Dear Colleagues, The BIC Library Metadata Group met on 18th December to consider the papers for the upcoming MAC meetings. Our feedback is given below.
Best regards, Thurstan Thurstan Young, Collections Division, The British Library Boston Spa Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ United Kingdom Responses to proposed changes are as follows: Proposal 2016-01 NAME: Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Reproductions of Sound Recordings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 1) Broaden the current definition of sound recording (value s in 007/00) to permit inclusion of digital sound recordings (whether born digital or digitized from existing recordings). We consider that the proposed wording is problematic in several respects: Inclusion of the term “vibrations” assumes that all digital sound recordings involve the transmission of sound waves. However, when one sound file is copied to create another, no vibrations are transmitted, only data. Likewise, a computer programme could produce a sound file without the need for that sound having been physically manifested. It is unnecessary to mention that the scope applies to both analogue and digital sources since there are no other categories to which the definition might apply. Base materials other than paper may be perforated in order to mechanically produce sound. These include metal plates. At its discussion paper stage, we suggested that the definition of “Sound recording” be amended as follows: “A storage medium containing recorded sound or a representation of a musical composition for which sound can be mechanically reproduced, such as a piano roll.” This alternative wording would address the problems which have been identified in the proposed redefinition. 2) Add code ‘r’ for Remote to 007s/01 Specific material designation to permit precise encoding of digital sound recordings accessed, processed, and executed remotely. We support the proposed change. 3) Clarify that 007s/03 Speed is only intended to relate to playing speed of a sound recording rendered on a mechanical device We support the proposed change. 4) Since speed is not applicable to digital sound recordings, add code ‘n’ for Not applicable We support the addition of a code but query whether the definition of ‘Not applicable’ in this context is too prescriptive. For example, the playing speed of a device such as a barrel organ would depend on the rate at which a handle is turned. The playing speed of a musical box would depend on the degree to which a key is wound. Since there is no set speed in either of these cases, the assignment of ‘Non applicable’ as a value may be appropriate and not only limited to digital resources. 5) Clarify that 007s/10 is only intended to relate to relate to sound recordings rendered on mechanical devices by modifying the definition. We support the proposed change. 6) Since Kind of material is not applicable to digital sound recordings, add code n for Not applicable We support the addition of a code but query whether the definition of ‘Not applicable’ in this context is appropriate. Digital sound recordings can “pertain to characteristics specific to physical aspects of carriers”, for example CDs. By inserting the term ‘remote’ before “digital sound recordings”, this problem would be addressed. 7) To address the gap in existing coding for standalone storage devices in 007c/001 Specific material designation, add code s (Standalone device) We support the proposed change. 8) To clarify how to apply codes in 007c/01 Specific material designation for USB storage devices, broaden the definition of current code b (Chip cartridge) We support the proposed change. Proposal 2016-02 Name: Defining Subfield $r and Subfield $t, and Redefining Subfield $e in Field 382 of the MARC Bibliographic and Authority Format We support the proposed changes. Responses to discussion paper questions are as follows: 2016-DP01 NAME: Defining Subfields $3 and $5 in Field 382 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 5.1.1. Field 382 is here considered primarily as part of a bibliographic record, but it is also used in authority records. Are there situations in which 382 $3 could also be valuable as part of an authority record? We cannot think of any. 5.1.2. In the MARC environment, could establishing a method to link instances of field 382 directly to work records profitably augment or substitute for the functionality provided by $3? Yes, if the work record existed. 5.1.3. The discussion points to uses of subfield $3 to associate data with both physical and logical units of a resource. Is this practice out of line with the original definition of the subfield? We think that ideally there would be no need for $3 because the Medium of performance information would sit in a work record but display in the manifestation record via linking. However, this would require authority records to be created for every work. For now we are satisfied with an approach which makes sense in terms of human readability. 5.2.1. Defining subfield $5 could lead to more institutions sharing local data in shared library systems. Would this be problematic? Possibly, but most systems could be instructed to strip out fields with $5 if necessary. 2016-DP02 NAME: Clarifying Code Values in Field 008/20 (Format of Music) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 4.1. Do the readers agree with the changes recommended in sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 above? We agree with these changes. 4.2. The authors of this paper feel that the changes above align the MARC definitions with the RDA definitions while avoiding any loss in the consistency and clarity of legacy data. Do any of the recommendations appear less likely to interoperate cleanly with earlier definitions? This should not be a problem. It is more a case of clarifying the definitions and bringing them into line with RDA than making major changes to them. 2016-DP03 NAME: Recording Distributor Number for Music and Moving Image Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 5.1. Does the Committee agree that we to need to develop MARC Field 028 to permit the recording of music and videorecording distributor numbers (as distinct from publisher numbers), in preference to using field 037 for this purpose? We think that this makes sense and aligns with separate recording of publisher and distributor in field 264. 5.2. If so, does the choice of 6 as a first indicator for distributor number make sense? As the next available numeric code in the first indicator it makes sense to define ‘6’ as ‘Distributor number’. 5.3. And if so, does it make sense to redefine the 028 caption as “Publisher and Distributor Numbers”? Yes. 5.4. Are the suggested changes to the scope and definitions of Field 037 clear, and do they align with current usage of the field for materials other than music and audiovisual? Yes. 2016-DP04 NAME: Extending the Use of Subfield $0 to Encompass Linking Fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 5.1. Is the principle of using subfield sequence to reflect the relationship between $i (Relationship information) and $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) acceptable? We consider that it is. 5.2. If the sequencing of subfield $0 is not acceptable to reflect such a relationship, then should the MARC formats make this explicit? Yes. 5.3. If subfield sequencing is acceptable to reflect the relationship, then should subfield $0 be defined in fields 76X-78X in order to support the recording of URIs? Yes. 5.4. If the definition of subfield $0 is not acceptable in fields 76X-78X, then are there any alternative subfields which may be defined or re-scoped in order to support the recording of URIs, for example $4 (Relationship code)? This might be a possible alternative. However, usage of $4 would be problematic if this subfield had already been used to code a relationship in the field. 2016-DP05 NAME: Expanding the Definition of Subfield $w to Encompass Standard Numbers in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats 5.1. Do you consider that there are any problems associated with recording URIs for bibliographic records in the MARC Authority and Bibliographic formats? We do not consider that there are any problems with this. 5.2. If you do not consider there are any problems associated with recording URIs for bibliographic records in MARC, should the label and definition of subfield $w (Bibliographic record control number) be expanded to encompass them? Yes. 2016-DP06 NAME: Define Subfield $2 and Subfield $0 in Field 753 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 5.1. Is the definition of subfield $2 (Source of term) in field 753 a desirable solution to document the vocabulary used for the terminology used in the field's subfield $a (Make and model of machine) and $c (Operating system)? We agree that this is a desirable solution. 5.2. Is defining subfield $0 (Authority record control number or standard number) in field 753 a desirable solution for recording the URI of the vocabulary term being recorded? We are aware that not all questions on the handling of URIs in $0 have been settled; we would assume that whatever practices for $0 are decided for other fields, the same practices would apply to this field. Yes. It would exploit the value of machine actionable URIs linking to the Open Metadata Registry. 2016-DP07 NAME: Broaden Usage of Field 257 to Include Autonomous Regions in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 5.1. Would the broadening of this field have any detrimental effect on the field? We could not identify any negative effects. 5.2. There are numerous autonomous prefectures, provinces, regions, etc., throughout the world (e.g., The Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture in China; Native American and First Nation reservations in the United States and Canada, respectively; South Tyrol autonomous province in Italy; Trentino-Alto Adige autonomous region in Italy). Any or all of these might have a film industry with different traditions than that of the country in which they are located geographically. Should all autonomous regions, etc., be eligible for inclusion in this field, or only those that for geopolitical reasons are often included in lists of countries, such as Hong Kong and Palestine? If the name for such a locality is present on NACO, then this should not be a problem. 5.3. Should far-flung overseas dependencies or territories be eligible for inclusion in the 257 field? For example, France has five overseas departments, five overseas collectivities, etc. They have varying levels of autonomy, but all of them are quite a distance from France itself (e.g., French Polynesia; Saint Martin). The United States also has numerous territories, including Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, some of which are half a world away from the U.S. mainland. Any or all of these may have their own film cultures and traditions. If the name for such a locality is present on NACO, then this should not be a problem. 2016-DP08 NAME: Remove Restriction on the Use of Dates in Field 046 $k of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format 4.1. Are there any non-video implications if this restriction if removed? We could not think of any. 4.2. If there are other implications can the $k be defined in such a way as to allow video catalogers to put the date of original production/release here even if the date is the same as the publication date? Yes. 2016-DP09 NAME: Coding Named Events in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats 6.1. Events can sometimes also be considered time periods (e.g., World War II is an event and is also often used as time period, “the period of World War II,” while something like a hurricane or plane crash is generally only considered to be an event). Would using specific tags for named events have any negative impact on those who would prefer to index or display combination event/time period headings as chronological terms instead of events? We consider that there should not be a problem associated with doubling up. The priority is providing some form of access. 6.2. Given that some events can also be time periods, would fields 148/648 (Heading—Chronological Term) and the proposed fields be mutually exclusive? We consider that the tag for an event may convey different information from that for a time period. For example, the time period associated with a world event may be different from the chronological term which denotes a corporate body’s involvement in that event. 6.3. Which coding option is preferable to record named events? We support option 1 – changing the scope of X11 to cover all events involves less change. 6.4. If option 1 is preferred, should the first indicator be changed to allow the use of blank for named events? We agree with the proposition in option 1 that the first indicator values could be made obsolete altogether. 6.5. Under either option, should subfield coding be used to distinguish places and dates from the named event that precedes those elements? We support these approaches. It would make them easier to parse. 2016-DP10 NAME: Defining 347 Digital File Characteristics for the MARC 21 Holdings format 5.1. Would institutions find recording digital file characteristics in the 347 field for online resources in holdings records as opposed to bibliographic records useful? We consider that institutions would find it easier to record digital file characteristics in the holdings than bibliographic record if they were implementing the PN model. However, the paper models the use of subfield $3 ‘Materials specified’ to record publisher details. This is beyond the current scope of $3 definition elsewhere in the format: i.e. “Part of the described materials to which the field applies.” We suggest that 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition Note) subfield $a (Source of acquisition) is used to record publisher details in the holdings format instead. 5.2. Would having the 347 field defined for holdings records be useful for experimenting with BIBFRAME annotation scenarios? In theory it would be useful for experimenting in BIBFRAME to meet the same needs as would be met by having field 347 in the MARC Holdings format. 2016-DP11 NAME: Punctuation in the MARC 21 Authority Format 5.1. Is a new code for Leader position 18 an appropriate solution for the intended purpose? We agree that a new code for LDR 18 is an appropriate solution for the intended purpose. Using this character position would be consistent with the Bibliographic format. 5.2. Is there another option for the information such as a variable field in the 0XX or 8XX range or a fixed field position? There may be but no other option is explored so this is acceptable. 5.3. Are there any potential problems that should be taken into account? A problem might arise if the authority record contains an RDA flag in field 040 $e (Description conventions) and a code for punctuation policy in LDR 18. The former may imply that a record syntax based on RDA Appendix E has been used. The values set out by the paper make no distinction between different forms of record syntax. 2016-DP12 NAME: Designating Matching Information in the MARC 21 Authority Format 5.1. Is the need of designating matching candidates in the MARC Authority format clearly given? We agree that it has. 5.2. Is the field 887 a feasible solution? Can the design of the field be improved? Defining the field as 881 or 885 would be preferable to 887. Then the field could be extended to the bibliographic format at a later date if necessary. Field 887 is already defined in the bibliographic format as ‘Non-MARC Information Field’. We also query whether a scenario was considered in which multi-matches might arise and, if so, whether the option to make the new field repeatable was considered. 5.3. Are there any potential problems that should be taken into account? No. 2016-DP13 NAME: Designation of a Definition in the MARC 21 Authority Format 5.1. Is the need of designating a definition clearly given? We agree that it has. 5.2. Can the issue be solved by a format element already available in the MARC Authority format? To an extent this seems possible. The first example looks as though it could be handled in field 678 (Biographical or Historical Data) : i.e. it describes the origins of a specific municipal authority. The second, describing the contents of an archival collection, might be expressed using Bibliographic field 520 (Summary, Etc.). The third example, defining the area served by a regional library, may justify the new field. 5.3. Can a format solution like the new field "668" solve the issue? Yes, but given our response to question 5.2 it will be important to provide a clear, well-defined scope statement to avoid misuse of the field. 5.4. Are there any potential problems that should be taken into account? Field 668 has previously been made obsolete in the MARC authority format (‘Character in Non-Roman Alphabets). If the field is reused for this purpose then there may be problems in terms of backwards compatibility. It may be useful to identify which institution is using the definition for a term. Other institutions may wish to record different definitions. The inclusion of subfield $5 (Institution to which field applies) should be considered. 2016-DP14 NAME: Designation of the Type of Entity in the MARC 21 Authority Format 5.1. Is the need of designating a type of entity / types of entities clearly given. We agree that it has. 5.2. Can the issue be solved by a format element already available in the MARC Authority format? Nothing else is available which offers the required granularity. 5.3. Can a format solution like the new field "075" solve the issue? Yes. 5.4. Or is there another option for the information such as a coded field in the Leader and / or the 0XX range? The paper doesn’t explore these alternatives in any detail. We don’t think there would be one that would be better than the suggested 075 field. 5.4.1. Should the broader type (person, name of a person, corporate body, conference / meeting, work, topical term, geographical place name) be located in a newly to be defined position of the Leader (e.g. 07 - "Type of entity")? No. That would be more constraining than a variable field. It would limit the number of possible values and it would mean a defined set of values that all libraries would have to use, whereas the variable field with subfield $2 allows different vocabularies. 5.4.2. If yes to 4.1.: Should then only the narrower type from the longer list populate the newly proposed field "075"? Not Applicable. 5.5. Are there any potential problems that should be taken into account? No. This is because subfield $2 is an essential part of the solution, allowing for the use of different vocabularies. 2016-DP15 NAME: Media Type and Carrier Type in the MARC 21 Authority Format 5.1. Is the need of designating RDA media type and carrier type clearly given? We acknowledge DNB perceives a need but we are not persuaded that the suggested solution is suitable. If the purpose of the authority records is to enable their use in subject headings, why is it necessary to record their carrier and media types? 5.2. Is carrying over the 337 and 338 fields from the MARC Bibliographic format to the MARC Authority format a feasible solution? No. 5.3. Are there any potential problems that should be taken into account? The scoping set out in the paper’s introduction (authorities for papyri, codices, books for religious services, manuscripts and autographs of literary and musical works) suggests that these may correspond to the FRBRoo concept F4 Manifestation Singleton: “Physical objects that contain an instance of F2 Expression, and that were produced as unique objects, with no siblings intended in the course of their production”. In the current GND model the Schriftdenkmal as a concept is represented by an authority record but the physical attributes of the Schriftdenkmal (the manifestation singleton) are recorded in a bibliographic description (created by the library that holds the original resource). This model balances content and carrier. We are concerned that the proposed change blurs this distinction and we question whether the benefit to the community is sufficient to justify the resulting confusion. 2016-DP16 NAME: Extending the Encoding Level in the MARC 21 Authority Format 5.1. Is the need of designating the encoding level clearly given? We consider that a local need is clearly given. However, this solution lacks the extensibility which would be required if other communities wished to designate their own encoding levels in the same way. 5.2. Can the issue be solved by a format element already available in the MARC Authority format? No. 5.3. Can a format solution like the new values in Leader position 17 solve the issue? No. 5.4. Or is there another option for the information, such as a more flexible field? A more flexible solution would be to add one value to Leader/17 indicating that the encoding level is specified in some variable field, such as 042 Authentication Code, or a local field. 5.5. Are there any potential problems that should be taken into account? Any potential problems are noted above. ****************************************************************************************************************** Experience the British Library online at <http://www.bl.uk/> www.bl.uk The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : <http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html> www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. <http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook> www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled ***************************************************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. ***************************************************************************************************************** Think before you print
