ALA Midwinter, Denver, CO February 9-12, 2018

One proposal and six discussion papers were presented at the MAC sessions at the Midwinter conference in Denver. The official agenda for the sessions, which include links to the proposals and discussion papers are available at: and the minutes will be posted here when they are made available:

During the Business meeting/Library of Congress report portion of the agenda it was announced that the first "fast-track" proposal was approved by the MARC Steering Group & Chair of proposal 2017-FT01 from the Music Library Association which resulted in the following changes: 1) making Bibliographic field 384 (Key) repeatable and 2) adding a subfield $3 (Materials specified) to the field.

Proposal No. 2018-01: Coding 007 Field Positions for Digital Cartographic Materials in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats.

The Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) and the ALA Map & Geospatial Information Round Table (MAGIRT) were the source of this proposal that addressed the changes in contemporary digital cartographic resources

British Library [BL] indicated that they feel their issues were addressed from the discussion paper (Discussion Paper No. 2017-DP06) and that they had no reservations; otherwise there was minimal discussion and the proposal was passed with some minor editorial changes needed.

Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP01: Defining New Subfield $i in Fields 600-630 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), Standing Committee on Standards proposed this discussion paper that recommends adding subfield $i (Relationship information) to the 600-630 group of fields in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format. The subfield could be used to record a subject relationship designator term to identify more specifically the nature of the relationship between the resource being described and an entity that is topically related.

Matthew Wise (Chair) summarized the discussion saying that moving forward with a Proposal to which the National Libraries and the MARC Steering Group are opposed would bear little pragmatic value. There was a general consensus that a revised Discussion Paper presenting real-world examples and a range of possible approaches may generate a more positive reception.

The PCC Standing Committee on Standards will reconsider this response, and determine whether to resubmit a paper.

Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP02: Subfield Coding in Field 041 for Accessibility in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

The Canadian Committee on Metadata Exchange (CCM) put forward this Discussion paper to address a need for new subfields in field 041 (Language Code) for accessibility modes in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to allow for machine sorting put the Discussion Paper forward.

After minor discussion points the consensus was that the paper will return as a proposal at Annual.

Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP03: Inventory of Newer 3XX Fields that Lack Subfield $3 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

The Music Library Association (MLA) was the source of this discussion paper that looks at the new 3XX descriptive fields in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format that lack a defined Subfield $3 -- fields 377 (Associated Language), 380 (Form of Work), 381 (Other Distinguishing Characteristics of Work or Expression), and 383 (Numeric Designation of Musical Work) -- and discusses which fields could be improved by having a defined subfield $3 available for use.

After minimal discussion there was a motion put forward that the Committee turn the Discussion Paper, with minimal adjustments to the examples to reflect the communities' interests and issues, into a proposal. The proposal was passed unanimously.

Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP04: Multiscript Records Using Codes from ISO 15924 in the Five MARC 21 Formats.

German National Library (DNB) proposed this discussion paper that describes a way to cover all scripts in multiscript records according to Model A by using codes from ISO 15924 as the "script identification code" portion of subfield $6 (Linkage) in all five MARC 21 formats.

While there were many in agreement with using the $6 subfield it was recommended that it was not sufficient in practice and that DNB should submit a proposal that considers additional options for recording codes from ISO 15924 in the MARC 21 formats. Ides that seemed more favorable are additional subfield codes within the 066 field, one to cover MARC-8 designations and another for UTF-8/Unicode designations, and/or the use of repeatable 546s (Language Note) including subfield $8 for linking.

Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP05: Adding Institution Level Information to Subject Headings in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

The German National Library (DNB) proposed this discussion paper which explores different ways of designating in a MARC record that a subject access field in the 6XX region has been added according to the policy of a specific Cultural Heritage Organization. While the preceding Discussion Paper 2017-DP05 focused on subfield $5 in the 6XX fields of the MARC Bibliographic format, this Discussion Paper introduces a second option by using and extending field 883 (Machine-generated Metadata Provenance).

After lengthy discussion about the use and practice of the $5 subfield the consensus was that the DNB would present a proposal exploring the use of the 883 field for this purpose (a preference of both the British Library and OCLC), meanwhile the MARC Advisory Committee would be open to receiving another paper further exploring the use of $5 in the 6XX block since a use case and a possible desire surfaced during the discussion of this paper.

Discussion Paper No. 2018-DP06: Versions of Resources in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.

The German National Library (DNB)proposed this discussion paper explores different ways to designate in a MARC record that a resource is available in a specific version, e.g. as preprint, postprint, publisher's version, etc., including, but not limited to values from NISO-RP-8-2008 "Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group."

After some discussion as to the applicability of the 250 or 260 field for controlled vocabulary, it was recommended that DNB come back with a proposal using the 250 field with a subfield $s (used in some title heading fields for a "version") or a new field to carry version information.

The next Meeting of the MARC Advisory Committee will be at ALA Annual in New Orleans in June, 2018.

Report prepared by John Maier, ARLIS/NA liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee

... go to other ALA reports ...