Greetings,
The MARC Advisory Committee will be meeting virtually the week after the
ALA annual conference. We are encouraged to get comments posted to the MAC
list by June 21st so if you have any comments on the following, please let
me know before that date.
*Proposal no. 2022-07 Modernization of Field 856 Second Indicator and
Subfield $3 in the MARC 21 Formats* proposes changing the definition of the
second indicator from "Relationship between the electronic resource at the
location identified in field 856 and the item described in the record as a
whole. Subfield $3 is used to provide further information about the
relationship if it is not a one-to-one relationship" to "Relationship
between the online electronic resource at the location identified in field
856 and the resource described in the record as a whole. Subfield $3 is
used to provide further information about the relationship, when
appropriate."
It is also proposed to change the definition of the second indicators
themselves. Second indicator "Blank" would be defined as "No information is
provided about the relationship of the online electronic resource
identified in field 856 to the bibliographic resources described by the
record as a whole." The use of the second indicator value "0" would be
limited to indicate only that the online electronic location in field 856
is for the resource described by the record as a whole.
A new second indicator value "3" would be labeled Location of Component
Part(s) of Resource Described and defined as "Online electronic location in
field 856 is for one or more component parts of the complete online
electronic resource described by the record as a whole. The component parts
are portions of the online electronic resource, such as a table of contents
or a sample chapter. Consider each of multiple fields 856 that add up to a
complete representation of the online electronic resource to be a component
part, coded Second Indicator value "3". When appropriate, use subfield $3
to specify the component part(s) to which the field applies. Use Second
Indicator value "2" for supplementary, additional, or otherwise related
online electronic resources. When there is uncertainty whether a resource
may be a literal component part of the whole or a related resource, use
Second Indicator value "2"." Second Indicator value "2" would have its
definition changed to restrict its use to online electronic resources for
those resources that have a clear, specific, and direct bibliographic
relationship to the bibliographic resource described by the record as a
whole. (So no more linking to Wikipedia articles about the author!)
Second Indicator value "1" would be limited to indicate only that the
electronic location in field 856 is for an online electronic version of the
resource described by the record as a whole, with a corresponding change in
its definition. A new Second Indicator value "4" would be defined as
"Online electronic location in field 856 is for one or more component parts
of the online electronic version of the resource described by the record as
a whole. In this case, the bibliographic record itself does not represent
an online electronic resource but online electronic versions of one or more
component parts are available, such as a table of contents or a sample
chapter, Consider each of multiple fields 856 that add up to a complete
representation of the online electronic version of the resource to be a
component part, coded Second Indicator value "4". When appropriate, use
subfield $3 to specify the component part(s) to which the field applies.
... " The definition of Subfield $3 would be changed to accommodate these
changes.
*Proposal no. 2022-08: Recording Persistent Identifiers and File Formats in
Field 856* would reactivate two subfields in field 856: subfield $g defined
as Persistent identifier (PID) and subfield $h defined as Non-functioning
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). Additionally, subfield $q would be
redefined to require codes from the registered Internet Media Types (MIME
types) and subfield $u be repeatable and "URLs which no longer function to
provide access to the described resource may be transferred to 856 $h."
would be added to the definition.
*Discussion Paper 2022-DP06: Defining a New Field to Record Electronic
Archive Location and Access* discusses adding Field 857 Electronic Archive
Location and Access which would allow information about an archived copy of
a resource to have a dedicated field in MARC records.
*Discussion Paper 2022-DP07: Adding Subfield $3 to Field 041* concerns the
need to have some way of indicating in Field 041 what part of the resource
the language code refers to. This comes from the Music Library Association
and the Online Audiovisual Catalogers. We could use this when a map has the
text on the map in one language but has a legend with multiple languages.
*Discussion Paper 2022-DP09: Defining a Field for Standardized Provenance
Information* discusses the need for a place for provenance information to
be recorded in the bibliographic, holdings, and authority formats. Four
options are given, ranging from making no change to defining a new field
for "Provenance Information" in the 3XX range.
*Discussion Paper 2022-DP11: Defining a New Subfield in Field 490 to Record
an Unparsed Statement* concerns adding a new subfield to Field 490 to allow
for the recording of a series without requiring the determination of any
other subfields.
The full agenda and access to the proposals and papers can be found here
<https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2022_age.html>.
Again, please get any comments to me before June 21st.
Regards,
Susan
--
Susan Moore
*Catalog Librarian/Cataloging and Metadata Unit Coordinator*
Rod Library
319-273-3787
Room 324, Rod Library / Cedar Falls, IA 50614
[image: UNI / University of Northern Iowa]
|
