Core CC:DA Public Space

Portraits of three Core members with caption Become a Member: Find Your Home: Core.


  • 1.  Prospective paper for the MARC Advisory Committee

    Posted Sep 12, 2022 07:00 AM
    Dear Colleagues,

    I recently came across a situation where I desired to record some family biographical information associated with a specific copy of a title in our collection. It seemed appropriate to record this in MARC 21 field 545 "Biographical or Historical Data." When using this field it seemed wise to also deploy a $5 subfield "Institution to which field applies," given emerging dynamics of systems that are directly derived from OCLC WorldCat records, are continuously synced with OCLC WorldCat records, or are resident in consortial systems subject to overlay by consortial member peers. At present, none of these apply to my institution but I thought using $5 might help in some way to "future proof" the edit. In attempting to do so however, my ILS indicated $5 was not valid for field 545. I have confirmed this in the MARC 21 documentation. I recognize that field 545 likely arose to serve the needs of the archival community. And since the collections and associated records managed by archival institutions are typically unique, then there usually is not a need to specify the institution to which a field 545 applies -- it is the very institution that created the record and holds the resource. But for the use case that prompted me to use it in a bibliographic (rather than archival) context and the dynamics articulated above, does it make sense to pursue efforts to add $5 as a valid subfield to field 545? I recognize that $3 could serve a similar purpose, but I do not think the means to configure local holding data or match & merge arrangements would be as sympathetic to the use of $3 as they might be to $5. 

    So, is this something worth pursuing on behalf of the descriptive cataloging community? This would be the first time in my memory that CC:DA would originate a MARC paper, although there have been papers from communities represented in CC:DA's membership. Are there particular stakeholders within CC:DA that would be interested in weighing in on developing such a paper? (EIther yea or nay, or in the drafting or feedback process.) 

    In particular, I thought RBMS might find this of interest. My institution can't be the only one with rare books having family associations that might warrant being recorded in the bibliographic record. If peers here have alternative solutions, I would also welcome those for my personal toolkit (and evidence that my prospective proposal is unnecessary).


    John Myers, Catalog & Metadata Librarian
    CC:DA Liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee
    Schaffer Library, Union College
    Schenectady NY 12308

    pronouns: he/him/his

  • 2.  RE: Prospective paper for the MARC Advisory Committee

    Posted Sep 15, 2022 09:51 AM
    I would support this. I think having subfields as normalized as possible is a good idea, and it will eventually help with linked data to have subfields as much the same as possible, which is why I don't like the $3 idea. It would make that subfield an outlier of sorts compared to its usage in other places.  I don't see why CC:DA couldn't suggest this to MAC--what say you Chair of MAC?

    Chair of CC:DA (lol)

    Amanda Sprochi
    Cataloger/Data Wrangler
    60 Ellis Library
    University of Missouri
    520 S 9th St.
    Columbia, MO 65211

    The University of Missouri occupies the traditional land of the Osage, Kiikaapoi, Peoria, and Očhéthi Šakówiŋ peoples.

  • 3.  RE: Prospective paper for the MARC Advisory Committee

    Posted Sep 16, 2022 10:10 PM
    Cate Gerhart is the chair of MAC.  I am the SAC liaison.  

    But I agree that any constituency can create a discussion paper for MAC to consider.  The deadline for LC to receive one for consideration at ALA Midwinter is early November.  


    Adam L. Schiff
    Principal Cataloger
    University of Washington Libraries
    Box 352900
    Seattle, WA 98195-2900
    aschiff @

  • 4.  RE: Prospective paper for the MARC Advisory Committee

    Posted Sep 19, 2022 05:54 PM
    Oops, sorry, my bad. Aks