MARBI members:
Bruce Chr. Johnson, Chair ALCTS Library of Congress Josephine Crawford ALCTS University of Minnesota Ellen Crosby RUSA Indiana Historical Society Annemarie Erickson RUSA Ameritech Library Systems Elaine Henjum LITA Florida Center for Library Automation Diane Hillman LITA Cornell University Carol Penka RUSA University of Illinois Paul Weiss ALCTS University of New Mexico Robin Wendler LITA Harvard UniversityMARBI Interns
Michael Fox ALCTS Minnesota Historical Society Byron C. Mayes LITA Hunter CollegeMARBI Liaisons:
Sally McCallum Library of Congress Margaret Stewart National Library of CanadaMARC Advisory Committee Representatives and Liaisons:
Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group
Karen Anspach AVIAC Eos, Intl.
John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University
Sherman Clarke VRA New York University
Donna Cranmer ALCTS Media
Resources Siouxland Libraries
Bonnie Dede ALCTS CCS SAC University of Michigan
Michael Fox SAA Minnesota Historical Society
Kathy Glennan MLA University of Southern California
David Goldberg NAL National Agricultural Library
Rich Greene OCLC OCLC, Inc.
Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress
Michael Johnson MicroLIF Follett Co.
Maureen Killeen A-G Canada A-G Canada Ltd.
Rhonda Lawrence AALL UCLA Law
Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa
Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library
Louise Sevold CIS Cuyahoga County Public Library
Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine
Mark Watson ALCTS CCS CC:DA University of Oregon
Other Attendees:Everett Allgood New York University Kathleen Ashe Southwest State University Kathleen Bales Research Libraries Group Charlene Chou Columbia University Ruch Chris University of Iowa Karen Coyle California Digital Library Carroll Davis Columbia University Lynn El-Hoshy Library of Congress John Espley VTLS, Inc. Brian Holt British Library George Johnston University of Cincinnati William Jones New York University Erich Kesse University of Florida Kris Kiesling University of Texas, Austin Wen-Ling Liu Indiana University Elizabeth Mangan Library of Congress Gail Mazure Nichols Advanced Technologies Eric Miller OCLC Catherine Nelson University of California Maria Oldal Pierpont Morgan Library Gayle Porter Purdue University Ellen Rappaport Albany Law School Louise Rees University of Pennsylvania Regina Reynolds Library of Congress Donnell Ruthenberg Data Research Associates Thom Saudargas College Center for Library Automation Philip Schreer Stanford University Jacque-Lynne Schulman National Library of Medicine Vianne Sha University of Missouri-Columbia Gary Smith OCLC Daniel Starr The Museum of Modern Art Barbara Story Library of Congress Gary Strawn Northwestern University David VanHoy Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bob Warwick Rutgers University Barbara Weir Swarthmore College Matthew Wise New York University
Notes:
AALL - American Association of Law Libraries
ALCTS - Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
ARLIS/NA - Art Libraries Society of North America
BL - British Library
CC:DA - Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (of ALCTS CCS)
CIS - Community Information Section (of PLA)
CCS - Cataloging and Classification Section (of ALCTS)
JSC - Joint Steering Committee on the Revision of AACR
LC - Library of Congress
LITA - Library and Information Technology Association
MAGERT - Map & Geography Roundtable
MLA - Music Library Association
NAL - National Agricultural Library
ND/MSO - Network Development and MARC Standards Office (of LC)
NLC - National Library of Canada
NLM - National Library of Medicine
OLAC - Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.
PLA - Public Libraries Association
RUSA - Reference and User Services Association
SAA - Society of American Archivists
SAC - Subject Analysis Committee (of ALCTS CCS)
VRA - Visual Resources Association
Saturday, June 26, 1999
Chair Bruce Johnson opened the meeting by asking committee members, representatives, and liaisons to identify themselves. The proposed agenda was adopted and the minutes of the Midwinter Conference meeting were accepted by voice vote.
The chair reported that considerable work has been done over the past few months to upgrade and enhance the MARBI web site. Additional work will be ongoing. All three of MARBI's sponsoring divisions now link to the MARBI web site, and efforts to coordinate with LC's MARC web site have been successful.
There is currently a vacancy in the RUSA intern position. The Chair will remind all three divisions of the appointment status of their respective membership on MARBI.
The chair reported that a MARBI-MAC discussion list is now operational on LC's email listserver. This list is being used to allow the Committee to discuss administrative issues.
The Committee re-confirmed an email ballot to co-sponsor an ALCTS pre-conference at the 2000 Annual meeting on Metadata. LITA and RUSA will be approached for approval of this action. No financial involvement from either division will be expected.
The Chair reminded ALCTS, LITA, and RUSA members that they should be submitting articles in their respective division newsletters. The chair also reported that RUSA would like to cross-post MARBI proposals to their Web site. Sally McCallum suggested that it would be preferable if the created links rather than copying the documents onto their site. The RUSA representatives indicated that this would be acceptable.
Discussion Paper No. 114: Seriality and MARC 21
Jean Hirons (LC) led the committee through a review of this three-part discussion paper. The paper first suggests defining types of publication as being of two types: finite and continuing. The impact of this re-conceptualization on various MARC fields and codes was reviewed in the form of three options ranging from "least change" to the definition of a third bibliographic level.
Marti Scheel reported that NLM mildly supports option B, with addition of a value "i" in field 008/21. Rich Greene questioned the value of option C, noting that it is the most disruptive of the three choices. Robin Wendler and Diane Hillmann reviewed the problems surrounding public presentation of this data and expressed support for option A. Some participants felt that the change here is not worth the cost and that providing an 006 may help with the arbitrariness of coding. What does Option C buy us in ability to process records given how disruptive it would be? Paul Weiss observed that option A would present training difficulties; John Attig added that it does not help with dealing with looseleafs in serial control systems. Rhonda Lawrence noted that law librarians have dealt with looseleafs for many years. Bruce Johnson asked her to report back on upcoming discussions of this issue within AALL.
Elizabeth Mangan stated that this also affects map set cataloging and is not just an issue for language materials. A discussion of issues surrounding cataloging of e-journals and web sites followed with Jean Hirons commenting that the former are not integrating resources since individual pieces are discrete items. Rebecca Guenther observed that more precision is needed in the use of the term "web site" which, as John Attig noted, are subject to change. Robin Wendler concluded that this publishing environment was continually changing and that radical changes ought not to be made until there is a clearer sense of direction, a position seconded by Diane Hillmann.
The second portion of the discussion paper considered the need to record both current and original publishers of serials. It suggested that field 260 should be made repeatable, with either a subfield $3 or a new indicator value to differentiate them. Jean Hirons explained that it is necessary to record the current publisher to support local processes such as ordering and claiming. Marti Scheel reported that NLM would prefer a new 26X field to support this data, with the proposed option A as their second choice. It was noted that law catalogers replace the 260 with the current one and put historical information in a note. The ensuing discussions demonstrated that there is some support on the committee for including multiple 260 fields to accommodate earliest and latest publisher information. Jean Hirons concluded the discussion by noting that there is continuing need to record earliest publisher as it is the most stable data for linking and retrieval.
The third topic for consideration involves the redefinition of existing values or the creation of a new value in fields 008/34 and 006/07 to differentiate integrating resources cataloged under latest entry conventions from serials so described under pre-AACR cataloging rules. Paul Weiss asked whether the same effect could be achieved by intersecting field 008/34, value "1" for latest entry with a value in Leader/18? A general discussion followed reviewing the differences between latest entry cataloging for successively-issued works versus integrating resources.
Proposal No: 99-08: Defining URL/URN Subfields in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced the proposal, which arises from Discussion Paper 112. There have been requests from several communities to embed electronic links in fields other than 856. Three separate areas are covered by this proposal, field 555, field 583, and linking entry fields- 76X-78X. Field 555 is used by the archival community to note the presence of more detailed descriptive tools called finding aids. The preservation community uses Field 583 to record preservation information. Defining a URL subfield in the linking entry fields would be particularly useful for creating pointers to aggregator databases. The proposal suggests that it would be more efficient for the cataloger and less confusing for the user if this information were available in a single location rather than having the data split being split between a note/linking field and field 856. Option 1 proposes adding separate subfields for a URI (URL or URN) to fields 555, 583, and 76X-78X; option 2 creates a single subfield for URI in each of these fields
Michael Fox described how the archival community is rapidly developing electronic versions of finding aids using the Encoded Archival Description standard. There is a strong consensus on the need to combine both the information about the existence of these documents and a link to their location in a single place, field 555. Jean Hirons noted the desirability of creating links to aggregator databases using the 76X-78X fields; Diane Hillmann stated that maintaining reciprocal links, however, would be highly problematic. A discussion of the use of URL/URNs followed observations by John Attig and the Chair that there may not be enough subfields available to permit defining both a URL and a URN for each of the linking fields. Paul Weiss questioned whether field 856 should be revised to consolidate URL and URN pointers into a single subfield, but Rebecca Guenther replied that additional analysis would be needed before any conclusions could be reached. Elizabeth Mangan expressed support for the inclusion of links in field 583 and indicated that the cartographic community was preparing a request to enable linking in other fields as well. Elizabeth O'Keefe agreed with the proposal, stating that the recording of binding information in this field is very important to the rare books community. A straw vote indicated unanimous support for defining subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier) to be used for either a URL or URN (Option 2) in fields 555 and 583 of the bibliographic and holdings formats. The subsequent committee vote was 8 for and 0 against. The Chair recommended that proposals for inclusion of URI subfields for additional fields could be brought to the committee at a later date as specific need could be demonstrated.
It was suggested that a URI subfield be considered only for field 773, rather than for all the linking entry fields. Paul Weiss then moved and Diane Hillmann seconded this. Robin Wendler noted that the URL to an aggregator database may be different in different institutions, depending on the method of access to a resource like Nexus-Lexus and that it might be better in a holdings record. Paul Weiss added that this was an instance of embedding holdings data in a bibliographic record but that the benefits outweighed the concerns. Subsequent discussion demonstrated that, although the committee is in agreement in concept with adding a URI subfield to the linking entry fields (76X-78X), there are too many unanswered questions that need careful consideration before it is ready to approve their addition to these fields.
Proposal No: 99-09: Making field 852 Subfields $k and $m Repeatable in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
Paul Weiss moved and Diane Hillmann seconded acceptance of the proposal as written. The committee approved the proposal by a vote of 8 for and 0 against without further discussion.
Discussion Paper No. 116: Bound-with Relationships in the MARC 21 Holdings Format
Rebecca Guenther introduced this discussion paper, noting that this paper was written in the hopes that a technique could be found that would allow for separate bibliographic entities that are bound together to be linked together in a library's online catalog. A previous MARBI proposal (99-02) that recommended using repeatable 004 fields in MARC Holdings records was rejected at Midwinter.
This paper recommended an opposite approach - utilizing $876 $p subfields (Piece designation, used for a barcode) to allow for linking at the barcode level. This would provide a gathering device to tie together multiple bibliographic and holdings records with considerably more flexibility than the 004 technique, and does not appear to present cataloging challenges. It was recognized htat the technique should also apply to subfield $a (Internal item number).
Diane Hillmann summarized the issues and described the proposed solution, emphasizing the physical rather than bibliographic nature of the relationships, and noting that the only required changes would be to the MARC 21 documentation. The discussion that followed considered this approach in contrast to the proposal in 99-02 to use repeating 004 fields. Ellen Crosby noted this related to system design, and recommended that the 501 field be used. Diane Hillmann responded that local data should not be embedded in shared records.
Paul Weiss suggested that since holdings data may be recorded in bibliographic or holdings records, the 004 should be made repeatable. This was a simpler solution that agencies should be allowed to use if the situation is simple. John Attig replied that this solution is not always sufficient and Diane Hillmann added that that approach causes problems for record sharing. Robin Wendler observed that there is a need to articulate a single approach for vendors. John Espley urged that vendors be permitted to chose which approach to use but Kathy Glennan replied that this would create problems when libraries migrate from one system to another.
MARBI was generally in agreement that the technique outlined in the discussion paper accomplishes what it sets out to do, although there were concerns about the need for such a complex solution. It can be implemented without adjusting the Holdings format, but examples will need to be added.
Business meeting
Mary Larsgaard (CC:DA) announced the two-day preconference on Metadata: Providing Access to Web Resources to be held prior to the 2000 Annual Meeting under the auspices of CC:DA with MARBI co-sponsorship. MARBI members Jo Crawford and Ellen Crosby are working with the Preconference Task Force. The list of speakers will be finalized by July. A publication is expected three months after the preconference.
Sally McCallum delivered the report from the Library of Congress. The MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data is now available; NLC is also issuing a French version. The authorities format will be the next to be published in early 2000. The Library's ILS will be coming up soon. Its implementation is taking a large amount of staff resources at LC, and record distribution may be momentarily disrupted during the change-over from LC's legacy system, MUMS. The Cataloging Distribution Service will be undertaking a test of providing web access to the LC Classification schedules. They are seeking additional libraries for the test.
Sunday June 27, 1999
Discussion Paper No. 115: Anonymous Artist Relationships in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Elizabeth O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA) introduced the discussion paper on behalf of the art and architecture community. The discussion paper presents several different options for handling anonymous artist relationships. A common though inexact practice of attributing authorship relative to a known artist (e.g., "School of Rembrandt") exists and is widely used by art historians. The challenge is how to fit this information into the MARC 21 format and whether it fits in an existing subfield or whether a new one is needed. Three possible options were offered: use of a subfield $c (qualifier); use of the field 720 (Uncontrolled Name); and defining a new subfield. The third option, defining a new subfield ($j), is preferred by the Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS/NA.
Discussion focused on the discussion papers questions:
1. Are there comparable instances of anonymous authorship in other disciplines?
John Attig indicated that the rare books community is dealing with similar issues (e.g., "Widow of...",
"Heirs of..."). Kathy Glennan (MLA) noted that this is not really applicable to music as there are no
creative "schools" per se, and the concept of "supposed composer" was dropped in AACR2. Paul Weiss
noted that it would be analogous to "Spirit of ..." in structure (if not usage) and also to "Mrs." when used
in a $c subfield.
2. Are there problems with the information about attribution residing only on the bibliographic record
or must an authority record be created?
Sally McCallum stated that it is probably not a good idea to add these to authority records. Sherman
Clarke (VRA) concurred, noting that these are based upon art history scholarship and are necessarily
standardized. Paul Weiss suggested that authority control could be complicated if the origin of a specific
work is not agreed upon by scholars. Diane Hillmann suggested that there should be no authority record
without a need for cross reference, which these aren't likely to have. After considerable discussion on
this question by the Committee, John Attig advised that the Committee can neither rule out nor assume
that authority control will be an issue if this is allowed.
The Chair noted that the information has value in the MARC record and may be needed in authority records. Sherman Clarke reminded the committee that some library catalog systems automatically create Authority records from bibliographic records.
Questions 3 & 4.
Could either 1XX subfield $c or field 720 be used to carry this information, or is a new subfield
required?
If Option 1 were selected, would it be a problem for existing systems using heading validation to use
subfield $c, since at times it is considered part of the heading and an authority record created for the
entire string, while at other times it is might be used for the anonymous artist relationship and not
require an authority record?
The consensus of the Committee was that a new subfield was probably the best option. Sally McCallum pointed out that there are not many subfields available and that the new data element should be broadly defined, not just limited to artists. The committee, after some discussion, tended to favor a new subfield $j.
Questions 5 & 6.
Are there implications in using the subfield (options 1 or 3) with subject headings in 6XX fields? What
would it mean in this context? Would we establish a subject heading for the heading with "school of?"
Do we need a controlled list for the data describing the anonymous artist relationship?
It was noted that these headings are more-or-less standard. Bonnie Dede recommended setting the access point that identifies the author in fields 600 or 653. The Committee agreed that field 600 was the best place for such access points.
Discussion Paper No. 117: Coding non-Gregorian Dates in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
Joe Altimus (RLG) introduced and summarized the discussion paper, arises from a perceived need to code dates that do not adhere to the modern Gregorian calendar. He gave an overview of the options proposed in section 2.1, "Requirements for coded non-Gregorian dates in MARC." It was noted that the Association of Jewish Libraries felt the current method of coding is adequate for Hebrew dates.
Discussion centered around what communities, if any, requested or were affected by this action. John Espley (VTLS) stated that the subject had never been raised by his company's many international customers. Bonnie Dede (ALCTS CCS SAC) suggested that the rare books and manuscripts communities may be affected. Jewish, Islamic, East Asian, and South Asian calendars are mentioned in the paper, and Robin Wendler advised that other date systems may need to be addressed.
The Chair asked the Committee to contact him with names of groups that may have an interest in this issue. He will encourage them to look at the discussion paper to see if there is a demonstrated need that MARC 21 currently does not meet.
Discussion Paper No. 118: Non-filing Characters in MARC 21 Using the Control Character Technique
Sally McCallum (LC) introduced the discussion paper which discusses the use of the control character technique for delineating non-filing characters in MARC 21 records. It also considers whether the technique should be employed in all fields, or only in a restricted field list. It also considers whether this technique may be applied anywhere in a field/subfield, or only at the beginning.
The discussion opened with a consideration of specific points of the discussion paper. John Attig (OLAC) recommended that Stopwords be removed from consideration. Kathy Glennan (MLA) recommended that striking the "musical flat sign" not be included in any list of extraneous characters. Diane Hillmann questioned whether the 440 example in section 2.2.2, in which the technique is used to suppress the volume caption, represents a "dysfunctional system" problem, and so should not be a part of this discussion.
The discussion continued with the discussion paper questions.
Questions 1, 2, 4 & 5.
Should the control character technique be available in any fields in the format?
Should the control character technique be available anywhere in the field, not just in the initial
character(s)?
Are specific guidelines necessary so that the technique will be consistently applied, or is it acceptable
for institutions to use it as needed? If so, how should they be developed?
Some previous discussion has suggested limiting the use of the technique to sorting rather than indexing.
Is this desirable and/or possible?
Karen Coyle suggested that a concern is that "non-filing" is not clearly defined. This issue must be addressed should this discussion paper develop into policies. Diane Hillmann suggested that the Committee allow for known problems now while leaving open for change when needed. The sense of the Committee was that the technique should be available in all fields, but applied only to initial articles. Although a straw poll (19 in favor, 12 against) supported using this for corrected data (e.g., "[sic]", "[i.e.…]") as well, there was no definitive support for this, given the many ambiguities involved.
Question 3.
What are the implications if allowed in fields with authority control? In subject headings?
Non-filing words are very clearly defined in AACR2 and the Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings.
Question 6.
What implications are there for record exchange if systems use the technique to overcome limitations in
their systems?
Clarification of the field's purpose should prevent misuse of this technique.
Question 7.
What sort of impact studies should be done to further investigate these issues (recommended in the
previous discussion)?
The following were mentioned:
Business meeting
Report of the Unicode Encoding and Recognition Technical Issues Task Force
This task force continues to do its work via email. It expects to be able to report back to the Committee at ALA Midwinter with specific recommendations.
Report of the East Asian Character Set Task Force
The Task Force met earlier in the day. Some documents are available for review now, with more available in a month. CEAL will review, and there will be a proposal at Midwinter. The following items are available on the Task Force web page:
Other documents will be up in July and August. Comments should be made by mid-September to the address on the web page. The task force will have a specific proposal for the Committee at ALA Midwinter.
Report of the Multilingual Records Task Force
This task force is in its final stages of being organized. It arises out of two MARBI discussion papers (108 and 111) that were seen as too complex for adequate discussion in full MARBI meetings. The TFs charge will be finalized in the next week and will be posted on the MARBI web site. In response to a question, it was reported that OCLC has representation on the panel.
Report of the CC:DA Metadata Task Force
The task force met at this conference and is focused on reporting on its 5 charges. A report will be forthcoming within the next year. The pre-conference program was described and it was indicated that the four groups looking at the charge reported to the Task Force.
Open Discussion
Marti Scheel reported that a need to revise the MARC formats may exist due to the upcoming conversion from Wade-Giles to Pin-Yin in records containing transliterated Chinese. Issues for consideration included indication of changes at the field- versus record-level; effects on bibliographic and authority records; and cost. It was also suggested that this might fall to the newly-formed Multilingual Records Task Force. During the ensuing discussion, it was suggested that this may be a "Y2K" type issue: solutions recommended now may not help in time.
"Is MARC Dead?" RUSA MOUSS Program
Phelix Hanible, RUSA MOUSS Catalog Use Committee Chair, attended the meeting to provide information about her committee's ALA 2000 Annual program, "Is MARC Dead?" Questions and concerns raised included:
How much of what is being addressed is MARC and how much is really AACR2?
These can't be separated. Several MARBI members noted that the two most certainly can be separated. While MARC accommodates AACR2 data well, bit is open with respect to rules used by implementers-- enabling it to function in many environments world-wide.
How fixed is the speakers panel? Do they have to stick to topics indicated in the proposed program?
All persons approached have accepted, though additional names would be welcome. Topics were simply
items in mind when each person was selected.
Is it possible that the title may be too provocative?
This was, to an extent, intentional. Some MARBI members noted that a provocative title may actually be
a good thing, others felt it was negative sounding.
Has a moderator been selected?
No. It was suggested that recommendations for moderator be made directly to the chair privately.
The remainder of discussion surrounded co-sponsorship of the program by MARBI, which was approved. The following recommendations reflect the sense of the Committee:
Monday June 28, 1999
The Chair welcomed an overflow crowd interested in participating in discussions of topics of mutual interest to both MARBI and CC:DA. Through consultations with CC:DA and MARBI membership, the topics most asked for were seriality as it relates to the descriptive cataloging rules and the MARC 21 communications format, and metadata issues. The Chair recruited a moderator to facilitate consideration of each topic.
Regina Reynolds (LC) opened discussion on MARBI DP 114 and Jean Hirons' JSC paper on seriality, focusing on the practical implications of a redefined understanding of seriality. The purpose of this discussion was to examine interdependent issues: where the descriptive cataloging code affects communications format, and the format affects the code. Cataloging and format interests converge in 1) new media, and 2) traditional problems with understanding and dealing with seriality.
Regina reviewed the AACR-type of publication model outlined in Jean Hiron's JSC report. This model divides the bibliographic world into publications that are finite (having pre-determined ends) or continuing (lacking pre-determined ends). Finite resources may be complete as issued (monographs) or incomplete (sets). Continuing resources may be successive (issued in discrete parts) or may be integrating, with new material seamlessly integrated (such as looseleafs or online resources). The definitions of database, website and journal will need some work to clarify the boundaries of each.
How can MARC 21 handle this re-defined approach to seriality? The codes in Leader/07 (m,s) don't fit as well as they might. Three options are discussed:
Option A: Retain codes 'm' and 's' and divide integrating resources based on a determination of which are most like monographs and which are most like serials.
Option B: Expand code 's' to cover all continuing resources.
Option C: Define a new bibliographic level 'i' for integrating resources.
These options will have system implications. Discussion followed:
Adam Schiff: If there were a 2-code type (mc, sc) there would need to be a change to 2 bytes. John Attig said that the byte after 7 is already defined.
Regina Reynolds asked how these codes are used. What are we trying to accomplish? Diana Hillmann said we use these to parse data for delivery to users. The problem is that most things we do are predictable and that we may be sacrificing predictability. How can we explain this to users? Regina Reynolds asked if the bibliographic level and serial type could be more made more understandible to users. There was a concern that public library users and reference librarians don't understand. Regina Reynolds said that the model is designed to keep thinking clear.
Discussion on other codes: The Chair asked what the benefits were of using codes other than 'm' and 's'. John Attig and Diane Hillmann agreed that we want to be able to deliver appropriate categories to users. If we use the leader code to do that, then we may want a new code to be there.
Rhonda Lawrence wants to present this discussion paper to AALL. Law libraries have a big investment in this issue because they regard looseleafs as being like electronic resources. Regina Reynolds said that resources that behave in the same way should be described in the same way. That is the principle of seriality. Diane Hillmann stated that format integration has dealt with describing seriality; for example looseleafs can be cataloged as monographs with 006 fields to record the serial aspects of the work.
Regina Reynolds asked for arguments regarding two- versus three- codes. Adam Schiff noted that there may be political implications since serials are handled by a different area. Would there be a third stop needed to handle integrating resources? The Chair asked whether this change really represents a significant improvement in access to information. Indeed, Michael Fox made a case for integrating resources being monographic because the components aren't visible. Karen Coyle pointed out that the hard copy of a database is usually a serial; if the online version is coded as 'm' then the title would appear in two places.
TITLE CHANGE CONVENTION CODING
Regina Reynolds reviewed the JSC proposal to discuss the earliest and most current title statements in tagged fields. The proposal recommends that the 245 field be taken from the current issue. If the current title contains a minor change from the earliest title, the earliest would be recorded as a uniform title. The value of using the uniform title field is that it would always remain. Intervening title changes would be recorded in 247 fields.
Karen Coyle asked about assignment of new ISSNs. Regina Reynolds said there would be no changes in ISSNs for minor title changes. Each record would have one ISSN, one key title, and may have several variant titles. However, a major title change would require a new record and a new ISSN. Rhonda Lawrence reported that in session laws, the earliest entry has been recorded in the uniform title in the 240 field. This can create some peculiar records, but has saved libraries time. Adam Schiff said this would be hard to write into the descriptive cataloging rules. It changes the meaning of the uniform title and creates a third purpose that neither differentiates nor collocates.
Robert Maxwell asked for a justification for changing the scope of the 245 field. Regina Reynolds said that this would allow the most current version to display for order, claim, and check-in purposes. Discussion followed regarding the possible problems in de-duping records. Adam Schiff asked if another field could be defined that would mean latest title. Systems could then display this as they want and uniform title wouldn't then be needed.
Discussion followed on the use of the uniform title. Regina Reynolds said that if a uniform title is needed when the item is cataloged, that title would remain throughout the life of the record. This proposal expands the use of the 130 field. Diane Hillmann asked how we decide what to file on? It was noted that this would have a significant impact on authority work and shelflisting. Regina Reynolds said the uniform title should be thought of as a stable title for a serial until there is a major change. Mitch Turitz stated that he'd like to see something like the year used as a qualifier.
PUBLISHING STATEMENT (260 FIELD)
Regina Reynolds discussed the recommendation changes in the publisher name be recorded in 260 fields. This is an attempt to perform more holistic cataloging of serials so that the latest and earliest information displays for claim, order, and check-in purposes. The proposed options are to repeat the 260 field with a $3 to indicate current or original publisher or to repeat the 260 field using an indicator specifying current or original. Alternatively, a 26X field could be defined to carry this information. Marti Scheel reported that NLM advises a separate field like the 26X concept. This needs to be in the bibliographic record and is needed by users.
Metadata Update
Mary Larsgaard led this part of the meeting, which was organized into three issues for discussion.
Issue a.
To what extent can metadata for web resources be met by MARC 21 as it currently exists? What fields
would need to be added to make MARC 21 optimally useful in describing web resources?
Issue b.
Metadata beyond what appears in the cataloging record - what specifically is this? What comes to mind
for digital geospatial data is: header; data dictionary; ... What about other types of digital files?
John Attig expressed concern that these issues are being addressed by adding to MARC. Mary Larsgaard suggested that among items inadequately handled currently is the field for geospatial data headers, a field that includes various items such as title, size in bytes, and rows and columns of raster-coded data. A geospatial data file cannot be processed without the header data, so its loss would be problematic. Current 5XX options are inadequate. Michael Johnson asked if the addition of URIs would help. Mary Larsgaard answered that they would help considerably and presented an example in which governmental institutions have found fields into which this information could be entered.
Adam Schiff suggested that digital video (as it appears on the web) is materials type that needs to be addressed in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. There is no code for this type of video in the 007 field (Physical Description Fixed Field). It was noted that certain physical description information - playing time, color information, etc. - cannot be dealt with effectively as digital video has no physicality. He also noted that many cartographic materials lose accurate scale information due to variations in display. Sally McCallum recommended that Adam develop MARBI proposals to address these inadequacies.
Issue c.
What would be most useful MARC21-oriented presentations for a preconference on metadata for web
resources, to be held July of 2000 at ALA Annual?
Suggested topics presented by the committees and from the floor included:
It was recommended that further suggestions be submitted to Bruce Johnson, Ellen Crosby, or Jo Crawford.
A summary of CC:DA Task Force on Metadata meeting was presented at the end of the meeting. The final year of the Task Force will be primarily devoted to meeting its final charge: to recommend what content needs to be added to AACR2 to make it useful for cataloging web resources. The Task Force will present its final report at the 2000 annual conference.
Adjournment
Meeting times at ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio will parallel those at Annual in New Orleans:
Saturday, January 15, 2000, 9:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Sunday, January 16, 2000, 2:00-5:30 PM
Monday, January 17, 2000, 2:00-4:00 PM.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Library of Congress