format so that they could be more predictable and actionable.
MAC Discussion:
Juha Hakala (National Library of Finland (NLF)) introduced the discussion paper. He acknowledged the questions raised by the community with regard to redundancy of subfields and indicator values in the proposed 857 field. For example, he did not see a need for 1st indicator values covering email, telnet and dial-up connections as they were deemed irrelevant in field 857, and were thus not proposed for the new field.
Lourdes Alonso Viana (BNE) expressed concern with subfield $f being defined to reflect completeness; this is almost always difficult to determine with continuing resources.
Juha Hakala (NLF) agreed that completeness of a resource would sometimes be hard to ascertain. However, 857 coding could split frequency of harvesting from completeness if necessary. Sufficient subfields were available to do so. Completeness information would only be relevant to continuing resources and dynamic websites; it would be irrelevant for monographs.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) and others questioned the need for a new field at all; the intent to bring all of the 856 subfields over into this new field certainly seemed odd.
Thurstan Young (BL) reminded MAC that in the previous discussion of this topic (2022 Midwinter), a MAC straw poll demonstrated a strong preference for the new field :21 in favor; 2 against.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) commented that if MAC could provide guidance regarding which of the 856 subfields should not be carried over into the new field, then that would be helpful.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) added that it would be useful to have clear guidance on when to use field 856 and when to use field 857.
Thurstan Young (BL) asked Juha Hakala (NLF) to clarify the preferred name of 857 subfield $e; he wondered whether the date range recorded in $e was intended to cover content or harvesting.
Juha Hakala (NLF) clarified that $e was intended to cover content: i.e. "Date range of the content within the archive".
Adam Schiff (SAC) noted that content was usually for subject matters, and therefore hard for catalogers to apply, and open to misinterpretation.
Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) added that the purpose of the subfield was to cover a published date range, and could be included in the guidance document.
John Myers (CC:DA) responded that, in this case, perhaps the $e subfield label should be "Publication/production date of resource".
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) added that perhaps "coverage" should be included in the subfield label.
Jay Weitz (OCLC) noted the following sentence in the draft definition of $e: "The start date of the archived content should always be mentioned; the end date only if the content described in the record is no longer being archived." He felt that this guidance contradicted the concept of publication coverage.
Thurstan Young (BL) agreed and added that there seemed to be some confusion among MAC members as to whether the scope of $e related to archiving or publication or both.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) acknowledged this and responded that the paper's authors would look more closely at both subfields $e and $f with a view to tightening them up as part of any follow-up proposal.
Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) asked MAC whether it considered if both 857 $c and $d were necessary subfields.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that a repository name and the archiving agency responsible for it may both change over time. Therefore it was desirable to record these as discrete elements.
The National Library of Finland and the ISSN Centre will work further on this paper in response to the concerns raised and this latest feedback. The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP07: Adding Subfield $3 to Field 041 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp07.html
Source: Music Library Association (MLA) and Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC)
Summary: This paper examines the possibility of adding subfield $3 (Materials specified) to field 041 (Language Code) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, along with the changes that would need to be made to the MARC 008/35-37 (Language) and 041 field documentation in support of this addition.
Related Documents: 2021-06; 2018-DP03; 2017-FT01
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There was general support for this paper by all participants although not from NLM, who doesn’t see how the end user will be helped. Canada worried about the order of the fields being lost during the sharing of the data. A number of commenters want to see more non-AV examples; only one book example is provided. PCC points out that this will help a use they have of repeating the 041 for the same resource, namely the lack of the $3 will make it clearer that it’s the same title. Britain thinks a case has been made for 041 $3, but would like to see more non-music/AV examples so it’s clear that it can be used for print materials. They find the proposed rewordings in fields 041 and 008 cumbersome and would recommend the sentences to be broken up into smaller chunks. The paper mentions the option of using the $8 to solve this problem. Germany supports the paper, though they no longer prefer using $8 as a solution to this kind of problem. Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) points out that the $8 is working for some applications as an alternative to $3, like the linking of different scripts, within Serial Holdings, etc.
MAC Discussion:
Karen Peters (MLA) introduced the discussion paper.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) noted that some feedback to the paper had requested that more non-AV examples of application be provided. She added that if MAC members would be interested in contributing any such examples, then they would be welcome to do so.
Lourdes Alonso Viana (BNE) suggested that a monograph example with more complex content would be useful: for example, a book with a prologue.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) commented that examples or a lack of them should not hold up the discussion paper moving to a proposal stage.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted that, besides the issue of examples, there remained the issue of wording changes in existing 041 and 008 definitions.
Karen Peters (MLA) responded that, based on the pre-meeting comments, she felt that MLA and OLAC had enough information and feedback to move this paper forward.
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP08: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Fields 720 and 653 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp08.html
Source: PCC Standing Committee on Standards
Summary: This paper presents a case for adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number and standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) to fields 720 (Added Entry-Uncontrolled Name) and 653 (Index Term-Uncontrolled) for uncontrolled data in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
Related Documents: 2019-DP03
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There is general support for moving forward with this proposal. Comments include that it would be useful to clarify the definition of "uncontrolled" and to add $2 in both fields 653 and 720. OCLC supports the proposal and would like the paper to remind catalogers of the standard use of the parenthetical Standard Identifier Source Code, when adding the $0/$1. Canada supports this paper but would not like to see any changes to the definition of $0. It would support defining another subfield to hold non-URI identifiers. Britain, while not specifically indicating support for the paper, says they are satisfied that the use of the $0/$1 would be a way to make the association asserted by the paper, though they are worried that there might be some semantic drift in the process of assigning subject terms over time.
MAC Discussion:
Elizabeth Miraglia (Uuniversity of California, San Diego) introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) requested clarification from the paper's authors with regard to the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled terms.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) explained that "controlled" in this context typically refers to the presence of an entity which is identified by a URI within LC/NAF or LCSH. Other URIs may identify the same entity as that described in LC/NAF or LCSH, but they could be derived from a source which is not considered "controlled" in the sense of a traditional library authority.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) added that catalogers now often use a range of headings and associated URIs from sources other than LC/NAF or LCSH (e.g., DisCogs, Wikidata, etc.).
Adam Schiff (SAC) added that many of these other sources do not use unique or disambiguated text-string labels.
Thurstan Young (BL) expressed a preference to see subfield $2 defined for both fields 653 and 720 if $0 and $1 are to be added in those locations.
Adam Schiff (SAC) noted that in cases where the field contains a subfield $0, then the source is often (though not always) included within a parenthetical namespace.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) also expressed support for adding subfield $2 to fields 653 and 720. This is on the basis that $0 could be recorded as an authority record control number rather than a URI.
Sherman Clarke (VRA) questioned whether it would be possible to have a 653 or 720 with only a subfield $0 or $1 and no eye-readable text string.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) replied that the discussion paper was agnostic on this point, though it could occur. He added that semantic drift was a risk for terms identified by uncontrolled sources over time. However, best practice guidance should help establish which emerging sources of URIs are stable and therefore preferable for community usage.
A straw poll was held on whether or not to include subfield $2 in fields 653 and 720 as well as the other changes recommended by the paper. This indicated a preference to do so (12 in favor; 7 against).
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP09: Defining a Field for Standardized Provenance Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Holdings, and Authority Formats
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp09.html
Source: D-A-CH Working Group on Provenance, Task Group on MARC, in cooperation with the German National Library and the Committee on Data Formats
Summary: This paper explores options on how copy-specific provenance information and material evidence represented by authority data and controlled terms could be accommodated in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Holdings, and Authority formats. The existing fields 561 (Ownership and Custodial History), 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form), 700 (Added Entry-Personal Name) and 710 (Added Entry-Corporate Name) are analyzed for this purpose, and a new field in the 3XX range is discussed.
Related Documents: 2010-09
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There is general agreement that copy-specific provenance information is important but there seems little agreement on how to move forward with getting it into the community’s records. There are votes for all four options from various constituents and sometimes no agreement even within a group. The one thing that most agreed on is that the use of "provenance" should be avoided; a phrase like "custodial history" should be used instead to avoid confusion with other provenance fields and subfields. RBMS suggests that the proposed structure of 361 needs to incorporate the control subfield $3 (Materials specified), which is defined in 561.
MAC Discussion:
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) introduced the discussion paper and responded to the pre-meeting comments. He explained that authority control and identity management are very important to the German cataloging community, so they want to have the capability within MARC to record items, marks or notations indicating a custodial history, and agents involved with provenance information. This would be with a view to expressing such information in the form of a statement: i.e., "With regard to this resource, this provenance mark indicates the prior ownership of this person." (from section 3.4 of the paper). Their preference for meeting this requirement is a new MARC field (e.g., field 361). Squeezing all of the data described above into a single field might be complex, but it is preferable to linking data from separate fields to each other, using subfield $8. The D‑A‑CH community's approach is that from a bibliographic model perspective, the preferred and "cleaner" implementation would occur in the Holdings format, whereas an easier and more practical implementation would be in the Bibliographic format. They also think there is a need for including it in the Authority format.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) continued by acknowledging that the use of "provenance" to label a new field may cause confusion. This is because of the other applications which the term "provenance" already has in the MARC formats. Alternative terms such as "custodial history" suggested in pre-meeting feedback to the paper may offer better solutions to the labeling issue. He added that, in his view, a new field and the existing 561 field would be able to co-exist effectively in the same record. While the 561 field would still offer a free text means of describing custodial history information, a new field could support a more machine actionable use-case. DNB also agrees with the suggestion to add subfield $3 to any such new field. The new RDA controlled vocabulary for accrual method (from the recently discussed "Collections Model") may be helpful to enhance the proposed first indicator values in a new field. Other aspects of new field coding are yet to be fully developed.
Cate Gerhart (University of Washington, Chair) asked whether, since there were many comments on the four options in the discussion paper and on the details of a new field, might DNB prefer to submit a follow-up discussion paper rather than a proposal at the next MAC meeting.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that there may be sufficient feedback to submit a proposal.
Adam Schiff (SAC) questioned the examples of subfield $5 usage in the paper and wondered whether these should only include MARC organization codes and not additional information.
Hong Cui (LAC) suggested that some of the subfields earmarked for inclusion in a new 361 field could be included in field 561 instead.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) responded that, while this might be possible, some subfields such as $0 do not normally occur in note fields.
Pat Riva (CCM) commented that there is MARC precedent for adding additional structure to existing note fields (e.g., fields 502, 506 and 540). She added that it would be useful to hear more about the DNB's preferred interest in using the Holdings format for recording structured custodial history information. However, it was also important for MAC to keep in mind the struggle which libraries have historically experienced with attempts to index/access controlled names recorded in MARC Holdings.
Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) acknowledged that fields 506 and 540 were indeed no longer limited to recording free text information. As regards using the Holdings format alone to record more structured information about custodial history, this would offer a clean solution which avoids redundancy. However, the paper reflects the fact that a multi-level authority/bibliographic/holdings solution may be required in order to support different implementation scenarios.
John Myers (CC:DA) and Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) expressed their appreciation that Reinhold Heuvelmann (DNB) and the paper's authors would be considering the MARC Holdings format to record structured custodial history information. However, this came with the full recognition that most library LMS and discovery systems do not yet fully recognize or make full use of the MARC Holdings Format.
Everett Allgood (NYU, Secretary) expressed surprise that the paper did not make reference to field 541 in the Bibliographic and Holdings formats as a means of recording the immediate source of acquisition for a described resource.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that, besides the issues already raised, there was also a strong view raised from one quarter in the British community that recording custodial history in a more structured way might serve to perpetuate and accentuate the race and gender biases which are already present within library authority files. When asked to provide additional details, Thurstan forwarded the following comments from Anne Welsh on 15 July 2022:
Cultural bias and authority files : follow up comments on Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP09
Michaela Scheibe (SBB) commented that, speaking for the D-A-CH cataloging community, recording custodial history information in a more structured way is not "just for fun". She added that libraries were currently losing valuable information because MARC does not include the capacity to capture this information
The paper will return as a proposal.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP10: Defining a New Subfield in Field 264 to Record an Unparsed Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp10.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding a new non-repeatable subfield to field 264 (Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to record an unparsed imprint or provision statement.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
There is little support for this paper from any of the commentators. Most thought that it is a step backward instead of forward and would be detrimental to the sharing of data and to access to the data. Most think that if one were going to add punctuation one might as well add the subfields as well. Some think the 881 could be a place for this unparsed data.
MAC Discussion:
Kevin Ford (LC) introduced the discussion paper and responded to the pre-meeting comments. He explained that this paper was motivated by BIBFRAME, but was also influenced by the authors' reading of RDA. The conversion of BIBFRAME records into MARC would benefit from having a simple publication statement which is not divided up into parts, i.e., "unsubfielded". Field 881 was discounted as a solution, because this field contains unstructured information. In addition, field 264 was preferred to host a solution, because it is a "main" MARC field; if field 881 were used, then one would be tempted not to use field 264 at all.
Kevin Ford (LC) continued by acknowledging the concerns raised with regard to searching publication information. He agreed that users did search using field 264, but argued that this was not the only way to search for a place of publication and name of publisher in a MARC record. For example, the user could choose to perform a combination keyword index search for the place of publication recorded in a new 264 $s and the name of publisher recorded in a 7XX field.
John Myers (CC:DA) responded that the usefulness of specific subfielding in field 264 went beyond keyword access. It also allows tools such as MarcEdit to extract records from a set using these criteria. In addition, current library discovery systems often allow the sorting of search results based on specific publishing attributes recorded in the 264.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) agreed with the concerns already expressed in feedback to the paper. She could not understand the use case and felt that the community should continue to apply existing MARC coding when it records publication information. The ISSN IC has just implemented a new system which is configured based on this coding.
Kevin Ford (LC) responded that the use case was about moving to the future. The changes modeled by the paper would not overwrite past practice in terms of 264 usage. But that approach requires two levels of parsing: i.e., both punctuation and specific subfielding. This in turn requires two levels of processing when it comes to record conversions. At present, the crosswalk between BIBFRAME and MARC for publication statements can accommodate punctuation, but not subfield coding at the same time.
Thurstan Young (BL) noted the presence in the Official RDA Toolkit of a new set of elements which correspond to the information modeled by the paper in field 264 $s. These are "publication statement", "distribution statement", "manufacture statement" and "production statement". They are distinct from the more granular and familiar RDA subelements covering place, name and date which are recorded in 264 subfields $a, $b and $c. They are also distinct from the manifestation statement elements which can now be recorded in field 881; this is because, whereas publication statements, etc. can be recorded in a structured way which corresponds to a string encoding scheme, manifestation statements are limited to recording information in an unstructured form.
Pat Riva (CCM) commented that the change set out by the paper ran counter to the overall process of making MARC more granular over recent years. It also ran counter to recent cooperative cataloging initiatives which minimize or do away with ISBD punctuation while retaining subfield parsing. She did not see any reason why this paper would help libraries transition to a linked data world.
Kevin Ford (LC) responded that publication data is not always presented cleanly and it can sometimes occur with other, extraneous information. If a 264 $s subfield were introduced into MARC, then LC would likely opt for recording publishing statements in subfield $s without subfield parsing in $a, $b and $c. If this could be done without ISBD punctuation as well, then that would be something to consider.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) queried what this would mean going forward for the rest of the cooperative cataloging environment. She asked whether the rest of the cataloging community would have to start providing the bulk of copy cataloging which the Library of Congress previously provided.
Chew Chiat Naun (Harvard University) suggested that MAC should have a larger, contextual discussion on this topic. The paper raised questions about what the community wants to achieve through the provision of controlled as opposed to uncontrolled information and BIBFRAME as opposed to MARC data. In his opinion, if a choice had to be made between ISBD punctuation or subfielding, then he would want to do away with punctuation. This is on the basis that punctuation could easily be system-generated based on subfield coding, if necessary.
Sally McCallum (LC) commented that RDA now appeared to favor the recording of statements for certain categories of information and the paper's authors sought to reflect that. If certain aspects of bibliographic description require indexing then there are controlled fields which cover this need.
Thurstan Young (BL) responded that RDA did not prefer one approach to another. Different RDA elements serve different purposes and the choice of element should be based on an assessment of what is considered important to the user. If data is required to serve more than one purpose then this could be accommodated by both RDA and MARC. For example, if a publication statement were to be recorded in 264 $s going forward, then indexing requirements for place and name could be compensated by the recording of access points in 7XX fields.
John Myers (CC:DA) acknowledged the challenges which Kevin Ford (LC) had identified with regard to recording publication information as part of a MARC/BIBFRAME crosswalk. However, he also remained concerned about the loss of granularity which such a crosswalk might produce. The library community relies heavily on the level of granularity to which publication information is currently expressed.
Elizabeth Plantz (NLM) added that she did not feel the paper by itself provided the necessary information to explain the BIBFRAME use case for defining $s in the 264 field.
Two straw polls were held on how the paper's authors should proceed. The first poll on whether the paper should come back as a proposal resulted in no votes in favor and 21 against. The second poll on whether there should be a follow-up discussion paper resulted in 20 votes in favor and 3 against.
Kevin Ford (LC) and Sally McCallum (LC) believed they had what they needed to bring this paper back for additional discussion. MAC had no interest in seeing this paper return as a proposal. It may return as a follow-up discussion paper.
DISCUSSION PAPER 2022-DP11: Defining a New Subfield in Field 490 to Record an Unparsed Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
URL: https://aj.sunback.homes/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp11.html
Source: Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO), Library of Congress
Summary: This paper proposes adding a new non-repeatable subfield to Field 490 (Series Statement) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to record an unparsed series statement.
Related Documents: None
Summary of pre-meeting comments:
Similar comments to 2022-DP10. There is little support for this paper from any of the commentators. Most think that it was a step backward instead of forward and would be detrimental to the sharing of data and to access to the data. Some think the 881 could be a place for this unparsed data.
MAC Discussion:
Kevin Ford (LC) introduced the discussion paper.
Thurstan Young (BL) commented that one distinguishing factor between this paper and 2022-DP10 was the possible requirement for clarifying text in unparsed series statements (i.e., the need to supply notes on the status of ISSNs in lieu of specific subfielding). That issue seemed unique to this paper, but otherwise the stated comments and positions regarding it were also reflected in the feedback to DP10.
John Myers (CC:DA) responded that the argument in both papers was against parsing data, but he couldn't see how "clarifying text" represented anything other than parsed information.
Kevin Ford (LC) responded that the canceled or incorrect ISSN are distinctly coded in the existing $y and $z; he was merely introducing the idea that some clarifying text in $s could be used to capture the fact that an ISSN is canceled/incorrect so that it is clear in an unsubfielded statement; i.e. as in an OPAC display.
Regina Reynolds (LC/ISSN) asked whether MAC was the proper venue to discuss round-tripping/cross-walk questions as they relate to DPs 10 and 11. She doubted that most MAC contributors had the technical know-how and expertise to address such questions knowledgeably. She suggested that input could be solicited more broadly to help answer them and that some concrete examples of cross-walking problems could be provided. She noted Kevin Ford's (LC) comments regarding the duplicative nature of MARC subfielding and punctuation and would like to know whether subfields could still be retained as a part of a cross-walk if the punctuation were removed.
John Myers (CC:DA) added that he didn't disagree with the value of being able to round trip data in and out of MARC, but that the practical implications of doing such needed further analysis. This could be looked at in a follow-up discussion paper.
Kevin Ford (LC) and Sally McCallum (LC) believed they had what they needed to bring this paper back for additional discussion. MAC had no interest in seeing this paper return as a proposal. Like 2022-DP10, it may return as a follow-up discussion paper.
Respectfully submitted,
Everett Allgood
MARC 21 HOME >> MAC
| The Library of Congress >> Librarians, Archivists >> Standards ( 01/31/2023 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer |
Contact Us |