LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


MARC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  November 1997

MARC November 1997

Subject:

Coding of electronic resources/MARBI 97-3R revisited

From:

"Greene,Richard" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

USMARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:34:33 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (142 lines)

This posting is being cross-posted to AUTOCAT, INTERCAT, and USMARC.
Please excuse multiple postings.
_________________________
At the ALA meeting this summer, MARBI approved Proposal 97-3R
(Redefinition of Code "m": (Computer File) in Leader/06, with some
modifications.  The changes to the _USMARC Format for Bibliographic
Data_ are published in Update no. 3 which is now available.

OCLC has been further investigating implementation issues related to
this MARBI update.  We have had discussions with staff from various
local systems and consortia. Conversations with representatives of these
different systems indicate there are a number of implementation issues
to be ironed out.    As a result, we have decided to update the OCLC
membership on our immediate plans, highlight some of the issues, and
recommend areas libraries might want to discuss their system vendors and
with members of their consortia.

There is a large amount of interest within the library community in
implementing the MARC format changes as soon as possible.  OCLC has
received a number of user phone calls and email considering these
changes.  Even though OCLC is investigating implementation issues,
actual implementation is some time off.  Update 3 is only recently
available to everyone who needs to implement the changes.  Update 3
contains a number of substantial changes, especially those related to
harmonizing the USMARC and CANMARC formats.

MARBI CHANGES:  In summary, MARBI approved two changes.  The first is to
the definition of code "m" (Computer Files) Leader/06 (Type of Record).
Only certain kinds of computer files and electronic resources will be
coded as "m".  Others will be coded for their most significant aspect,
e.g., cartographic materials will be coded "e", textual monographic
materials will be coded as books, etc.  The present rule to code all
electronic resources as computer files (Leader/06 "m") will be obsolete.
The same change is made to 006/00.

The second change MARBI approved is to make field 007 mandatory when the
main item described in a record has a carrier that is a computer file.
Field 006 is still optional in all situations.  Field 007 is not
mandatory when only the accompanying material is a computer file or if
the record describes a non-electronic resource and points to its
electronic version in an 856 field.  This last situation requires
changes to field 856 that were approved at the February 1997 MARBI
meeting (Proposal 97-1) which will also be described in Update no. 3.
In order to implement the changes, systems must support 007 input and
output, at least for the computer files version of field 007.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES:
IMPACT ON CATALOGING.  Except for changes to searching discussed later
in this document and the need to know field 007 for computer files and
when to use it, the impact on most catalogers is minimal.  These USMARC
continue to divorce the format issues from the cataloging rules by
separating carrier and from content, but only for electronic resources.
Other materials have not been completely addressed.  A broader
discussion of content vs. carrier in respect to the cataloging rules was
held at the JSC International Conference on the Principles and Future
Development of AACR2 in Toronto in October.  Further investigations will
come out of the discussions at the conference.

CONVERSION OF EXISTING RECORDS.  Existing records will not be coded the
same way as new records will be.  For most systems, conversion of old
practices is not practical or possible with existing resources.  In some
files, records may not be coded accurately enough to identify records
that are candidates for conversion.  OCLC estimates that at least one
quarter of the computer file records in WorldCat are coded "other" or
"unknown" in 008/26 (Type of Computer File); 008/26 is the easiest means
by which to identify records that are candidates for conversion.

INDEXING.  In order to index all electronic resources together, systems
must be able to identify them.  An electronic resource can be identified
by Leader/06 (Type of Record), field 007, or field 006 (when byte 0 is
"m").  All three items must be indexed in the same index because users
searching for materials are not likely to know how the record is coded.
The distinctions are unimportant to them.  Fields 006 and 007 can refer
to the carrier of the item or the carrier for a piece of the overall
item (such as accompanying material).  What this means is that systems
must either change indexing rules or not index the electronic aspect of
an item wherever the "electronic-ness" is recorded in a record.
Decisions about which 007's to index and which index to put them in must
be made.  Presently, in OCLC, fields 006 and Leader/06 are indexed in
the same index.  OCLC does not index field 007.

DUPLICATE DETECTION.  Duplicate detection will continue to be easy in
some systems, particularly those that acquire records from a single
source.  For others, however, duplicate detection software which
compares data from various places in MARC records may need modification
to ensure that fields 007 and 856 are correctly considered.  This is
true not only in those cases in which the goal is to keep records for
different media separate but also when the goal is to treat them as a
single record.  Aspects of fields 007 and 856 may need to be factored
into matching algorithms, if they aren't already.

DUPLICATE RESOLUTION.  Once duplicates are identified, some action is
generally required.  Among the more common options are to update
holdings information, to merge selected bibliographic data from one
record to the other, to completely overlay one record with the other, or
to merge the records and retain all unique data.  All of these scenarios
have different implications when merging records for disparate media or
records which describe multiple media.  Software developers and
consortia need to address questions like--Should the record for the hard
copy be kept separate from the one for the electronic copy?  Should the
record that combines the information about the hard copy and the
electronic resource replace the other two?  How will the system indicate
which form or forms each location has access to?

HOLDINGS AND LOCATION INFORMATION.  The amount of holdings information
stored and displayed in union catalogs varies widely from the most
simple (location identifier only) to full details, including bar code
and availability information.  When the holdings display is able to
distinguish items (or parts of items) in electronic form from other
forms, system users can identify the copy they are interested in.  Users
of databases that do not display detailed holdings data (such as
WorldCat), users will be unable to determine which location has access
to electronic resources and which to the non-electronic form.  Service
to users may suffer from misdirected lending requests or delays to
electronic resources.

Because of our concerns, LC will be issuing MARBI proposal 98-6
(Definition of value s for Electronic in 008/29 (Form of item) in Maps
and Visual Materials and 008/23 (Form of item) in Books, Music, Serials,
and Mixed Materials in the Bibliographic format) for discussion at ALA
Midwinter.

OCLC will be investigating these issues and plans to issue guidelines to
users, networks, local systems, etc., by the end of the calendar year.
A full implementation, including indexing, duplicate detection changes,
etc., will follow much later, due to OCLC's present activities on
implementing Year 2000 changes, Batchload Redesign, etc.  Meanwhile, we
recommend that libraries begin considering the impact of the changes and
what they want out of their system.

MARBI Proposal 97-3R is available through the USMARC home page at
gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/00/.listarch/usmarc/97-3r.doc

The results of the MARBI decision are available at
gopher://marvel.loc.gov:70/00/.listarch/usmarc/97-3r.cov


Rich Greene
OCLC
800-848-5878
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager