----------------------------Original message----------------------------
TO: Readers of ARLIS-L
FROM: Elizabeth O'Keefe, ARLIS/NA Representative to MARBI
SUBJECT: Request for comments on MARBI proposals
I will be attending the MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic
Information Committee) meetings at the ALA conference in San
Francisco as the representative of ARLIS/NA. MARBI is charged
with reviewing and evaluating standards for the representation of
bibliographic information in machine-readable form; proposals for
changes to the MARC format go through review by this committee
as part of the process of approval. It is important for the
art library committee to have a place at the table during these
deliberations, and I would welcome any feedback from readers of
ARLIS-L about the issues to be discussed at the meetings.
The agenda and the proposals and discussion papers are available
through the LC Home Page (http://lcweb.loc.gov). Papers which
mmight be of particular interest to ARLIS members are:
Proposal 97-10 Use of the universal code character set in
USMARC records
This will certainly be of interest to art librarians, since our
collections contain a fairly high proportion of non-English
material. There is currently no completely satisfactory way
to display diacritics in library systems; each has its own
strange little method of displaying diacritics. The proposal
discusses various mapping issues, including how old records
would translate into the new character code.
Discussion Paper No. 102 Treatment of non-filing characters
Of interest to all who hate having to drop the initial articles
when recording variant titles, because field 246 makes no provision
for non-filing characters. Several different solutions are
suggested for dealing with the problem of non-filing characters:
using indicators; using graphic characters as delimiters; using
special control characters; system recognition of articles;
subfield for non-filing characters; omission of articles. How
much impact would a change have on existing systems and records?
Proposal 97-3R Redefinition of code "m" (computer file) in
Leader/06 in the USMARC Bibliographic Format
Of interest to institutions which are digitizing their collections,
or which regularly acquire material in both hard copy and
electronic formats. Currently all electronic material is coded
in the Leader/06 as a computer file. It has become questionable
whether this is useful for retrieval and manipulation of
bibliographic records, since it separates the record for the
original from the digitized version. It also makes it difficult
to include information about the
electronic version on a record for the original (and many
institutions would prefer to make one record do duty for both).
The proposal suggests that material be coded in the Leader/06
by its most significant aspect (content versus carrier), so that
executable computer software would be coded as a computer file,
while a computer graphic would as coded as graphic material,
an electronic text would be coded as language material, etc.
The electronic aspect of the material would be brought out in
a separate field, in much the same way as for
microfilms (the 007 field is used to describe the various
material characteristics of microfilms; it could also be
used for computer files.)
Discussion Paper 101 Notes in the USMARC Holdings Format
A proposal to include note fields in the Holdings Format which
are currently available only in the Bibliographic Format.
Certain fields that might be copy-specific, such as the 561
(Ownership and Custodial History), and the 541 (Immediate
Source of Acquisition) exist only in the Bibliographic
format; this leads to awkwardly phrased notes ("Library
copy 1 was the gift of [famous art historian], Library copy
2 is presentation copy from the author"--which is which?).
If these notes were valid in the Holdings Format, it would
it make clearer which copy is being described.
Proposal 97-11 Definition of Subfields in 043 (Geographic
Area Code) and 044 (Country of Publishing/Producing Entity
Code) to accommodate indication of subentities
Geographic codes are defined at the state level for the
United States, but only at the country level for most of the rest
of theworld. Now other countries want more specific coding,
so that their states/provinces/counties can be particularized.
This proposal discusses how to implement.
Please address comments to me, either on the list or off, if
you'd rather. Sorry--that should have read, please
address comments to me, or post them on the list, if you would
like.
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Pierpont Morgan Library
[log in to unmask]
P.S. I leave for San Francisco on June 26.
