MARC 21 Update Standards Forum 13th September 2010 Alan Danskin / Corine Deliot Metadata Standards Team Collection Acquisition & Description British Library The folllowing slides were prepared for me by Corine Deliot, who is the British Library representative to the MARC Advisory Committee and unfortunately cannot attend in person.

Presentation Overview Brief overview of how MARC 21 is maintained RDA papers Non RDA-related papers Other news Proposals and discussion papers are split into RDA and non RDA-related papers. Within this split, proposals and discussion papers are not necessarily presented in numeric order but by how substantive the proposed changes are.

MARBI 2010 – Meetings Machine Readable Bibliographic Information committee 15th-19th Jan. 2010, ALA Midwinter Conference, Boston. 24th-29th June 2010, ALA Annual Conference, Washington. http://www.loc.gov/marc/development.html BIC Bibliographic Standards Group 11th Jan. 2010/15th June 2010 http://www.bic.org.uk/16/Bibliographic-Standards/ Minutes of the BIC BSG meetings are available at the address above

RDA Proposals RDA/MARC Working Group established in March 2008. 2010-04: New data elements in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Format for works and expressions  (as amended) 2010-03: Recording Place and Date of Capture in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format.  (as amended) Documentation summarising RDA-related format changes (up to May 2010) is available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC29.html 2010-04 Proposed changes - creation of the following fields in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats: 380 - Form of Work (NR) 381 – Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression (R) 382 – Medium of Performance (R) 383 – Numeric Designation of Musical Work (R) 384 – Key (NR) [2 options; option 2 defined separate subfields for key name and mode] - addition of the following subfields to field 046 Special coded dates in the Authority Format [these two subfields already exist in the Bib format to express the creation dates of works and expressions] $k – Beginning or single date created (NR) $l – Ending date created Outcome: Approved as amended 380 - Approved as amended. Field is repeatable; add $0 (Record control number) (R) 381 - Approved as amended. Add $0 (Record control number) (R) 382 - Approved as amended. Add $0 (Record control number) (R) 383 - Approved as amended. Delete $2 (Source of term) 384 - Approved option 2 as amended. Change $a to Key; delete $b (Mode); add $0 (Record control number) (R) 046 - Approved. 2010-03 Proposed changes Two options: either 033 coded data or 518 eye-readable note: Option 1: expanding Field 033 – Date/Time and Place of an Event (R) for Place of Capture, i.e. add $d place of capture and $2 source of term Option 2: expanding Field 518 – Date/Time and Place of an Event (R) for Place of Capture and Date of Capture, i.e. add $d - date of capture, $i - introductory phrase, $p - place of capture and $2 - source of term Outcome: both options were approved with following amendments [the amendments listed below include amendments agreed by MARBI and changes made by LC when they drafted the MARC documentation, i.e. change of “capture” for “event”, consistency between 033 and 518 for subfield to express place of capture] Changes to 033: creation of $p - place of event; addition of $0 Changes to 518: creation of $d – date of event, $o Other event information, $ p place of event, $0 record control number $i introductory phrase not created in 518.

RDA Discussion Papers 2010-DP02: Encoding URIs for controlled values in MARC 21 records Strictly speaking not a requirement of RDA but the issue arose as part of the discussions of the RDA-MARC Working Group. Third discussion paper on the topic – difficult issues. 1st paper suggested re-using an existing subfield or defining a new subfield. Outcome was for another discussion paper defining $1 – the only remaining undefined subfield across the whole of the formats. Subfield $1 would enable the encoding of a URI that would replace or supplement the textual or coded value. 2nd paper came back with that option but there was no consensus on the best approach. Subfield $1 would have to derive its meaning from its order of placement, in relation to other subfields within the field. A new field modelled on field 880 (alternate graphic representation) was suggested. The discussion also considered whether recording URIs was possible in ISO 2709 or whether it should be enabled only in MARCXML. This 3rd paper discussed the problems associated with previous suggested approaches and proposed a different solution. For values, including the URI in the same subfield that is already defined for a given element. This approach relies on the fact that URIs are clearly identifiable by their syntax. It was suggested that URIs should be surrounded by angles brackets and/or be preceded by a mark such as the exclamation point. For headings, URIs that identify headings would be recorded in subfield $0 (authority record control number) or $w (bibliographic record control number). Outcome Discussion included issue of angled brackets (they are already used in MARC records for data other than URIs); issues of display, etc. [Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion – from updated cover sheet] Some participants were reluctant to experiment with encoding URIs in MARC records because of the large amount of effort for systems to support experimentation. This includes questions about how to explain, what to get back, how to define the relationship between a value and a URI. Some were interested in experimenting with a set of test records. Nothing will be finalized on this until issues are sorted out, but a document will be prepared with some guidelines and examples of how URIs might be used in MARC records so that those that wish to may experiment. [As far as I know, this document has not been drafted yet]

Other Proposals 2010-01: Defining codes for online and direct access electronic resources in 008/23 and 008/29 (Form of item)  (as amended) 2010-06: Encoding the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format  2010-07: ISBD punctuation in the MARC 21 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format  (as amended) 2010-01 Proposed changes Making “s” obsolete in 008/23 and 008/29 [Form of item] Define “o” for online access and “n” for direct electronic Outcome “o” defined as online; “q” defined for direct electronic. Those new codes also added to 008/22 (Form of original item) and 008/23 Computer files. Added codes to corresponding 006. “s” for electronic will not made obsolete but remain for those institutions not requiring the level of granularity provided by the two new codes. 2010-06 Proposed changes Discussed at Midwinter in a discussion paper and put forward as a proposal at Annual. Extend the definition of subfield $0 Authority record control number defined in Appendix A to enable the recording of the ISNI in the following fields: Bib format: Main entry fields 100, 110, 111; Subject Access fields excluding subdivided headings 600, 610, 611, 650 (for fictional characters) ; Added entry fields excluding name-title added entries 700, 710, 711 Authority format: See also from tracing fields 500, 510, 511; 550, 551; Heading linking entry fields 700, 710, 711, 750, 751 So in bib format, ISNI always recorded in subfield $0; in authority format, ISNI recorded in 024 – Other standard identifier for entity represented in the heading fields and recorded in 5XX above for other related bibliographic entities. [Canada said they wouldn’t record the ISNI in 7XX] In subfield $0, ISNI is recorded as: $0(isni)1234567899999799 – the standard identifier source code enclosed in parentheses precedes the identifier In subfield 024, ISNI is recorded as: 024 7# $a6678232200017533$2isni 2010-07 Proposed changes Put forward as a discussion paper at Midwinter and as a proposal at Annual by the German National Library on behalf of the German and Austrian MARC 21 community. They wish to omit punctuation in MARC as they used to do in MAB. They still have to use some, e.g. when there is a 245 $b but need to indicate the absence of ISBD punctuation at the end of subfields. The paper proposes the use of Leader/ 18 (Descriptive Cataloguing Form) for this purpose. Renaming “a” – ISBD/AACR2 Creating a new value “c” – ISBD, without ISBD punctuation at ends of subfields Tidying definitions of all codes Outcomes The MARC Advisory Committee took this opportunity to focus this LDR position on expressing punctuation conventions (rather than descriptive conventions better expressed in 040$e now repeatable for RDA). Approved as amended. “a” will remain as AACR2 as currently defined and the definition revised to remove mention of access points. The name and definition of code “c” and “i” will be revised to clarify the use of the punctuation rather than descriptive provisions of the ISBD. The following were suggested during the meeting but are subject to change, pending drafting of the final documentation by LC. “c” – ISBD punctuation excluded when redundant When ISBD punctuation can be derived from content designation, punctuation is excluded “i” – ISBD punctuation included The descriptive portion of the record is formulated according to the punctuation conventions of ISBD. Additionally “isbd” is to be defined as a code in Description Convention Source Codes so it can be used in 040$e.

Other Proposals 2010-02: Addition of subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) in the 80X-830 Series Added Entry Fields of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format  2010-05: Adding subfield $3 (Materials specified) to field 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Format  2010-08: Encoding Scheme of Coordinate Data in field 034 (Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. x 2010-09: Addition of subfield $u to Field 561 (Ownership and Custodial History) to the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats.  All approved except 2010-08, which seemed fairly uncontroversial. Proposed changes: addition of subfield $7 – Coordinate encoding scheme Code that identifies the encoding scheme for the coordinate data in subfields $d, $f, $g, $s and $t. Outcome not approved. There is merit to this proposal but more information is needed. It was unclear from the discussion whether there was a need to specify the type of encoding scheme. It was argued that systems knew how to interpret the data, i.e. the format of the coordinates is self-identifying. LC will investigate further and this may come back as a proposal if required.

Other Discussion Papers 2010-DP04: Encoding the International Standard Text Code (ISTC) in the MARC21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats. 2010-DP05: Language Coding for Moving Images in Field 041 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. 2010-DP04 Paper exploring options on how to encode the ISTC in bibliographic records. Need to be able to record the ISTC for all works contained in one manifestation, as well as, in the case of derived works (adaptations, abridgements, revisions, etc.), the ISTC for the original work(s) not contained in the manifestation. Whether the ISTC is for a work contained in the manifestation or an original work not contained in the manifestation must be made explicit. ISTCs for works contained in the manifestation can be recorded in repeated fields 024 – Other standard identifier. The issue is how to record ISTCs for original works not contained in the manifestation. These ISTCs would be encoded in ONIX for Books 3.0 and the issue is where to map them across in MARC. There were 4 options proposed: Do not map ISTCs for original works not contained in the manifestation at all 2. Map them to 787 $o Other item identifier e.g 787 18 $iRelated source work$oISTC 0A3200912B4A1057 [ISTC for the work “Animal farm”] 3. Map to other instance(s) of 024 and include qualifiers in parentheses to distinguish works contained in manifestation and original works not contained in manifestation. 4. Map to other instance(s) of 24 and create a new subfield with values for works contained in manifestation and original works not contained in manifestation. Outcome: Option 2 was deemed the best solution as it is the one most cogent conceptually: 024 reserved for identifiers of resources described in the record and 787 $o for identifiers of related resources. It is extensible, should the nature of relationship become available in the future; and it requires no change to the format. It was recommended that the ISTC should be recorded in field 787 in a similar manner to how the isni is recorded in subfield $0, i.e. within brackets e.g. 787 18$o(istc)0A3200912B4A1057. Since there is no change required to the format, there will be no proposal. Examples will be included in the MARC 21 documentation. 2010-DP05 This paper fell into two parts. Part 1 suggested revising the application of 008/35-37 and 041 $a and $j for moving image materials to create a spoken/sung/signed versus written language distinction.  Part 2 suggested distinguishing between original language and language of intermediate translations that are both currently coded in subfield $h. Outcome [from the cover sheet] Because field 041 is used widely for all forms of material, how any changes would affect different forms of material (other than moving images) needs to be carefully considered in any future proposal. This should include having some complex examples, for instance for sound recordings. However, there was not consensus as to whether the paper should be brought back as a proposal, and some participants suggested that we may be asking one field to do too much. OLAC will reexamine the issues in the discussion paper and determine whether to pursue it further.

Other News MODS update MODS version 3.4 schema now available – backward compatible with version 3.3 A new major revision of MODS with more substantive changes currently under discussion. Authorities & Vocabularies Service http://id.loc.gov launched in April 2009 includes LCSH expressed using SKOS Recently added The Thesaurus for Graphic Materials, the MARC Code List for Relators, Preservation Events, Cryptographic Hash Functions, and Preservation Level Roles. SKOS = Simple Knowledge Organization System The LCSH concepts also include links to associated French concepts from the RAMEAU service. LC is exploring with the National Library of Spain and the National Library of Chile providing LCSH/SKOS in Spanish and with the Universite de Laval for providing RVM (Repertoire de vedettes-matiere) for the French Canadian concepts

And finally … If you would like to propose changes to the MARC format, http://www.bic.org.uk/16/Bibliographic-Standards/ marc-standards@bl.uk If you would like to contribute to the discussions, post to the MARC Forum at MARC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV Thank you. Any questions? alan.danskin@bl.uk