----------------------------Original message---------------------------- ------------------ TO: Readers of ARLIS-L FROM: Liz O'Keefe, ARLIS/NA representative to USMARC Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Request for feedback on proposals to be discussed at ALA Mid-winter I will be attending the MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee) meetings at the ALA Mid-Winter conference in New Orleans on Jan. 9-Jan. 12. MARBI reviews and evaluates standards for the representation of bibliographic information in machine-readable form=3B proposals for changes = to the MARC format go through review by this committee as part of the approval = process. Below is a list of proposals to be discussed at Mid-Winter=3B I have = summarized all the proposals, but given pride of place to the ones that seem most = likely to be of interest to the art library community. Full texts of all the = proposals are available at: http://www.loc.gov/marc or via gopher, at: marvel.loc.gov Please pass on to me any thoughts you have regarding the proposals. Note that my email address is: eokeefe=40morganlibrary.org MARBI PROPOSALS: Proposals of most interest to ARLIS-L readers: 1. Defining copy-specific fields for the holdings format Many of us may own multiple copies of a work. One copy may be run of the = mill, another may have a distinguished or interesting source or former ownership history, or it may be annotated, or printed on vellum, or have extra-illustrations. At present, this information has to appear in clumsily worded notes: =22Library has two copies=3B copy 1 is a presentation copy, = copy 2 is annotated by the distinguished art historian X, copy 3 is printed on = vellum.=22 (And which is which?) Proposal 98-2 suggests that copy-specific notes on provenance, source, and characteristics unique to a copy (e.g. annotations) be defined for the = holdings format. This topic was raised at the last meeting in the form of a = discussion paper=3B it has now reached the status of a definite proposal. The fields = will be defined for the holdings format, while remaining valid for the bibliographic format (holdings records are not universally available yet, and searching of= the holdings fields is usually very limited.) The proposal addresses fields 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition), 561 (Ownership and Custodial History, and 562 (Copy and Version Identification Note). Questions: a. Any thoughts about this? A couple of ARLISites voiced support for this prior to the last conference, and Sherman Clarke and I piped up at the MARBI meetings in support of the idea. b. The proposal does not mention MARC field 585, a copy-specific field = which refers to exhibition history. Should this field be treated the same as = those mentioned above? Are any of you art librarian/curators (plug for the = conference session) using this field for books or other library material which you = have featured in exhibitions? Would you like the option of also defining this = field for the holdings format? 2. Dates There are two papers that deal with dates: Discussion Paper 106, submitted by the Rare Book and Manuscripts Section of = ALA, suggests that a new type of date code be added to the bibliographic format = to provide access to incorrect publication dates appearing on items. This is = of particular interest to rare book cataloguers, since incorrect imprint dates = are a regular feature in the era of hand composition of movable type. They = would like to allow retrieval by both the correct and the incorrect publication = date, probably by putting both in the 008, and using a new date code type, x, = which would indicates that the second of the two dates is incorrect. Proposal 98-4 proposes that information relating to the date of an event or program be entered in the 046 field of the Community Information format, = instead of the 004 field. The change is intended to bring this format into closer harmony with the other MARC formats, one of which (Holdings) uses this field= for the control number of a related bibliographic field. The 046 field is = currently defined in the Bibliographic format as being used for B.C. dates=3B other = values could be defined to include A.D. dates related to events. Two questions: a. How do the rare book cataloguers in ARLIS feel about the first proposal? b. Are there any other dates that present special difficulties in = art-related cataloging? At the Morgan, we are wrestling with the issue of how to = provide access to Year/Month/Day dates (very important for autograph letters) and = also how to provide access to B.C. dates (for our cylinder seals). Date = searching in systems is usually tied to the 008 field, which contains only year dates, = and A.D. dates, at that. Are there any other date issues that could be raised = in this context? 3. Those who wrestle with the issue of cataloguing electronic resources = will be interested in Proposal 98-6. This paper proposes that a code be added to = the 008 field to indicate that the carrier of the item is electronic. Just as = one can now use the 007 to indicate that the map, score, serial, etc. is a microform, one could use the 008 to indicate that the map, score, serial, = etc. is in electronic form. OCLC favors using the 008 for this information = because the 007 is not mandatory, and because multiple 007's are allowable, making = it hard to determine whether the 007 refers to the carrier of primary material = or accompanying material). Different values would be assigned to different formats, depending on which fields were already in use. The proposal = contains several examples to illustrate=FF20codings. Any thoughts, pro and con? I have no experience with electronic = resource cataloguing, so enlighten my darkness. 4. Defining Field 856 (link to electronic resource) for the authorities = format Discussion Paper 107 proposes defining the 856 field for authority records, allowing systems to link an authority record to a web site or other = electronic resource. This would be a useful augmentation of the authority record, providing historical and biographical information that is too costly for = most institutions to develop and input into the 678 field currently. (The data = may also be a bit too =22soft=22 to include in an authority record, but would be= helpful to a researcher.) Of course, URL's do become obsolete, and the NACO program= has discouraged including them in authority records, although contributors may = cite information from Web pages. If URL's were cited, one would have to keep them= up to date in much the same way as the URL's linked to bib. records. Question: a. How many libraries maintain in-house electronic files (artist, printer, whatever) which you would like to share with others, in whole or in part? b. How many systems allow the public to view the authority file? c. What about linking to the subject authority file (so that you could = link, e.g. the name for a particular script to images of the script, illustrating = what is meant by the term)? Other topics under consideration include: Defining a field 007 to indicate physical characteristics for tactile = material, such as Braille (DISCUSSION PAPER 104). This would make it possible to = search for and retrieve different types of Braille (literary, mathematics, music, computer, etc.) as well as other types of tactile material Making additions to Field 080, which is used for the Universal Decimal Classification (PROPOSAL 98-5) Modifying the definition of field 028 (Publisher Number for music) so that = it can used not just for sound recordings, videorecordings, and printed music, = but for other music related material (PROPOSAL 98-03) Redefining Field 210 (Abbreviated Key Title) so that it can be used not just= for abbreviations created by ISSN centers but also for abbreviations created by abstracting and indexing services (PROPOSAL 98-1) Defining a new field, the 526, to provide access to or from specific = published titles intended to be read by students as part of a Reading Program module ( interactive multimedia educational product) (DISCUSSION PAPER 105). =1A