There's a fairly light load of proposals and discussion papers this
Midwinter, with three of each.

Proposal 2019-01 covers ways to designate open access and license
information for remote online resources. The proposal would add to the
definition of the first indicators of Field 506 (additions in  bold),
making the definitions for first indicator 0 "Field affirms an absence of
access restrictions, *e.g. open access*." and for first indicator 1 Field
defines access restrictions to some or all of the material described, *e.g.
restricted or closed access*." It is also proposed the add $g availability
date and $q supplying agency to the field. Subfield $f (Standardized
terminology for access restriction) and $2 (Source of code) are proposed to
be added to field 540. It is suggested that both of these fields be added
to the Holdings Format. Finally, the proposal would at a $7 to field 856
that would contain a numeric code to indicate restricted or open access to
a remote electronic resource.

Discussion Paper 2019-DP01 explores adding a code to indicate whether an
online resources is hosted internally or by a third party. The
possibilities of adding a code to one of the positions in field 008 of the
Holdings format is explored.

Proposal 2019-02 would add $2 Source of name or name-title heading to
fields 1XX, 240, 7XX and 8XX to provide a way to specify the source
vocabulary for the name or name-title heading.

Proposal 2019-03 would add to the 024 field in the Authority format $0 for
URIs that identify a "Record" or "Authority" entity describing a Thing and
$1 for URIs that directly identify a Thing itself. This comes from
Discussion Paper 2018-DP08

Discussion Paper 2019 seeks to define a field for a subject added entry of
unknown entity type. This comes from the German National Library that uses
records that use subject thesauri that don't break their terms down by
topical, persona name, conference name, etc. Options presented are adding
$0, $1, and $2 to field 653 (Index Term - Uncontrolled) (this might require
redefining the field) or defining a new field in the 6XX range.

You can see the agenda and view the full proposals and discussion papers at
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/mw2019_age.html

Susan Moore
MAGIRT representative to the MARC Advisory Committee