ARLIS/NA

To: Cataloging Advisory Committee

From: John Maier, ARLIS/NA Liaison to MAC

Provided below are summaries of the proposals and discussion papers addressed by the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) during virtual meetings held January 26-28.

Links to the text of the MAC proposals and discussion papers summarized below can also be found in the minutes produced by MAC.                                

Summary

MAC had ten proposals and six discussion papers on their agenda for this set of meetings. Nine of the ten proposals passed, some with amendments. A tenth was withdrawn to be reworked and resubmitted. The six discussion papers are anticipated to return as proposals, one possibly fast-tracked.

Meeting process and updates:

The Chair, Matthew Wise (NYU) opened each session with instructions regarding the logistics of holding the meeting virtually – how to be recognized, how voting would be conducted, a request for brevity, and then an introduction of the Committee members through a roll call.

Fast track proposals approved since last meeting in June:

LC Report:

LC intends to offer file sets of records that have been converted from BibFrame to MARC, to allow others to attempt and test loading them into Integrated Library Systems as MARC records. Sally McCallum (Library of Congress) provided a recap of BibFrame Update Forum presentations.

Next Meeting:

The Annual/summer meeting will be virtual, regardless of ALA’s conference configuration.

Proposals

Proposal 2021-01

Enhanced Edition Information for Dewey Decimal Numbers in the MARC 21 Formats

Summary: This paper proposes guidance in various fields for the editions of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) scheme in MARC 21 Authority, Bibliographic, Classification, and Community Information formats. These changes will bring MARC up to date for the current Dewey publishing environment, and allow catalogers to more meaningfully describe the classification of a work given the continuously updated nature of 21st-century Dewey.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments. Discussion addressed the recommendation to ensure the field 852 documentation remains in sync with the changes proposed for fields 082/083 across Bibliographic and Holdings formats. There was a friendly amendment to engage editorial synchronization across all three fields with respect to first indicator value 7 and its corresponding instances of $2. Additional discussion regarding specifying the source of the language notation within the documentation.

Proposal approved, with noted amendments by Thurstan Young (British Library) and Hong Cui (Library and Archives Canada).

Proposal 2021-02

Chronology-Only Data in Holdings Fields 853-855 and 863-865

Summary: For chronology-only publication patterns, the current MARC Holdings standard requires that first-level caption and chronology data be stored in the first-level enumeration fields, requiring the presence of subfield $a in fields 853, 854, 855, 863, 864, and/or 865. This paper recommends that the requirement be changed to require the presence of either subfield $a or subfield $i in Holdings fields 853, 854, 855, 863, 864, and/or 865), with the chronology subfields ($i-$m) preferred whenever possible.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments and then there was no further discussion.

This proposal passed as written.

Proposal 2021-03

Changes to Fields 008/21 and 006/04 for Type of Continuing Resource in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: The current options for type of continuing resource in 008/21 and 006/04 do not provide enough granularity for useful faceting or statistical reporting in the ISSN Portal and likely in library OPACs. Additionally, more granularity is needed for research and scholarship concerning global production of continuing resources. The ISSN Network would like to add additional codes to 008/21 and 006/04 to provide facets for searching in the ISSN Portal and for gathering statistics on types of continuing resources to which ISSN are assigned rather than depending on the non-standard solution it now uses.

Deanna White (ISSN International Centre) reminded MAC that each national ISSN center retains responsibility for its own records (i.e., continuing resource publications published therein). There are no intentions to change existing ISSN records, though the new codes may be incorporated for retrospective original cataloging.

Proposal approved, with the following editorial amendments to portions of the proposed value definitions:

Proposal 2021-04

Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Field 022 in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Formats

Summary: This paper proposes adding subfields $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) and $1 (Real World Object URI) to field 022 (International Standard Serial Number) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format and Authority Format, in order to provide a place in the ISSN field for the ISSN URI.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments. The presenter responded that the positioning detail arose from developing the paper but would be willing to remove it. The forthcoming movement of ISSN-L entries to a new field and how this would resolve the ambiguity issue was stressed. There was discussion about the lack of $1 examples but it was observed that there was a paucity of such across the formats.

This proposal was approved as written.

Proposal 2021-05

Renaming Field 348 and Defining New Subfields for Form of Musical Notation in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper proposes changing the name of field 348 from "Format of Notated Music” to “Notated Music Characteristics” and defining new subfields to record form of musical notation terms and codes. It also proposes replacing existing field 348 examples demonstrating the use of subfield $b (Format of notated music code), which employ placeholders rather than codes, with specific examples that clarify its use. Finally, it proposes adding instructions to field 546 (Language Note) indicating a preference for recording form of musical notation terms in field 348.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments. Discussion involved concerns about  the content of the examples with respect to placeholder vs. RDA registry, as well as the similarity and possibility of confusion with similar RDA registry codes.

Proposal approved subject to editorial cleanup and revision, with special attention to the examples in the paper.

Proposal 2021-06

Accommodating Work and Expression Dates, and Related Elements, in Bibliographic and Authority Field 046

Summary: This paper proposes a method for distinguishing work and expression dates recorded in MARC Bibliographic field 046 (Special Coded Dates), along with new subfields for materials specified and explanatory notes. It also proposes new subfields for materials specified and explanatory notes in the MARC Authority field 046.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments. Discussion focused on the choice between Option 1 and Option 2.1, with a further alternative of a blended solution suggested early in the discussions. Option 2.1 would offer more flexibility, especially if entities like printings and states that are outside the LRM entity model are considered. Option 1 is a more pragmatic solution that would be easier to implement. Previous hesitancy regarding the $x and $z subfields was restated, but consensus was in favor, especially as potential solutions for the printings and states issues. The new representative expression entity was introduced into the discussion. In response, this could return as an additional indicator value to the ones being proposed.

Proposal approved (one vote opposed), with Option 1 being the preferred option, along with subfields $3, $x, and $z (as written).        

Proposal 2021-07

Defining a New Subfield for Sound Content in Field 344 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper proposes adding a new repeatable subfield to Field 344 (Sound Characteristics) in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format to record the sound content of resources, in addition to expanding the field definition and scope to denote "silent" as a sound characteristic.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments. The paper occasioned extensive discussion around the suitability of the field for the use proposed, with fields 340 and 345 being raised as more appropriate alternatives. After considerable discussion on the respective merits and disqualifications of each field and acknowledgement that as long as the data was “parked” somewhere then it could reliably be mapped to/from BibFrame, field 344 was conceded as the least problematic choice. Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress) noted that MARC development remains separate from how specific user communities (such as MLA) choose to implement or apply usage of the format(s). Catherine Gerhart (University of Washington), on behalf of OLAC, spoke in favor of this perspective. As an OLAC cataloger working with video and sound recordings, she and other OLAC catalogers will develop techniques and "best practices". Adam Schiff (University of Washington), SAC Representative, moved that the proposal be accepted with the revised subfield $i definition suggested by Damian Iseminger, along with a revised or new, clearer example to replace the third example in Section 4.

This proposal was approved with a very split vote (8 for; 5 against), with the amendment that the third example in Section 4 be replaced, and that subfield $i (Sound content) be defined as follows: "Indication of the presence or absence of sound in a resource. Usually used for projected graphic resources, moving image resources, and their electronic equivalents."

Proposal 2021-08

Defining a New Field for Encoded Supplementary Content Characteristics in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper proposes the creation of a new MARC field 353 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to store coded supplementary content information.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments, chief of which was a proposal by MLA to amend the definition and scope with the addition of “only if considered significant.” In response to a concern about the placeholder values in the examples, it was observed that they are the same due to the current configuration in id.loc.gov.

Proposal approved, with the understanding that MLA's amendment to the 353 Field Definition and Scope be applied.

Proposal 2021-09

Recording the Mode of Issuance for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding the RDA element "mode of issuance" in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments, which focused on cases where a cataloger had incomplete data at the time of cataloging to correctly infer the Mode of Issuance. Discussion coalesced around agreement that addressing such cases would be a workflow decision by respective cataloging communities whether to modify the description or create a new one.

This proposal was approved as written.

Proposal 2021-10

Recording the Type of Binding for Manifestations in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper proposes RDA's controlled list of values for 'type of binding' and how to code this data in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

                                        

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments. Numerous issues were identified in those comments and subsequently discussed in the meeting. Some of the highlights were:

A suggestion was made that the RDA element be renamed, but that is out of scope for the RDA-MARC Working Group and would need to go through the formal RDA revision proposal process.

Thurstan Young (British Library), as the presenter for the RDA-MARC Working Group, acknowledged both the concerns and the general consensus that generalizing the deployment of the subfield would be desirable.

Young and the MARC-RDA Working Group agreed to withdraw the proposal for additional consideration and work on a follow-up paper, in consultation with MAC representatives to VRA, ARLIS/NA, PCC and SAC.

Discussion Papers

Discussion Paper 2021-DP01

Defining Subfields $y and $z for Incorrect/Canceled ISSNs in Field 490 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: Because descriptive Bibliographic field 490 (Series Statement) is intended for the recording of series data as represented in a manifestation, subfield $y is proposed to enable the recording of invalid ISSNs and subfield $z for canceled ISSNs.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments which were generally supportive. A concern was the prospective additional work on the part of catalogers to accurately code whether a recorded ISSN should be in a particular subfield. A possible use of a second indicator value to indicate whether the $x content had been assessed was discussed. Other observations were that this validation process in other instances relies on OCLC’s validation routines, and that such validations are not required. A point was raised that field 490 is strictly for transcription and that the proposed use would begin to function as access because of the nature of the recorded ISSN value, with the counter that agencies not controlling series would find it valuable to have a place for the data.

This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

Discussion Paper 2021-DP02

Designating an Introductory Statement in Field 672 of the MARC 21 Authority format

Summary: This paper explores options for defining a new subfield in field 672 (Title Related to the Entity) of the MARC 21 Authority Format as a way to separate an introductory phrase from the title information contained in the same field.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments, which generally agreed with the concept of the paper, but broke out on the specifics of implementation. Reinhold Heuvelmann (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) presented on behalf of the German National Library and articulated the value to the source community regarding relationships and their reciprocal dynamics for exploring and navigating resources, but also a desire to avoid overengineering a solution. Discussion raised the question of providing a subfield for encoding the relationship as well as the proposed term-based solution. Of the options in the paper, there was a preference for $i which is analogous to its use elsewhere, with an amendment to the label to be “Explanatory text.”

This discussion paper will return as a proposal.                        

Discussion Paper 2021-DP03

Coordinates for Geographic Positioning of Structures in Images in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper discusses use cases for geographic positioning based on geographic coordinates of structures such as monuments, buildings and sites that are depicted in images and how to code this data in the MARC Bibliographic format.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments, which were generally supportive of the use, but not always in agreement that the use wasn’t already supported by field 034. Other issues of concern raised in the comments and discussion were many. There were multiple concerns about interoperability implications for MARC syntax for the data and the standards in the wider geospatial field, as well as the difference between center point and bounding coordinates that are usually used for cartographic resources. It was noted that the cartographic community recognizes the need for center point coordinates in the case of a monument or a building. However, such an approach may not be appropriate when recording the coordinates for large geographical areas. It was noted that if MAC agreed to move forward with using the 034 field for non-cartographic materials (without the map cataloging practice of a paired 255 field), then the MARC documentation would need to be updated, clearly stating these two practices. Hence, encoding the 034 field without a 255 would generally be used to represent images, while paired 034/255 field combinations would generally be used when representing cartographic materials. There was a preference to avoid non-numeric methods of geospatial referencing, such as the “what3words” system, in order to maintain cultural neutrality. Field 255 would be desirable, but not required for images.


The paper will return as a proposal, possibly a fast-track proposal depending on the scope of the revised paper.

Discussion Paper 2021-DP04

Defining a New Subfield for Original Sound Capture and Storage in Field 344 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper proposes the addition of a new subfield to field 344 (Sound Characteristics) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to record the sound capture and storage of the original recording.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments, which were generally in support, although the implications of 2021-DP05 were noted as being intertwined with the subject/content of this Discussion Paper. Given cataloger confusion on how to interpret the label “Capture and Storage” as intended or the separate concepts of “Capture” and “Storage”, as regularly misinterpreted in the closely associated 007 position, the inclusion of “Original” in the label there would assist to better align practice with the definition.

This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

                                        

Discussion Paper 2021-DP05

Terms and Definitions in Field 007/13 for Sound Recordings in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format

Summary: This paper proposes an update to the definitions of the terms used in MARC 007/13 (Capture and storage technique) for Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. An additional term in 007/13 is also proposed.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments, which included a reference back to 2021-DP04 and the need to resolve confusion regarding techniques and definitions of “capture and storage.” The dynamics for differentiating the pulse density modulation technique (PDM) were discussed through multiple lenses. Damian Iseminger (Library of Congress) noted that some of the terms within the MARC documentation were actually trademarked terms; he wondered if, instead of these trademark terms, MARC documentation should instead describe the underlying techniques used in capturing and/or storing sound recordings. Numerous members mentioned that proprietary technology should be avoided, for a multitude of reasons, and that the MARC documentation should continue to aim instead for a broader, more general approach rather than making some definitions overly restrictive. If necessary, in order to enumerate or describe new or additional capture and storage techniques, MAC should consider defining new codes.

This discussion paper will return as a proposal.

Discussion Paper 2021-DP06

Recording Data Provenance in the MARC 21 Formats

Summary: This paper discusses the potential for encoding data provenance in the MARC 21 Formats.

The Chair summarized the previously submitted comments. Thurston Young (British Library), as presenter on behalf of the RDA-MARC Working Group, provided his perspectives on the comments – that there was a split between piecemeal/selective proponents and comprehensive components, although the latter did not favor as overarching a solution as proposed. The magnitude of discussion about this paper indicates the complexity of the topic and the limits of MARC in addressing it. After a good amount of back and forth about various components of the various options a series of straw-poll votes among all the attendees of the meeting (with a total of 39) followed to provide the MARC/RDA Working Group with additional clarification and guidance:

The paper will return as a proposal or follow up discussion paper.