Core CC:DA Public Space

Proposal 2024-01 would alter the name and definition of Field 383 (Numeric Designation of a Musical Work) in the authority and bibliographic formats to encompass the ability to record the numeric designation of musical expressions. To that end, it proposes revision of the field name and definition, articulating values for the first indicator, and revising the definitions of existing subfields. It builds on the discussions taken up in 2023-DP07.

My comments: I recall pushback during discussion of the DP from the RSC about the place of such expression designations within Official RDA (basically, these numbers at the Work level are carryovers from prior standards and would not have been included in RDA if it had been developed fully independently; these "new" numbers will not be shoehorned into a system that is already out of sync with the underlying modeling). I think the use case has been sufficiently articulated by peers in MLA who are much better informed on these matters than I am. As the case for many pragmatic proposals of the past, the agnostic nature of MARC with respect to content standards governs here. How MLA will reconcile these practices with RDA will be up to them. I will support the proposal.

Proposal 2024-02 would enhance the ability to record Accessibility Content in field 341, largely to allow it to record values for any mode of access not just "alternative modes" and expand its ability to record values outside the previously articulated list. To that end, it proposes revision to various field and subfield definitions in field 341, as well as the inclusion of subfields $0 and $1. It builds on the discussion taken up in 2023-DP05 and the resulting preference among the offered options.

The proposal aligns with discussions from the Discussion Paper stage. It addresses issues that could be viewed as shortcomings in the original articulation and definition of Field 341. I intend to support the proposal.

Proposal 2024-03 would enhance the ability to record linked data elements for Dewey Decimal Classification numbers recorded in fields 082 and 083. To that end, it proposes adding $1 to those fields. It builds on discussion taken up in 2023-DP0, including constraining this proposal to $1 and not $1/$0 together.

The proposal aligns with discussions from the Discussion Paper stage. As a matter of classification, it is outside the strict bounds of descriptive cataloging. It does seem entirely in keeping with the overall approach in MARC with respect to linked data – a larger dynamic with which CC:DA engages. In light of this and that it is typical of all members of MAC to vote on any given paper, I intend to support the proposal.

Proposal 2024-03 would enhance the ability to record the local applicability of select Linking Entry fields – 773, 774, and 787 in the MARC Bibliographic format. To that end, it proposes adding subfield 5 ($5) to those fields. It builds on discussion taken up in 2023-DP01, including constraining this proposal to those three fields.

The proposal aligns with discussion from the Discussion Paper stage. I find the use case particularly compelling, especially in light of the use of the 773 or 774 architecture in my employer's LMS for host-constituent relationships for bound-with volumes. The presence of the $5 will both contextualize the presence of the 773/774/787 field in a record within a consortial database, and can also be used as a marker to prevent the local edit from being overwritten (subject to importation configuration to protect fields so flagged). I intend to support the proposal.

My comments for the discussion papers largely follow and are in response to the questions presented in the respective papers.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP01 explores mechanisms to record the local applicability of Linking Entry Complexity notes. To that end, it suggests adding subfield 5 ($5) to Field 580 of the Bibliographic format. This paper closely aligns with the papers 2023-DP01 and 2024-03, which addressed a similar concern for the Linking Entry fields.

I agree with the use case presented; the examples draw directly from those of the corresponding Linking Entry fields in Proposal 2024-03; I don't foresee any potential [negative] consequences; and I advocate for this proposal to be fast-tracked.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP02 explores mechanisms to address historical language included in transcribed elements, particularly title statements. To that end, it suggests the addition of a subfield I ($i) to field 245 to record a statement about the source of the origin of the title/source of transcribed title, as an optional addition.

In my assessment, this is by far the paper warranting the most discussion. Conceptually, I agree with its intention. Operationally, I have several questions, none of which need impede the paper progressing to a proposal but which I feel need to be considered:

·       Does this proposed use of $i fall out of the normal deployment for $i elsewhere in the formats?

·       Are there other places where such a $i should be incorporated for transcribed elements?

·       The argument is made that the existing Field 588 for Source of Title note is insufficient. But could/should this proposed use of $i be expanded for the generalized purpose of Source of Title (much as is asked in the paper's 6.4)?

·       Observation – the general idea of embedding the Source of Title metadata adjacent to the Title statement elements within the confines of the MARC 245 field has considerable appeal from a modeling perspective, above and beyond the use case articulated, and notwithstanding the existence of field 588 for that very purpose.

·       Corollary observation – I am particularly intrigued, subsequent to the loss in RDA of brackets to indicate supplied titles, at the prospective value of this proposed subfield to record "Cataloger supplied title" directly in field 245. (Although one fervently hopes that a cataloger supplied title would avoid harmful language in the first place.)

I recognize the significance and value of contextualizing statements in service to reparative cataloging; I feel, in keeping with the questions above, that there are wider concerns to address beyond the immediate use case; I'm not convinced that MAC has any place advising the developers of content standards on how best to deploy this prospective subfield or the language used in it; the question of the suitability for wider use aligns with my own concerns and would certainly provide a more broad use case for instituting the subfield; I think my preliminary questions address prospective additional issues to consider.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP03 explores the means of enhancing the use of relationship designator elements in particular subject entry fields – Fields 647 and 648. To that end, it suggests adding subfield e ($e) and subfield 4 ($4) to those fields for the purpose of recording relationships such as "setting" or "depicted."

As matters of subject cataloging, this paper addresses an issue outside the descriptive cataloging purview of CC:DA. But as relationship designators are part of RDA, and given the tradition of participation of all MAC members in discussions, I will provide responses.

I think that the use case for the two articulated use cases is sufficiently established, is not inherently denotable through existing structures, and is already present in other Subject Added Entry fields where parallel use could be deployed; there may be further use cases but none that come readily to mind or which the absence thereof should argue against the paper; I agree that the 653, 655, 656, 657, and 658 fields would warrant another layer of discussion that would detract from the focus of this paper; none of the other Subject Added Entry fields presently have $i, consequently $i in this context is a "field to be tilled" at another time; I think the paper adequately addresses any reasonable concerns.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP04 explores supporting linked data elements in fields addressing access, use, and reproduction of resources. To that end, it proposes the addition of subfield 0 ($0) and subfield 1 ($1) to Fields 506 and 540 of the Bibliographic format.

I did not immediately discern the value of adding these subfields to fields that largely involve free-text content. But $f of these fields does support the recording of controlled vocabulary and as such should be supported by corresponding subfields in support of linked data architecture.

I agree with the use case for $0 and $1 in fields 506 and 540; the existing $u in 506/540 or $l and $r in 856 have sufficiently distinct purposes that $0 and $1 are justified for the intended use; I don't see any [negative] consequences.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP05 explores mechanisms to update the recording of Classification Numbers Assigned in Canada to better reflect the current dynamics between Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and other libraries in Canada. To that end, it proposes revision of the definition and scope of field 055 and revision of some of the 2^nd indicator values for the field.

I feel that LAC and its Canadian library peers are best positioned to assess the needs and solutions for a field specifically developed for their use. I respond affirmatively and positively to the discussion questions they present.

Proposal 2024-01 would alter the name and definition of Field 383 (Numeric Designation of a Musical Work) in the authority and bibliographic formats to encompass the ability to record the numeric designation of musical expressions. To that end, it proposes revision of the field name and definition, articulating values for the first indicator, and revising the definitions of existing subfields. It builds on the discussions taken up in 2023-DP07.

My comments: I recall pushback during discussion of the DP from the RSC about the place of such expression designations within Official RDA (basically, these numbers at the Work level are carryovers from prior standards and would not have been included in RDA if it had been developed fully independently; these "new" numbers will not be shoehorned into a system that is already out of sync with the underlying modeling). I think the use case has been sufficiently articulated by peers in MLA who are much better informed on these matters than I am. As the case for many pragmatic proposals of the past, the agnostic nature of MARC with respect to content standards governs here. How MLA will reconcile these practices with RDA will be up to them. I will support the proposal.

Proposal 2024-02 would enhance the ability to record Accessibility Content in field 341, largely to allow it to record values for any mode of access not just "alternative modes" and expand its ability to record values outside the previously articulated list. To that end, it proposes revision to various field and subfield definitions in field 341, as well as the inclusion of subfields $0 and $1. It builds on the discussion taken up in 2023-DP05 and the resulting preference among the offered options.

The proposal aligns with discussions from the Discussion Paper stage. It addresses issues that could be viewed as shortcomings in the original articulation and definition of Field 341. I intend to support the proposal.

Proposal 2024-03 would enhance the ability to record linked data elements for Dewey Decimal Classification numbers recorded in fields 082 and 083. To that end, it proposes adding $1 to those fields. It builds on discussion taken up in 2023-DP0, including constraining this proposal to $1 and not $1/$0 together.

The proposal aligns with discussions from the Discussion Paper stage. As a matter of classification, it is outside the strict bounds of descriptive cataloging. It does seem entirely in keeping with the overall approach in MARC with respect to linked data – a larger dynamic with which CC:DA engages. In light of this and that it is typical of all members of MAC to vote on any given paper, I intend to support the proposal.

Proposal 2024-03 would enhance the ability to record the local applicability of select Linking Entry fields – 773, 774, and 787 in the MARC Bibliographic format. To that end, it proposes adding subfield 5 ($5) to those fields. It builds on discussion taken up in 2023-DP01, including constraining this proposal to those three fields.

The proposal aligns with discussion from the Discussion Paper stage. I find the use case particularly compelling, especially in light of the use of the 773 or 774 architecture in my employer's LMS for host-constituent relationships for bound-with volumes. The presence of the $5 will both contextualize the presence of the 773/774/787 field in a record within a consortial database, and can also be used as a marker to prevent the local edit from being overwritten (subject to importation configuration to protect fields so flagged). I intend to support the proposal.

My comments for the discussion papers largely follow and are in response to the questions presented in the respective papers.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP01 explores mechanisms to record the local applicability of Linking Entry Complexity notes. To that end, it suggests adding subfield 5 ($5) to Field 580 of the Bibliographic format. This paper closely aligns with the papers 2023-DP01 and 2024-03, which addressed a similar concern for the Linking Entry fields.

I agree with the use case presented; the examples draw directly from those of the corresponding Linking Entry fields in Proposal 2024-03; I don't foresee any potential [negative] consequences; and I advocate for this proposal to be fast-tracked.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP02 explores mechanisms to address historical language included in transcribed elements, particularly title statements. To that end, it suggests the addition of a subfield I ($i) to field 245 to record a statement about the source of the origin of the title/source of transcribed title, as an optional addition.

In my assessment, this is by far the paper warranting the most discussion. Conceptually, I agree with its intention. Operationally, I have several questions, none of which need impede the paper progressing to a proposal but which I feel need to be considered:

·       Does this proposed use of $i fall out of the normal deployment for $i elsewhere in the formats?

·       Are there other places where such a $i should be incorporated for transcribed elements?

·       The argument is made that the existing Field 588 for Source of Title note is insufficient. But could/should this proposed use of $i be expanded for the generalized purpose of Source of Title (much as is asked in the paper's 6.4)?

·       Observation – the general idea of embedding the Source of Title metadata adjacent to the Title statement elements within the confines of the MARC 245 field has considerable appeal from a modeling perspective, above and beyond the use case articulated, and notwithstanding the existence of field 588 for that very purpose.

·       Corollary observation – I am particularly intrigued, subsequent to the loss in RDA of brackets to indicate supplied titles, at the prospective value of this proposed subfield to record "Cataloger supplied title" directly in field 245. (Although one fervently hopes that a cataloger supplied title would avoid harmful language in the first place.)

I recognize the significance and value of contextualizing statements in service to reparative cataloging; I feel, in keeping with the questions above, that there are wider concerns to address beyond the immediate use case; I'm not convinced that MAC has any place advising the developers of content standards on how best to deploy this prospective subfield or the language used in it; the question of the suitability for wider use aligns with my own concerns and would certainly provide a more broad use case for instituting the subfield; I think my preliminary questions address prospective additional issues to consider.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP03 explores the means of enhancing the use of relationship designator elements in particular subject entry fields – Fields 647 and 648. To that end, it suggests adding subfield e ($e) and subfield 4 ($4) to those fields for the purpose of recording relationships such as "setting" or "depicted."

As matters of subject cataloging, this paper addresses an issue outside the descriptive cataloging purview of CC:DA. But as relationship designators are part of RDA, and given the tradition of participation of all MAC members in discussions, I will provide responses.

I think that the use case for the two articulated use cases is sufficiently established, is not inherently denotable through existing structures, and is already present in other Subject Added Entry fields where parallel use could be deployed; there may be further use cases but none that come readily to mind or which the absence thereof should argue against the paper; I agree that the 653, 655, 656, 657, and 658 fields would warrant another layer of discussion that would detract from the focus of this paper; none of the other Subject Added Entry fields presently have $i, consequently $i in this context is a "field to be tilled" at another time; I think the paper adequately addresses any reasonable concerns.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP04 explores supporting linked data elements in fields addressing access, use, and reproduction of resources. To that end, it proposes the addition of subfield 0 ($0) and subfield 1 ($1) to Fields 506 and 540 of the Bibliographic format.

I did not immediately discern the value of adding these subfields to fields that largely involve free-text content. But $f of these fields does support the recording of controlled vocabulary and as such should be supported by corresponding subfields in support of linked data architecture.

I agree with the use case for $0 and $1 in fields 506 and 540; the existing $u in 506/540 or $l and $r in 856 have sufficiently distinct purposes that $0 and $1 are justified for the intended use; I don't see any [negative] consequences.

Discussion Paper 2024-DP05 explores mechanisms to update the recording of Classification Numbers Assigned in Canada to better reflect the current dynamics between Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and other libraries in Canada. To that end, it proposes revision of the definition and scope of field 055 and revision of some of the 2^nd indicator values for the field.

I feel that LAC and its Canadian library peers are best positioned to assess the needs and solutions for a field specifically developed for their use. I respond affirmatively and positively to the discussion questions they present.