CC:DA/MARBI Rep/2005/1

January 10, 2005; updated May 26, 2005

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Complete text of the MARBI proposals and discussion papers summarized below is available from the MARC Advisory Committee web page: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/marcadvz.html

Proposal No. 2005-03: Definition of Subfield $2 and Second Indicator value 7 in Fields 866-868 (Textual Holdings) of the MARC 21 Holdings Format Source: OCLC Summary: This paper proposes defining a subfield $2 (Source of notation) and value 7 in the second indicator (Type of notation) of fields 866-868 in the MARC 21 Holdings Format to indicate the source of the notation used in the holdings statement. This would allow for indicating that United States Newspaper Project (USNP) guidelines are used in the textual holdings statement. Related MARBI Documents: None. MARBI action taken: Proposal approved, with minor editorial changes.

Proposal No. 2005-04: Hierarchical Geographic Names in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format Source: ALA MAGERT Cataloging and Classification Committee Summary: This paper proposes subfields to be used in Field 662 (Subject Added Entry - Hierarchical Place Name) to allow a hierarchical approach to subject-oriented geographic coverage. Related MARBI Documents: Discussion Paper 2004-DP02 (January 2004); 2004-07 (May 2004) Discussion: This proposal generated considerable discussion encompassing a number of perspectives. Concern was expressed regarding the arrangement of the subfields and their purported hierarchical arrangement. Additional concern was raised in reference to the current proposal’s definition of the subfields and the use of language therein. There was consensus upon MARBI that any eventual decision on this proposal must incorporate a very careful use of language, and should include several illustrative examples. One suggestion was made to explore the use of indicator values to represent when the field represents a geographic feature and when it is used to represent a political jurisdictional area (e.g., a city). RLG suggested that the field be examined with reference to other thesauri in addition to LCSH, perhaps the Getty Thesaurus, and others. Dianne Hillmann asked that the revised proposal also define $w to link to another record identifier. MARBI action taken: This paper was sent back for further revisions. For the revised proposal, MARBI stated a clear preference for Option 2 within the current proposal — that is, the coding and subfield values in fields 662 and 752 should parallel one another.

Proposal No. 2005-02: Definition of Subfield $y in Field 020 (International Standard Book Number) and Field 010 (Library of Congress Control Number) in the MARC 21 Formats Source: The MARC of Quality; Karen Anspach Consulting Summary: This paper proposes defining a new subfield $y for non-unique/non-applicable ISBN/LCCN in fields 020 and 010 respectively. Related MARBI Documents: Discussion Paper 2004-DP04 (June 2004) Discussion: This proposal generated considerable discussion that, in fact, extended over two MARBI sessions. Among the major themes were the need for consistency and the need for catalogers to be instructed to input ISBN/ISSN within the appropriate subfields of 775 and 776 linking fields when describing relationships between manifestations. There was considerable confusion expressed regarding what numbers belong in which subfields. When MARBI reconvened Sunday afternoon, the motion was put forth that the proposal be withdrawn, and instead the sponsors of the paper work together with LC to clarify the definitions and guidelines for these fields within the current MARC21 documentation. A straw poll demonstrated clear preference for this suggestion. MARBI action taken: The proposal was rejected. Instead MARBI requests that the definition of subfields $a and $z in the 010, 020 and 024 fields (as well as any other applicable fields) be further clarified. MARBI also asks that consideration be given to including instructions regarding the use of the 77X fields and subfields for links to other editions and manifestations available.

Proposal No. 2005-01: Definition of Field 766 in the MARC 21 Classification Format Source: Library of Congress Summary: This paper proposes the definition of a field 766 for Secondary Table Information. The field would be used to indicate whether a secondary table is applied in breaking down the number or span of numbers contained in the 153 $a or 153 $a-c of a classification table record, and if so to characterize the entity in the 153 $j so that the appropriate secondary table can be selected. Related MARBI Documents: None. MARBI action taken: Proposal approved, with the amendment that the field be made repeatable.

Proposal No. 2005-05: Change of Unicode mapping for the Extended Roman "alif" character Source: RLG, OCLC, LC Summary: This paper presents a change for the mapping from MARC 8 to Unicode for the Latin "alif" character in the Extended Latin set. The new mapping is more compatible with the diverse use of the "alif" character and with the typical representation of the character. Related MARBI Documents: None. MARBI action taken: Proposal approved.

Discussion Paper 2005-DP01: 2005-DP01: Subject Access to Images Source: Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) and Visual Resources Association (Elizabeth O'Keefe, Pierpont Morgan Library, with input from Sherman Clarke, New York University) Summary: This paper discusses the possibility of changing MARC coding in order to distinguish between indexing terms for intellectual content and indexing terms for visual depictions. Related MARBI Documents: None. Discussion: Bruce Rennie wondered if this could be accomplished via a more rigorous use of relator codes? Rebecca Guenther responded that may be possible, but that there may need to be work done in order to accomplish this function. John Attig wondered if this Discussion Paper is in fact addressing only the tip of an iceberg? In response, Sherman Clarke recalled the Saturday discussion at CC:DA describing an element-based AACR, and said that a VRA description of a resource based on elements may be quite different and accomplish quite different things than an AACR element-based description. John Attig wondered how this Discussion Paper relates to 655 form/genre headings? Most form/genre headings come from a particular thesaurus, whereas the headings described in this paper need to be able to describe the content "of-ness" of these resources. Robin Wendler, in response to the stated goal of the paper to perhaps help with federated searching in the future, stated that implementing a field or block of fields for this purpose may or may not work out. Federated searching techniques and mechanisms tend to make index terms less rather than more precise. What impact might this Discussion Paper have upon the authority format? John Attig hoped that the two would remain separate, but Karen Coyle thought that depending on how we try to accomplish this functionality, there may indeed be ramifications for the authority format. MARBI action taken: Next steps: The paper should come back with further development, though there seemed to be little support from MARBI for the option of a new block of 6XX fields. The paper should fully explore the possibility of relator codes, and Martha Yee's suggestion that perhaps some (or all) 6XX fields perform "double-duty." Rebecca Guenther suggested that Elizabeth O'Keefe initiate a discussion on the MARC list to address some of the functional requirements that this Discussion Paper requires.

MARBI also discussed a motion from the Cataloging Committee: Asian and African Materials (CC:AAM) urging the MARBI Committee to "expand the character repertoire to include the Unicode Universal Character Set (UCS) beyond that included in the MARC-8 subset [and specifically beyond JACKPHY] in order to encourage the rapid and widespread implementation of Unicode among the diverse library automation communities and groups."

In response, Adam Schiff, as MARBI Chair, will draft a letter of approval and support and distribute it to the list.

At the MARBI Business Meeting Sunday morning, Rebecca Guenther asked if the Cataloging of Cultural Objects draft is yet on the CC:DA radar? CC:DA is in fact planning an ALA Program addressing CCO, and part of those preparations has been the consideration of any potential MARC21 ramifications.

Finally it was decided that given the rapid development and timeline of the AACR3 draft, it would be wise to schedule a joint two-hour CC:DA/MARBI meeting for the Sunday afternoon timeslot at ALA Annual 2005 in Chicago.

However, since then, at the April meetings of the Joint Steering Committee (JSC), it was decided to revise the timeline of AACR3 (now tentatively called Resource description and access [RDA]), and revisit the draft of Part 1 in response to some of the constituent comments received in February. Consequently, the time for a joint meeting between the two committees addressing potential MARC21 implications now seems premature. The joint meeting will be rescheduled for a future conference in accord with the development of RDA.

The report is not yet posted on the MARBI agenda. Consult the MARC Advisory Committee web page: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/marcadvz.html

Everett Allgood,
MARBI Representative to CC:DA