Core CC:DA Public Space

Dear CC:DA colleagues,

I follow up with some draft positions and feedback on the proposals and discussion papers that were previously distributed. Please use my descriptions as a high-level annotation to pique your interest in specific papers. There are several that support the activities in specialized areas of cataloging – cartography, sound recordings, serials, zines, authority records. I actively seek your feedback on these papers, as they are largely outside my personal expertise (even though I have some sense of how they might play out for me as a generalist cataloger). I am equally open to feedback on the other papers where I have felt greater confidence in responding.

Proposals

2025-03

Add subfields $i and $4 to Fields 368, 376, and 381 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic formats

This proposal would add $i and $4 subfields to support the recording of relationship data for the fields in question. The authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in the Discussion Paper stage.

I intend to report that CC:DA supports this proposal.

2025-04

Defining Field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

This proposal would provide the ability to record copy-specific genre/form terminology at the Holding level. In response to concerns raised at the Discussion Paper stage, the authors acknowledge, much like the recording of copy-specific data at the bibliographic level, that the Holdings Format does not perfectly align with modeling. In the face of the lack of a MARC format specific to item records though, this offers an alternative to cataloging agencies, with benefits in ILSes/LMPs that support indexing and display options at the holding level.

I intend to report that CC:DA supports this proposal.

2025-05

Tagging transliteration schemes and BCP 47 (best current practice) in Data Provenance subfields in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats

This proposal would add two category codes in the MARC data provenance elements to enable the tagging of transliteration schemes at the field- and/or subfield-level. The authors have incorporated feedback provided at the Discussion Paper stage.

I intend to report that CC:DA supports this proposal.

Discussion Papers

2025-DP05 

Explore the addition of a coded for Remote Sensing Images to field/positions 008/25 and (Maps) 006/08 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

There is a complex interplay between the MARC 21 format 008 and 006 fields and analogous terminology/categories in RDA as articulated in the MARC 336/337/338 triple. Notably, MARC seems to fall short of addressing the necessary granularity for encoding RDA's cartographic dataset subgroup (which is not addressed in this discussion paper). Meanwhile, this discussion paper seems to provide more granularity at this level than RDA warrants – RDA has several cartographic image subgroups, without distinguishing between the nature of the images. The authors acknowledge this shortcoming in RDA. There is a code in these positions for "atlases" which is not part of the RDA articulation, but atlases can be distinguished via the media and carrier type values in a way that it does not seem that a rendered cartographic image (aka traditional map) can be distinguished from a direct image cartographic image.

I intend to convey these reservations based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of cartographic cataloging.

2025-DP06

Explore the addition of code values for Podcasts, Annual Reports, and Zines to field/position 008/21.

These codes would offer further granularity regarding the nature of a serial publication. The discussion paper builds off previous efforts under 2021-03, which provided an initial expansion beyond the bifurcation between [unspecified/blank] and journals, etc. "p". A concern I have is that the paper describes the possibility of zines being issued in monographic and serial formats. The paper does ask whether that would be problematic. I feel that it is problematic as the 008/21 position is format specific and a monograph would not have any coding for "Type of Continuing Resource". The 008/21 for books maps to the last Illustrations position. I might prefer that the 008/24-27 positions (Nature of contents) be explored for a similar recording of a value for zine. There remain very few unassigned code values there, but h, 3, 4, 7, 8 do remain and making a consistent choice could be feasible across the Books and Continuing Resources mappings.

I intend to convey this assessment based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the areas of continuing resources or zine cataloging.

2025-DP07

Explore the addition of a code value for 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays to (Videorecording) Field 007/04 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format

The addition of this code would support the necessary granularity to specify these Blu-ray discs from the original Blu-ray format. The granularity is necessary to support selection of the proper carrier, as the different discs require different equipment. This seems a straightforward addition, in keeping with existing codes.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper.

2025-DP08

Explore the addition of "Type of Cutting" to the definition of Field 344 Subfield $d (Groove characteristic) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

The current definition deals with Groove characteristics, which currently encompasses the groove width and the groove pitch. The discussion paper identifies a lack of a MARC element to record "type of cutting". It advocates that "type of cutting" is a third dynamic of Groove characteristic and hence, the scope and definition could be amenably enhanced to incorporate this third aspect. This seems reasonable.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of sound recording cataloging.

2025-DP09

Explore redefining Field 884 subfield $g of the MARC 21 formats to accommodate time as well as date.

The current definition is restricted to dates, which was sufficient at the time of the field's development. The paper advocates that there is now a need to fully time-stamp description conversion activities. This is possible through fully engaging the ISO 8601 format. This seems reasonable.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper.

2025-DP10

Explore addition Subfield $6 Linkage to Fields 060 and 070 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

Other call number fields include Subfield $6 to support pairing of instances of a field conveying vernacular and Romanized iterations of the same data. Field 060 and 070 are notable in lacking this capacity. The paper mentions that it is possible that this was only an oversight.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper.

2025-DP11

Explore defining new indicators for Unpublished Series and Collection Series in Field 830 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

The authors are faced with the challenge of migrating data from a situation-specific version of MARC to MARC 21. The context is a sound and moving image catalog(ue). The agency has deployed locally developed and assigned series access points to identify and intellectually collocate what are essentially archival resources. The use case and its solution are interesting. There are concerns I have identified.

First is that the definitions and distinctions between "unpublished series" and "collection series" is unclear – the examples all seem to refer to archival collections, notwithstanding the textual strings being articulated differently as "[Title] Archive" and "[Title] collection".

Second is that there are other contexts in which agencies might desire to develop internal "series" as a device for discovery and collocation, such as locally assigned "series" for local authors, for awards, or for non-publisher assigned groupings such as books consolidated under an influencer's recommendations – how might solution being explored be expanded to address these instances.

Third is that this paper restricts itself to the 830 field, yet it is not inconceivable that a "series" might involve an author-title formulation as in the 800, 810, 811 fields. In the paper, a provided example is the "Jim Hickson Collection" but presumably "Jim Hickson" would have what is anachronistically the main entry for the record of the collection as a whole. Even if the authors do not manage their bibliographic descriptions in this fashion, there are other agencies that could.

I intend to convey this feedback based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of archival cataloging.

2025-DP12

Explore the additions and revisions to Accessibility Fields 341 and 532 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

The discussion paper proposes additional indicators and subfields for these fields, to incorporate further knowledge and practices since the inception of the fields and wider adoption, including further granularity around assessments of accessibility content, metadata compliance standards, and the presence of sensory hazards. These seem reasonable and well-grounded expansions to the field.

I intend to convey this support based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of cataloging for accessibility content.

2025-DP13

Explore the articulation of defining an indicator and its associated value to signal a preferred heading within the representations for a given language/script in the 4XX fields in the MARC 21 Authority format.

I have played liberally with the formal title of this paper, in hopes of more clearly articulating its purpose. The solution explored seems reasonable. Beyond the concern with the title of the paper, there are similar concerns with respect to the definition and label for the indicator and value assignment.

I intend to convey this feedback based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of authority records.

2025-DP14

Explore the modernization of Field 041 and Field 008/35-37 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

There is a growing practice of identifying the language of content with greater granularity through the deployment of ISO 639-3 language codes in field 041. ISO 639-3 has 7900 codes in contrast with the 484 codes in the MARC Code List for Languages. The current specification for Field 008/35-37 mandates the use of the fill characters "|||" if the field 041 data is not a value from the MARC Code List for Languages. The authors feel that this is a disservice to users, given that the 008/35-37 value is typically what is displayed and the mechanism through which limits/facets can be applied. It would be preferable to provide there some approximation of the ISO 639-3 value in field 041 than the undifferentiated fill characters. The authors acknowledge the challenge of mapping such values. The authors do not propose removing "|||" from the existing options, although it is not clear to them why it is needed when there exist options to record "no information provided," "undetermined," and "no linguistic content." There are other incidental shortcomings they authors raise.

The authors offer two prospective solutions. Both propose the removal of the requirement to use "|||" in 008/35-37 when 041 is not expressed with a code from the MARC Code List for Languages. The first continues with further revisions to 008/35-37 in cases where there is a mix of MARC and non-MARC codes. The second continues with duplicated revisions to Field 041 and 008/35-37 in cases where there is a mix of MARC and non-MARC codes.

I intend to convey support for this paper. A critical piece of feedback is conveying a preference of Option 1 or Option 2. I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of specialized language cataloging. (Please examine the source paper for more explicit articulation of the options).

Dear CC:DA colleagues,

I follow up with some draft positions and feedback on the proposals and discussion papers that were previously distributed. Please use my descriptions as a high-level annotation to pique your interest in specific papers. There are several that support the activities in specialized areas of cataloging – cartography, sound recordings, serials, zines, authority records. I actively seek your feedback on these papers, as they are largely outside my personal expertise (even though I have some sense of how they might play out for me as a generalist cataloger). I am equally open to feedback on the other papers where I have felt greater confidence in responding.

Proposals

2025-03

Add subfields $i and $4 to Fields 368, 376, and 381 in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic formats

This proposal would add $i and $4 subfields to support the recording of relationship data for the fields in question. The authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in the Discussion Paper stage.

I intend to report that CC:DA supports this proposal.

2025-04

Defining Field 655 (Index Term-Genre/Form) in the MARC 21 Holdings Format

This proposal would provide the ability to record copy-specific genre/form terminology at the Holding level. In response to concerns raised at the Discussion Paper stage, the authors acknowledge, much like the recording of copy-specific data at the bibliographic level, that the Holdings Format does not perfectly align with modeling. In the face of the lack of a MARC format specific to item records though, this offers an alternative to cataloging agencies, with benefits in ILSes/LMPs that support indexing and display options at the holding level.

I intend to report that CC:DA supports this proposal.

2025-05

Tagging transliteration schemes and BCP 47 (best current practice) in Data Provenance subfields in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats

This proposal would add two category codes in the MARC data provenance elements to enable the tagging of transliteration schemes at the field- and/or subfield-level. The authors have incorporated feedback provided at the Discussion Paper stage.

I intend to report that CC:DA supports this proposal.

Discussion Papers

2025-DP05 

Explore the addition of a coded for Remote Sensing Images to field/positions 008/25 and (Maps) 006/08 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

There is a complex interplay between the MARC 21 format 008 and 006 fields and analogous terminology/categories in RDA as articulated in the MARC 336/337/338 triple. Notably, MARC seems to fall short of addressing the necessary granularity for encoding RDA's cartographic dataset subgroup (which is not addressed in this discussion paper). Meanwhile, this discussion paper seems to provide more granularity at this level than RDA warrants – RDA has several cartographic image subgroups, without distinguishing between the nature of the images. The authors acknowledge this shortcoming in RDA. There is a code in these positions for "atlases" which is not part of the RDA articulation, but atlases can be distinguished via the media and carrier type values in a way that it does not seem that a rendered cartographic image (aka traditional map) can be distinguished from a direct image cartographic image.

I intend to convey these reservations based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of cartographic cataloging.

2025-DP06

Explore the addition of code values for Podcasts, Annual Reports, and Zines to field/position 008/21.

These codes would offer further granularity regarding the nature of a serial publication. The discussion paper builds off previous efforts under 2021-03, which provided an initial expansion beyond the bifurcation between [unspecified/blank] and journals, etc. "p". A concern I have is that the paper describes the possibility of zines being issued in monographic and serial formats. The paper does ask whether that would be problematic. I feel that it is problematic as the 008/21 position is format specific and a monograph would not have any coding for "Type of Continuing Resource". The 008/21 for books maps to the last Illustrations position. I might prefer that the 008/24-27 positions (Nature of contents) be explored for a similar recording of a value for zine. There remain very few unassigned code values there, but h, 3, 4, 7, 8 do remain and making a consistent choice could be feasible across the Books and Continuing Resources mappings.

I intend to convey this assessment based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the areas of continuing resources or zine cataloging.

2025-DP07

Explore the addition of a code value for 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays to (Videorecording) Field 007/04 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format

The addition of this code would support the necessary granularity to specify these Blu-ray discs from the original Blu-ray format. The granularity is necessary to support selection of the proper carrier, as the different discs require different equipment. This seems a straightforward addition, in keeping with existing codes.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper.

2025-DP08

Explore the addition of "Type of Cutting" to the definition of Field 344 Subfield $d (Groove characteristic) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

The current definition deals with Groove characteristics, which currently encompasses the groove width and the groove pitch. The discussion paper identifies a lack of a MARC element to record "type of cutting". It advocates that "type of cutting" is a third dynamic of Groove characteristic and hence, the scope and definition could be amenably enhanced to incorporate this third aspect. This seems reasonable.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of sound recording cataloging.

2025-DP09

Explore redefining Field 884 subfield $g of the MARC 21 formats to accommodate time as well as date.

The current definition is restricted to dates, which was sufficient at the time of the field's development. The paper advocates that there is now a need to fully time-stamp description conversion activities. This is possible through fully engaging the ISO 8601 format. This seems reasonable.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper.

2025-DP10

Explore addition Subfield $6 Linkage to Fields 060 and 070 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

Other call number fields include Subfield $6 to support pairing of instances of a field conveying vernacular and Romanized iterations of the same data. Field 060 and 070 are notable in lacking this capacity. The paper mentions that it is possible that this was only an oversight.

I intend to convey support for the discussion paper.

2025-DP11

Explore defining new indicators for Unpublished Series and Collection Series in Field 830 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

The authors are faced with the challenge of migrating data from a situation-specific version of MARC to MARC 21. The context is a sound and moving image catalog(ue). The agency has deployed locally developed and assigned series access points to identify and intellectually collocate what are essentially archival resources. The use case and its solution are interesting. There are concerns I have identified.

First is that the definitions and distinctions between "unpublished series" and "collection series" is unclear – the examples all seem to refer to archival collections, notwithstanding the textual strings being articulated differently as "[Title] Archive" and "[Title] collection".

Second is that there are other contexts in which agencies might desire to develop internal "series" as a device for discovery and collocation, such as locally assigned "series" for local authors, for awards, or for non-publisher assigned groupings such as books consolidated under an influencer's recommendations – how might solution being explored be expanded to address these instances.

Third is that this paper restricts itself to the 830 field, yet it is not inconceivable that a "series" might involve an author-title formulation as in the 800, 810, 811 fields. In the paper, a provided example is the "Jim Hickson Collection" but presumably "Jim Hickson" would have what is anachronistically the main entry for the record of the collection as a whole. Even if the authors do not manage their bibliographic descriptions in this fashion, there are other agencies that could.

I intend to convey this feedback based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of archival cataloging.

2025-DP12

Explore the additions and revisions to Accessibility Fields 341 and 532 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

The discussion paper proposes additional indicators and subfields for these fields, to incorporate further knowledge and practices since the inception of the fields and wider adoption, including further granularity around assessments of accessibility content, metadata compliance standards, and the presence of sensory hazards. These seem reasonable and well-grounded expansions to the field.

I intend to convey this support based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of cataloging for accessibility content.

2025-DP13

Explore the articulation of defining an indicator and its associated value to signal a preferred heading within the representations for a given language/script in the 4XX fields in the MARC 21 Authority format.

I have played liberally with the formal title of this paper, in hopes of more clearly articulating its purpose. The solution explored seems reasonable. Beyond the concern with the title of the paper, there are similar concerns with respect to the definition and label for the indicator and value assignment.

I intend to convey this feedback based on my best understanding of the paper and general principles. But I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of authority records.

2025-DP14

Explore the modernization of Field 041 and Field 008/35-37 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format.

There is a growing practice of identifying the language of content with greater granularity through the deployment of ISO 639-3 language codes in field 041. ISO 639-3 has 7900 codes in contrast with the 484 codes in the MARC Code List for Languages. The current specification for Field 008/35-37 mandates the use of the fill characters "|||" if the field 041 data is not a value from the MARC Code List for Languages. The authors feel that this is a disservice to users, given that the 008/35-37 value is typically what is displayed and the mechanism through which limits/facets can be applied. It would be preferable to provide there some approximation of the ISO 639-3 value in field 041 than the undifferentiated fill characters. The authors acknowledge the challenge of mapping such values. The authors do not propose removing "|||" from the existing options, although it is not clear to them why it is needed when there exist options to record "no information provided," "undetermined," and "no linguistic content." There are other incidental shortcomings they authors raise.

The authors offer two prospective solutions. Both propose the removal of the requirement to use "|||" in 008/35-37 when 041 is not expressed with a code from the MARC Code List for Languages. The first continues with further revisions to 008/35-37 in cases where there is a mix of MARC and non-MARC codes. The second continues with duplicated revisions to Field 041 and 008/35-37 in cases where there is a mix of MARC and non-MARC codes.

I intend to convey support for this paper. A critical piece of feedback is conveying a preference of Option 1 or Option 2. I welcome input from CC:DA peers with greater expertise in the area of specialized language cataloging. (Please examine the source paper for more explicit articulation of the options).