CC:DA/MARBI Rep/2007/1

January 20-21, 2007; rev. June 15, 2007

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. 2007-01: Definition of subfields $b and $j in field 041 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format Source: Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. (OLAC) Summary: To eliminate possible coding ambiguity in field 041, this paper proposes the definition of subfield $j as “Language code of subtitle or caption.” It also proposes redefining subfield $b as “Language code of summary or abstract.” Related MARBI Documents: Proposal No. 2005-07 (June 2005); Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP06 (June 2006) MARBI action taken: Proposal approved with minor editorial revisions.

Proposal No. 2007-02: Incorporating invalid former headings in 4XX fields of the MARC 21 Authority Format Source: Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Task Group on the Function of the Authority File Summary: This paper discusses the incorporation of invalid former heading information into MARC 21 authority records, in cases where the former heading might not be considered a valid or useful reference. This would facilitate the locating of instances of the former headings in bibliographic records that may need to be corrected. It proposes using the 4XX fields (See From Tracing fields) with a new code defined in subfield $w/2 (Control subfield/Earlier form of heading) to indicate that the earlier heading recorded in the field is invalid. Related MARBI Documents: Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP03 (January 2006); Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP08 (June 2006) Discussion: Sherman Clarke mentioned the NACO normalization rules and the fact that sometimes the tag a cataloger enters in this 4XX field is one you want to have flipped (i.e., acted upon) by your automated system. Other times catalogers want to have the 4XX heading displayed as a valid earlier heading, but not acted upon. There was discussion on the relative merits of using byte 1 or byte 2 of subfield $w, generated in part by Gary Strawn’s posting to the MARC list. MARBI action taken: Proposal approved with the amendment that value 'h' will be defined in subfield $w, byte 1. Value 'h' will represent: “Do not display in any reference structure.”

Proposal No. 2007-03: Addition of subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) in fields 533 (Reproduction Note) and 538 (Systems Details Note) Source: CONSER, CIC Heads of Cataloging, CIC Heads of Preservation, and ALA/PARS Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group Summary: This paper proposes the addition of subfield $5 in fields 533 and 538 for use in the Registry of Digital Masters. The data would indicate to which institution the reproduction note or system details note applies in records that are considered part of the registry, where the institution makes a commitment to preserve digital masters. Related MARBI Documents: None Discussion: NLM initially asked to make subfield $5 repeatable, but the subsequent discussion demonstrated that doing so would prove problematic for information in subfields $b, $c and possibly $m. This motion to make the subfield repeatable was then withdrawn. MARBI action taken: Proposal approved with the amendment that the subfield $5 will also be defined in the corresponding MARC 21 Holdings fields (i.e., 843 for reproductions and 538 for System details.)

Discussion Paper No. 2007-DP02: Use of field 520 for content advice statements Source: Revealweb Union Catalogue Summary: This paper discusses using field 520 (Summary, etc.) in the bibliographic format to carry advice statements about types of content in items, primarily but not solely, for visually impaired users. Related MARBI Documents: Discussion Paper No. 2006-DP02 (January 2006) Discussion: The paper and the attached questions were considered. The question of whether to record this information in the 520 (Summary note) or 521 (Target audience note) was also addressed. A straw poll of the room indicated preference for using the 520 field. MARBI action taken: This paper will come back as a proposal with a new indicator value defined and subfield $c defined to record the source of the statement.

Discussion Paper No. 2007-DP04: Definition of Field 004 (Control Number for Related Bibliographic Record) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format Source: OCLC Summary: This paper discusses the addition of field 004 to link one bibliographic record to another in the same system. It would be similar to the same field in the holdings format that links a holdings record to a bibliographic record. Related MARBI Documents: None Discussion: Institution-specific records migrated from RLG to OCLC will exist alongside OCLC master records. Institution records will bear both an institution-specific record number and a master record number. This discussion paper from OCLC considers how best to proceed. Lots of questions for OCLC, including: If this number is at some point in the future mapped to an 035 field, would it make sense to define an 035 indicator value in order to disambiguate this number from other system control numbers? This led to some MARBI members to question if the 004 may represent too simplistic a solution for a linking mechanism that may need to be considered more broadly. For example, would it make more sense to encode this data in a variable field with subfields, indicators, etc. OCLC brought this to MARBI in hopes of determining the best course forward. Failing that, they need to resolve this issue in order to provide the institution records requested by former RLG users. MARBI action taken: OCLC wrote this paper seeking guidance and input on how to represent the link between institutional records and master records as they migrate the RLG database to OCLC. While MARBI recognizes the value of this form of linking ability, the committee was unable to reconcile how best to implement based on this paper. The paper may come back to MARBI as a revised Discussion Paper though there are no formal plans for that at present. OCLC will keep MARBI’s comments in mind. If MARBI later determines a different course of action, OCLC is confident they will be able to retroactively map this data as MARBI sees fit.

Discussion Paper 2007-DP03: Recording the linking ISSN (ISSN-L) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats Source: ISSN International Centre Summary: This paper discusses the need to record the newly defined ISSN-L in MARC 21 records. The linking ISSN is an identifier intended to provide a mechanism to group the various medium versions of a continuing resource. Related MARBI Documents: None Discussion: The ISSN Centre, National Library of Medicine (U.S.) and National Agricultural Library (U.S.) expressed favor for Option 1. The British Library implemented Option 2 because they had n earlier, pressing need for this ability. Following discussion, there was preference for Option 1, as well as the ability to distinguish between cancelled and incorrect ISSN-L. MARBI action taken: This Discussion Paper will come back as a proposal.

Discussion Paper No. 2007-DP01: Changes for the German and Austrian conversion to MARC 21 Source: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (German National Library) (DNB) Summary: The German and Austrian communities are converting to MARC 21 from a format that they have used for many years, Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken (MAB, Automated Library Exchange Format). This Discussion Paper describes additions to MARC 21 that they would like to propose in order to support their existing data transfer activities. Related MARBI Documents: None MARBI action taken: MARBI was pleased to discuss this thoroughly researched and well-considered paper detailing several revisions to the MARC 21 formats. Many of the elements will come back to MARBI as proposals – some of the others may require further discussion. This process represents a significant step toward the internationalization of record sharing among libraries and institutions.

MARBI was also pleased to receive and discuss two RDA reports. The two reports below are the product of two separate initiatives mentioned in Jennifer Bowen’s RDA report to MARBI at the 2006 Annual ALA Conference.

Jennifer Bowen presented the paper on the RDA and ONIX framework. Marg Stewart presented the paper on RDA and the MARC 21 communications formats.

• RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization [PDF Document; 519.48K]
• RDA/MARC Report [PDF Document; 2.80MB]

Everett Allgood,
MARBI Representative to CC:DA