Hello,

As we prepare for the Midwinter meeting in Philadelphia, I wanted to give
you a summary of the items coming before the MARC Advisory Committee that
might be of interest to the cartographic community.

Discussion paper 2020-DP01 considers options for modernizing the existing
field 856 and/or the definition of a new field 857; a new subfield $e to
account for access, use, and reproduction information; and the possibility
of reassigning the existing subfield $7 for access status. Field 856 was
originally proposed in 1993 and there have been numerous changes in the
ways people access content electronically. While there have been some
changes made to the field, there is a need seen by some to make more
overall changes. The discussion paper presents three options: 1. make
currently "unused" subfields in field 856 obsolete to make room for full
access and use information; 2. Define a new field 857(?) that parallels
field 856 but is to be used only for Open Access URIs. This field would
carry over only the subfields from the 856 field while adding subfields for
access and use; or 3. Define a new field 857(?) keeping only the subfields
need today and adding new ones needed for access and use and make field 856
obsolete.

Proposal 2020-01 seeks to add an indicator value to field 883 -
Machine-generated Metadata Provenance to indicate that the metadata has
been created by a human cataloger. This will also require changing the name
of the indicator and the field.

There is a proposal to add $0 to fields 310 and 321 in the bibliographic
format and a discussion paper to add $0 to 504 and 525 that come from LC's
work on BIBFRAME. Since we don't use these much in cartographic cataloging,
I'll just mention them here.

Discussion paper 2020-DP03 explores added new repeatable subfields to
record illustrative content and sound content of resources. This field
could be used in conjunction with field 300 $b.

Discussion paper 2020-DP05 suggests reinstating field 241 (Transliterated
Title) and updating the indicators, subfields, and revising the field
definition and scope.The Library of Congress is planning to use vernacular
for descriptions again, especially for transcription. Therefore, the title
in the 245 will be in vernacular script. The suggestion is to reinstate
field 241 - Transliterated title.

Discussion Paper 2020-DP06 describes defining a new field to accommodate
RDA "manifestation statements" in the MARC 21 bibliographic format. This
would allow manifestation statements to be recorded in the Work record.

Discussion Paper 2020-DP07 discusses the potential ways to encode the new
RDA element "extension plan" in the MARC Bibliographic and Authority
formats. Currently, there are places in the MARC bibliographic format that
allows someone to infer some of the extension plan for some resources.
However, there are some extension plans that aren't adequately covered in
the MARC bibliographic and authority formats. The suggestion is to create a
new field to cover all the extension plans. If you want to see the list,
the paper is at https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2020/2020-dp07.html

Please send any questions or comments to me.

Susan Moore
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA  50614
[log in to unmask]