Discussion Paper 2002-DP04

DATE: December 18, 2001
REVISED:

NAME: Addition of Imprint and Physical Description fields to the MARC 21 Holdings Format

SOURCE: Association of Moving Image Archivists

SUMMARY: This paper discusses the problems inherent in splitting copy-specific information between the bibliographic record (260, 300) and the holdings record, reviews two existing mechanisms for handling copy-specific data, and summarizes the benefits of allowing all copy-specific information, and particularly the physical description and imprint fields (300 and 260), into the Holdings Format.

KEYWORDS: Field 260 (BD, HD); Field 300 (BD, HD); Imprint (BD, HD); Physical Description (BD, HD); Publication, Distribution, etc. (BD, HD)

RELATED: 91-13 (July 1991)

STATUS/COMMENTS:

12/18/01 - Made available to the MARC 21 community for discussion.

01/21/02 - Results of the MARC Advisory Committee discussion - Participants generally felt that MARBI should wait for the release of the JSC Format Variations Task Force Report to make any decisions about how to handle multiple versions in the MARC 21 formats. The Chair of the JSC Format Variations Task Force will report on the task force's work during the annual 2002 MARBI meetings. Discussion also indicated that there is a need to look at some of the philosophical questions relating to the use of holdings versus bibliographic records and what a universal holdings record might look like.

Discussion Paper 2002-DP04: Addition of Imprint and Physical Description Fields

1. BACKGROUND

It is useful to consider the conceptual model detailed in the International Federation of Library Associations' report Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Fields 260 and 300 generally describe the entity called manifestation. Although the bibliographic record generally describes both the expression and manifestation with the holdings record describing the item, this distinction is blurred in many instances, with fields existing in both formats that describe manifestation and/or item. In format development in the past what goes into the bibliographic versus the holdings record has been determined on a practical basis.

Two proposals were presented in December 1989 and July 1991 to the MARC Advisory Group calling for breaking out the data elements in field 843 (Reproduction Note in the Holdings Format, which has subfields for place, agency and date of reproduction as well as one for physical description), into fields paralleling those in the bibliographic format. Among others these included field 260 and 300 (also considered were field 362 (Dates of Publication and/or Volume Designation) and 490 (Series Statement)). The proposal addressed the recommendations of the Multiple Versions Forum concerning reproduction information, which called for a two-tier hierarchical approach involving a bibliographic record describing the original version with dependent holdings records for "equivalent versions" (defined as print copies in macroform by the publisher of that edition and microreproductions of books and serials without changes in content). The proposed approach was rejected because of unresolved issues about the need for access points and the lack of consensus on the use of holdings records for communicating version information. At that time, holdings systems were not as widely implemented as they are now. In FRBR terminology, the proposed approach was to include manifestation information in the holdings record.

In moving image archives particularly, it has become increasingly difficult to describe all copies (negative, master positive, print, etc.) on a single bibliographic record so that a user can ascertain which copy-specific information pertains to a particular holding. Creation of a separate bibliographic record for each copy could result in literally dozens of records for a single version of a particular title. When that version is one of many, users' ability to comprehend the collection is almost completely stymied.

Inclusion of physical description and imprint fields in the holdings record along with copy-specific notes, call number, acquisitions information and so on would result in an intuitive, efficient structure for catalogers, facilitate shared cataloging give catalog users far more logical and comprehensible displays.

2. DISCUSSION

2.1. Three options.

With integrated library systems increasingly implementing the Holdings Format, libraries and archives have three options:

1) Embed copy-specific holdings information in the bibliographic record
2) Use holdings records to contain some copy-specific information using the currently defined holdings fields
3) Define additional fields pertaining to the physical copy (in particular physical description and imprint) in the holdings format

It is not possible to include all holdings information in a single bibliographic record, if only because the Holdings Format prohibits the embedding of multiple holdings data fields (853-878) in a bibliographic record when there are multiple copies with associated holdings data, such as that in a specific 876 field. Similarly, description of multiple copies in a single holdings record is generally prohibited.

2.1.1. Option 1. Embed copy-specific information in the bibliographic record. [See Example Record 1.] This option requires the library patron or catalog user to identify and mentally link multiple relevant fields (which may also be displayed on separate screens) in order to garner all information pertaining to a particular copy. To facilitate this process, the cataloger must input some type of identifier such as "(kinescope negative)" on each mention of the kinescope negative to allow the user to identify the notes corresponding to that copy. This introduces redundancies into the record, although the coding is still not sufficient to machine-link or cluster all data pertaining to a particular copy. Although the MARC Formats include a mechanism for linking and sequencing copy-specific fields within the bibliographic record using subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number), the method has not been widely implemented to result in meaningful displays that cluster the information appropriately. In addition, as a control field, field 007 cannot contain a subfield $8, so the coded physical description information could not be linked and clustered with the additional copy-specific information in the bibliographic record. Note also that if subfield $8 were to be used a new link type would need to be defined since those available (constituent item or reproduction) are not appropriate.

Moreover, system record length limits would restrict the extent to which this mechanism could be used. A preserved title in a film archive can easily be associated with a dozen or more physical copies, each with its own copy-specific notes, call number, etc. When this type of holdings information is included in the bibliographic record alongside lengthy cast and production credits, summary, and added entries, the record becomes unwieldy to users, and often unprocessable in integrated library systems and bibliographic utilities.

2.1.2. Option 2. Use holdings records to contain some copy-specific information using the currently defined holdings fields. This method also requires the user to identify and mentally link multiple fields, but this time in two different records. While the MARC Bibliographic Format suggests a mechanism for linking fields within a single bibliographic record (subfield $8), there is absolutely no mechanism for linking a holdings record to a field or group of fields within the related bibliographic record, but only to the bibliographic record as a whole. The user has to sort out which fields in the holdings record (for instance, field 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note in the holdings record for copy-specific information) goes with which physical item described in field 300 in the bibliographic record.

2.1.3. Option 3. Define additional fields pertaining to the physical copy (in particular physical description and imprint) in the holdings format. [See Example Record 2.] This method is already in use by some institutions, notably the UCLA Film and Television Archive, which uses local 9XX fields in order to better serve its users since fields 260 and 300 are not available in the holdings format. Since these are local fields, there are problems for record uploading, migration, and display with this approach. If fields 260 and 300 were available in the holdings format, the information could be carried in standard MARC 21 fields and each record would contain information related to the particular copy, assuring the proper ordering of copy-specific information. Using this technique the bibliographic record could contain the universal bibliographic description of the item, including the original publication information, while the holdings record could contain the copy-specific publication and physical description information.

These discussion points may be equally applicable to collections of graphic materials, sound recordings, and electronic resources.

2.2. Precedents.

Validation of the 300 and 260 fields in the Holdings Format will not negate use of the fields in bibliographic records when that approach is more appropriate or preferred. There are many precedents for validating fields in both the Bibliographic and Holdings Formats. Already there are fourteen Bibliographic Format fields valid for use in the Holdings Format. These include source of acquisition note (541), provenance note (561), and action note (583), each of which pertains to a particular physical copy, but which remains unlinked to the physical description of that copy because of the lack of that field in the Holdings record.

Inclusion of the 007 physical description fixed field in the Holdings Format suggests that this type of information is appropriate or useful in the holding record, yet the Format acknowledges that this data is usually derived from information in the related MARC bibliographic record, especially from the 300 (physical description) field and/or one of the 5xx notes fields. In any case, whenever there are multiple holdings, a number of 007 fields will correspond with several physical descriptions, and there is no way to link them.

2.3. Benefits.

Validating imprint and physical description fields in the MARC Holdings Format could immediately produce three dramatic, concrete results. Workflow for catalogers currently describing multiple copies on a single bibliographic record will be significantly streamlined by virtue of a more logical, intuitive record structure and shorter records. Institutions considering local holdings fields for physical description and imprint data will be able to use a standard MARC holdings field which will easily upload and migrate. Most importantly, users will begin to encounter comprehensible records which cluster together all information pertaining to a particular copy.

Moreover, shared cataloging will become a real possibility for archival moving image (and other) catalogers. When several locally-held copies with corresponding notes are embedded in a single bibliographic description according to current practice, that record becomes difficult or impossible to use for shared cataloging purposes. If the bibliographic record were limited to a description of the intellectual entity, and included only information common to all complete copies, institutions could more easily copy catalog from that bibliographic record. The use of field 300 in the holdings format would also be advantageous for multiple formats of a bibliographic item, such as a videorecording that is available in DVD, videocassette and videodisc.

Creation of records such as Example Record 1 is expensive, and adversely affects the needs of catalog users for a comprehensible display. Given the increasing importance of these materials in our collections, and indeed in the greater context of popular culture, the existing system must be reexamined and adjusted to meet radically changing needs. Implementing a multi-tiered approach that fully uses the holdings record for copy-specific information could be an advantage for catalog users.

2.4. Impact

Allowing fields 260 and 300 in the holdings record has implications for system design and display of bibliographic information. In FRBR terms, there is currently no direct correspondence between fields considered at the manifestation and item level and their representation in bibliographic or holdings records. However, using 260 and 300 in either bibliographic or holdings records could result in some confusion as to which fields describe the manifestation.

There have been recent discussions about designing systems using the FRBR model. Closely related are the recommendations from the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium concerning displays of multiple versions of resources in online catalogs. In potential implementation of the conference recommendations it has been assumed that to create multilevel displays, systems would have to pull in fields describing the manifestation primarily from the bibliographic record. If fields 260 and 300 are used in holdings records it could complicate programming to pull in fields from both bibliographic and holdings records to create meaningful displays.

Currently many systems do not index data in holdings records or have the mechanisms to export and import holdings records. It needs to be considered whether systems may be able to provide this functionality.

3. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

3.1. In the bibliographic record for an item, should a single bibliographic record use subfield $8 (with a new link type to be defined) to link multiple fields with copy-specific information, such as 260/300/876 combinations?

3.2. Could subfield $z public notes, or holdings field 842 (Textual Physical Form Designator), be used in the holdings record to indicate the physical form of the item rather than defining field 300?

3.3. If the 260 and 300 fields were authorized for use in the holdings format, what does that mean for using those fields in the associated bibliographic record? What guidelines would need to be provided?

3.4. What other fields should be added to the Holdings Format for copy-specific information? Will there be a need for giving an added entry for a person or body associated only with a copy (e.g. distributor)?

3.5. What other communities would benefit from validating the 260 and 300 in the Holdings Format?

3.6. How would the use of field 843 be affected by the addition of 260 and 300 to holdings records? Are there cases where it would still be used even if there is a 260 or 300 in that record? Does the data in the other 843 subfields need to be added as separate fields in the holdings record (e.g. series)?

3.7. What are the implications for record distribution? How could we ensure a meaningful bibliographic record if some fields may not be present?

EXAMPLES

Example 1

This illustrates option 1: embed copy-specific information in the bibliographic record

Example 2

This illustrates Option 3: place all copy-specific information in the holdings record.

The bibliographic record contains field 260 that applies to the original. The holdings record includes field 260 if it varies from that in the bibliographic record. Since each physical description describes a particular copy, each is in the appropriate holdings record. Alternatively, the 300 of the original could be in the bibliographic record.

Bibliographic Record

Holding Record 1

Holding Record 2

Holding Record 3

Holding Record 4

• List of Discussion Papers
  
• MARC Home Page
• Library of Congress Home Page