here are the comments from the German and Austrian part of the MARC
community on the MARBI papers.
2011-01: "Coding for Original Language in Field 041 (Language Code) of
the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format"
Support for the definition of subfield $k "language of intermediate
translation", and for $m "original language(s) of subsidiary materials".
However we are concerned about the redefinition of $h for a "language
code of original", r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r o r n
o t a t r a n s l a t i o n i s i n v o l v e d". This could
force us to double the information each time when there is no
2011-DP01: "Changes to the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format to Accommodate
RDA Production, Publication, Distribution and Manufacture Statements"
2.1 Discussion offers three options (2nd indicator, or new subfields, or
new fields). We prefer option 1, the second indicator. In the German
MAB Format we have these distinctions as indicator values. In the list,
a value for "Production" seems to be missing.
Option 2 looks too complicated. Option 3 could be feasible, but has the
disadvantage of gaps in the sequence of the fields.
We prefer a new field for a "date of copyright notice".
2011-DP02:" Additional Elements to Support RDA in the MARC 21 Format"
2.1. "Language of expression" has some interdependencies with Proposal
Regarding the question whether to define 041 in the Authority Format, or
broaden 377: We have no specific preferences for one of the options.
The addition of subfields for language terms does make sense to us.
2.2. "Associated institution"
An extended field 373 is a good solution. In Germany we are using a
510, as we intend to use the authorized form.
2.3. "Fuller form of personal name"
Field 378 is a possible solution. In Germany we intend to use a 400,
with a new value in $4 "Relationship code", expressing that the field
has the "Fuller form of name":
100 1# $aSmith, Nancy E. $qNancy Elizabeth
400 1# $aSmith, Nancy Elizabeth $4[new code for "Fuller form of name"]
$wr $iFuller form of name
2.4. "Type of jurisdiction"
Defining a new field 334 does make sense. We would like to see an
additional subfield 0 "Authority record control number or standard
2011-DP-03: " Identifying Work, Expression, and Manifestation records
in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings Formats"
We strongly support this approach. We think it's time to have the
chance to use real "WEMI trees" in RDA based MARC records.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be room in the Leader for this. In
the new field 883, the distinction between $a (term) and $b (code) is
very useful. The addition of $2 provides a flexible solution.
We think it is time for a discussion about whether Works and Expressions
are to be handled in Bibliographic or in Authority Records. Maybe MARBI
can work on something like a "Best practice"?
As to linking works and expressions, and linking expressions and
manifestations: We wouldn't prefer using added entry fields for this,
as given in the examples. Instead, we would like to use a linking field
(e.g. 787) for the RDA primary relationships. Linking from an item to a
manifestation is possible by using an 004 "Control Number for Related
Bibliographic Record" in the Holdings Format.
2011-DP04: " Treatment of Controlled Lists of Terms for Carrier
Attributes in RDA and the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format"
We support this paper. The augmentation of 340, the definition of 4 new
fields, and a new subfield $i in 500 seem to be good solutions.
German National Library
Information Technology / Data Formats
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
mailto:[log in to unmask]