Hello All, and apologies for the late submission of the responses to the MAC papers. I will submit these tomorrow, unless I hear a hue and cry (which I am open to).
Proposal 2025-DP01
CC:DA holds divergent views on this paper, perhaps reflective of a fundamental tension between allowing a means to specify the relationship between the content of the fields and the associated entity vs the desirability of the categories of particular entries as content in the fields. A member of CC:DA echoes the concerns raised by CCM and further states that authority records should not substitute for other reference works. Another member feels that MARC, as the container for data generally, should support the enhancement of the recorded data in these fields with the recording of a relationship (aka predicate in linked data terms).
Proposal 2025-02
CC:DA supports this paper.
Discussion Paper DP2025-01
CC:DA supports this paper.
Questions:
6.1. As with the original iteration, the use case is demonstrated (and thank you for taking up the challenge of significantly reworking the prospective solution from that original iteration).
6.2. The authors appear to have addressed and eliminated the other options on the grounds of a variety of functional and pragmatic reasons.
6.3. Leaving it to the judgment of the cataloger or Best Practices guidance of a given cataloging community seems to be the necessary course for MARC as a communication format (even if the inconsistencies across the provided examples are angst inducing).
6.4. Place $z at the end.
6.5. The potential consequences were raised in the previous iteration and are adequately addressed here.
Discussion Paper DP2025-02
CC:DA holds divergent views on this paper. There is a view in support of the paper moving to the proposal phase, in light of its compelling argument. There is a contrasting view that there are significant technical details and ramifications to be resolved amid existing coding options.
6.1. While sympathetic to the intention of the paper, there appear to be a complex set of dynamics in the 006/25, the 007/00, and the 007/01.
A) the 006/25 has a selection of codes for various contexts for maps, including map, map series, map serial – would parallel sets of 006/25 values beyond the proposed "r" for a single remote sensing image be warranted for series or serials of them?
B) there is a 007/00 value of "r" for "remote sensing image" and a series of coding positions.
C) there is a 007/00 value of "a" for map, which then has a 007/01 option for "r" remote sensing image.
The latter two perhaps point to an inconsistency in how the MARC format currently codes for remote sensing images. Dynamic "B" points to them as distinct content amid the cartographic resources family, strengthening the case for coding them at the 006 level. Dynamic "C" points to them as a subset of map, weakening the case for coding them at the 006 level. The tension between these dynamics begs the questions of what is the position of remote sensing images within the family of cartographic resources? Are remote sensing images a subset of maps or a category of cartographic resources that is distinct from maps (or globes or atlases)?
6.2. The term "remote sensing image" is regularly used within the formats and other standards. The term "aerial photograph" is too specific – there are images other than aerial and there are images other than photographs.
6.3. While MARC is not subordinate to RDA, RDA defines remote sensing image as "A unit of extent that is a pictorial product of any remote-sensing instrument that detects and measures reflected and/or emitted electromagnetic radiation from a distance and reflected underwater sound waves in the case of sonar." This points to a broader range of images than the authors considered (and argues strongly against the "aerial photograph" nomenclature above.) It should be noted that the 007/00 "r" appears to be inadequately developed with respect to sonar imagery.
6.4. As raised in 6.1, if a remote sensing image is considered to not be a map by the cartographic community, then it would seem that a distinct value for such is needed for 006/25; if a remote sensing image is considered to be a map, then a distinct value in 006/25 would be unnecessary. These are dynamics which the cartographic cataloging community should weigh in on.
Discussion Paper DP2025-03
CC:DA has a question/observation regarding this paper, namely whether copy specific information belongs any better in the Holding format than it does in the Bibliographic format. Hierarchically, it would still be recorded at the inappropriate level, notwithstanding the lack of an Item format where it nominally belongs in the entity stack.
6.1. CC:DA does not understand the question. As genre terms, what other Bibliographic format field would they go in other than field 655.
6.2. CC:DA is not quite convinced but is not adamantly opposed.
6.3. Are such items intended to reside on their own holding? If they otherwise share a location and call number with another item, there is at least one ILS that will reject what it sees as an invalid duplicate. What would be the best mechanism to connect a genre term definitively to a unique item, regardless of whether it shares the holding with a non-unique item or not? (Admittedly, this is a best practices issue.)
6.4. –
6.5. Will such Holdings format 655 fields index in an ILS and a Discovery Layer? How will they be retrieved and organized in a hit list of results? Will such Holdings format 655s display in a Discovery Layer?
6.6. Hierarchically, the addition of a 7XX block makes sense, but the indexing and display issues articulated in 6.5 still apply.
Discussion Paper DP2025-04
CC:DA supports the paper and, given the clarity of the parallel usage across both URI subfields, would support fast-tracking.
6.1. Yes
6.2. Yes
6.3. None.
--------