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  June 2022

MARC June 2022

Subject:

German Comments on MAC Papers

From:

"Heuvelmann, Reinhold" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

MARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:38:09 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Dear colleagues,

on behalf of the Committee on Data Formats ("Fachgruppe Datenformate") for libraries in German speaking countries, here are our comments on the papers which are on the agenda of the MARC Advisory Committee meetings next week.

Proposals:

Proposal No. 2022-07: Modernization of Field 856 Second Indicator and Subfield $3 in the MARC 21 Formats
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-07.html 

In general, we continue to support the approach taken here. In German speaking countries, we have a clear focus on catalog enrichment, i.e. tables of contents as pdf files, but also many other types of information provided by publishers and third parties. As in January, some concerns were raised regarding actual benefits of the new distinctions, compared to the costs of possible future implementation, and the handling of undifferentiated legacy data. 

Proposal No. 2022-08: Recording Persistent Identifiers and File Formats in Field 856 of the MARC 21 Formats
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-08.html 
    
There is some support from our side, as well as some skeptical voices. Subfield "$g" has potential in the distinction of information otherwise provided in fields 024 and/or 856 $u (although here the problem of legacy data seems to be significant). Moving non-functioning URIs from $u to "$h" may prove to be an ambitious task, especially at large scale (e.g. in the German National Library) and on a regular base. The extended scope of subfield $q would cause the need for significant adaptations of workflows, especially when it comes to _versions_ of electronic format types, and their sometimes imperfect automatic determination. Further concerns were caused by the extended repeatability of subfield $u.

Discussion Papers:

Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP06: Defining a New Field to Record Electronic Archive Location and Access in the MARC 21 Formats
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp06.html 

Some of the concerns which we raised in January do still apply. Field "857" looks like a shadow field to field 856 if many of the subfields defined in field 856 will be systematically defined in field "857", too. Much of the technical information should possibly not be contained in bibliographic records, but may better be maintained and kept externally, in the background.

Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP07: Adding Subfield $3 to Field 041 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp07.html 

We support this paper.

Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP08: Adding Subfields $0 and $1 to Fields 720 and 653 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp08.html 

In general, we support the approach taken by this discussion paper. Field 720 seems to provide a clearer picture when it comes to adding $0 and $1, while field 653 probably will have to be discussed more in detail: To what extent is the content of field 653 still "uncontrolled" if it has a link to an external source? We welcome the section on differences to the recently defined field 688. We do appreciate the paragraph on field 758 as another option, and agree that field 758 is different in scope. As a friendly amendment, the addition of subfield $2 "Source" may be taken into account in both fields.

Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP09: Defining a Field for Standardized Provenance Information in the MARC 21 Bibliographic, Holdings, and Authority Formats
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp09.html 

This is our own discussion paper. We have recognized the helpful comments so far, and look forward to further comments and fruitful discussions.

Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP10: Defining a New Subfield in Field 264 to Record an Unparsed Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp10.html 

We have mostly skeptical voices here. Providing a _lower_ level of granularity is fairly unusual in the development of the MARC format (with the recent exception of the RDA manifestation statements, covering different use cases, and mentioned in the paper). The new subfield "$s" is to be structured by ISBD punctuation, so it seems to be fully redundant to information already contained in subfields $a, $b and $c. Importing routines would become more complex, as they would have to cover both the subfielded and the general structure.  

Discussion Paper No. 2022-DP11: Defining a New Subfield in Field 490 to Record an Unparsed Statement in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2022/2022-dp11.html 

Most of the skeptical comments mentioned above do apply here, too. We don't see real benefits here, either.

Best regards,

Reinhold

--

Reinhold Heuvelmann
German National Library
Information Infrastructure
Office for Data Formats
Adickesallee 1
60322 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Telephone: +49 69 1525-1709
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.dnb.de

*** Search. Find. Explore. German National Library***


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