Discussion
Papers
Discussion
Paper No. 2008-DP01: Identifying headings
that are appropriate as added entries, but are not
used as bibliographic main entries
The
Visual Resources Association and others brought this
proposal forward as a way of recording locations, such as palazzi,
amphitheaters, and other venues of performance or display in the form
of access
points within the bibliographic record when these locations do not have
a direct
subject relationship with the item being described. Until now, such
buildings
or objects were created in the subject authority file and could not be
coded
as 7xx fields
unless they were
coterminous with a corporate body.
This proposal
would allow such features, which are routinely
recorded in the bibliographic record elsewhere (as in the 518 note) to
be
accessible in a controlled format as 7xx entries. Although this was
brought
forward by the art community as a way to have controlled 7xx access to
exhibit
venues, the potential usefulness of this for the music community is
self-evident, in that it would allow music catalogers to make added
entries for
performance venues that could be legitimate access points for catalog
users.
This paper
will be brought back as a proposal at the ALA
Annual 2008 meeting.
Discussion
Paper No. 2008-DP03: Definition of subfield
$3 for recording information associated with
series added entry fields (800-830) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
This
proposal was brought forward by CONSER representatives
as a way to indicate which volumes of a serial were part of given
series or
sub-series on the bibliographic record, when multiple series were
present. The
general usefulness of the proposal was conceded, and it was suggested
that it
be applied more broadly to non-serial bibliographic records, such as
map sets
and collected works editions. It will be returned for discussion at ALA
Annual.
Discussion
Paper No. 2008-DP04: Encoding RDA, Resource
Description and Access data in MARC 21
The
Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for the Development of
RDA crafted this discussion paper, which outlines areas in which
changes and
additions will have to be made to the MARC format in order to
accommodate RDA
data. It was acknowledged that the current MARC record structure is not
an
optimal data encoding structure for RDA, and any modifications to MARC
for the
sake of RDA should be considered in part provisional, so that data can
be
encoded with sufficient granularity that when the time comes to migrate
to a
new data structure, RDA data will not be lost due to the relative lack
of
granularity in the MARC formats. Also, this discussion was less about
making
implementation decisions than giving guidance to the JSC on general
preferences
and methods for moving forward.
Much of the
discussion centered on questions of granularity
and encoding methods. For instance, the RDA elements that roughly
correspond to
the general material designation (media type, carrier type, and content
type)
will probably be disconnected from the 245 and could be encoded as one
field
with three subfields or three separate variable fields. One general
suggestion
that covered many of the questions raised in the discussion paper was
the
preference for using encoded data, which is language neutral and could
display
in the language of the cataloging agency, rather than language-based
tags.
Another
instance illustrating the need for a higher degree
of granularity to accommodate RDA data occurs in the data generally
collected
in the MARC 300 field. RDA requires production, publication, and
distribution
statements, each with up to six sub-elements, all of which need to be
parsed in
MARC in order for the data to be fully retrievable and make eventual
system
migration feasible without unacceptable data loss. Karen Coyle
suggested that
while a higher degree of granularity was necessary, current MARC fields
should
retain their meanings and new fields should be designated to
accommodate RDA
data needs.
There are
several other specific problems mentioned in the
discussion paper, having to do with specific content designation for
copyright
and phonogram dates, serials numbering conventions, thesis information,
and
information on actors, narrators, producers, musicians, and other names
occurring
within the bibliographic description.
The sense of
MARBI was that the JSC should proceed with an
RDA/MARC proposal for ALA Annual, with the proviso that it have enough
granularity to accommodate RDA data and make as much use as possible of
coded
data and fixed field elements.
Proposals
MARC Proposal No. 2008-01: Representation of the Dewey Decimal Classification
(DDC) System in MARC
21 formats
The Dewey editorial team at OCLC has
been developing methods
to encode Dewey information in a MARC framework rather than the
proprietary
framework that has been used for online Dewey development to the
present time.
Also, the editorial team felt that Dewey numbers could be exploited for
faceting and subject access if inner numbers and alternative numbers
could be
displayed in the MARC bibliographic and classification formats.
The current proposal updates many of
the items discussed at
ALA Annual 2007 in Washington, DC. The
proposal, which will be
of interest to any music librarians who work with Dewey, was approved
with
minor editorial alterations.
MARC Proposal No. 2008-02: Definition of field 542 for information related to
copyright status in
the MARC 21 bibliographic format
This proposal, brought forward by the
California Digital
Library, provides for MARC coding and full parsing of copyright
information,
when known to the cataloging agency. This was conceived in part as a
way of
pushing copyright information on digital objects (such as digitized
historical
photographs) to the user when such data is known. Clearly, the 542
field could
have applications beyond digital resources, but the application of
field 542
will generally be determined at the level of the cataloging agency. The
data
elements recorded are the primary elements used by Berne Convention
signatories.
This proposal went through two
iterations as a discussion
paper, and MARBI members from outside the United States
expressed concern
that copyright data recorded within a certain jurisdiction might be
inapplicable
or inaccurate outside of that jurisdiction. It was noted, however, that
the
data recorded in the 542 field is factual data derived from the item,
typically
at the time of cataloging or digitization, and does not represent
interpretations of copyright or rights information.
The proposal was accepted with minor
editorial changes and
corrections.
MARC
Proposal No. 2008-03: Definition of first
indicator value in field 041 (Language code) of the
MARC 21 Bibliographic format
The
British Library brought forward this change in order to
facilitate language coding for objects in multiple languages in which
the
relationships between languages within an item is not clear or cannot
be
determined. The proposed change is the addition of 1st
indicator
blank to the current set of 0 (item is not or does not include a
translation)
and 1 (item is or includes a translation). The blank 1st
indicator
would mean that no determination had been made regarding whether or not
an item
is or includes a translation. The usefulness of this code, especially
for
digitization and retroconversion projects in which it may not be
feasible to
examine individual items for this type of information, was agreed upon
by
MARBI, and the proposal passed with minor editorial changes.
Return
to the 2008 Documents Menu
Return
to BCC Historical Documents Menu
Return
to BCC Home Page
Last updated March 12, 2008