[DCRM-L] Fwd: RBMS Comments on MAC papers, Annual 2026

[Matthew C. Haugen]

Greetings,

Thank you to those who responded to the survey on discussion papers and
proposals to be discussed at the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC) Annual 2026
meeting. Below are the comments sent to the MARC Listserv (
MARC at listserv.loc.gov) on behalf of RBMS.

Comments from other MARC constituencies have also been shared on the MARC
listserv prior to the MAC meeting itself. If you want to subscribe and/or
read past messages in the listserv archives, see here:
https://www.loc.gov/marc/marcforum.html

The first MAC meeting will be held on Zoom, Wednesday, July 22, 2026, 10:30
a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (7:30 - 10:30 a.m.- Pacific). All
are welcome to attend as observers, and recordings will be available
afterwards.

Agenda: https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2026_age.html

Zoom connection information for the Wednesday meeting only:
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2026_age.html

If needed, an additional meeting will be held Thursday, July 23, 2026,
10:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. EDT. The Zoom link for this meeting will be
distributed only if needed after the Wednesday meeting.

Matthew Haugen
RBMS Liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matthew C. Haugen <matthew.haugen at columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 5:07 PM
Subject: RBMS Comments on MAC papers, Annual 2026
To: MARC <MARC at listserv.loc.gov>


Greetings,

The ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) cataloging community was
surveyed for feedback on the slate of MARC papers and proposals under
consideration by MAC. Only two responses were received, and neither
respondent answered all survey questions.

In general, no concerns related specifically to rare materials cataloging
use cases were raised, and there was no opposition to any of the papers or
proposals. 2026-06 and 2026-DP08 seem to have the greatest relevance to
rare materials.
Below is a summary of the feedback received, combined with my additional
observations. Thank you to all the paper and proposal authors.

Respectfully submitted,

Matthew Haugen
RBMS Liaison to MAC


*Proposal No. 2026-05: Support*Recording Container Designation in the 87X
Fields of the MARC 21 Holdings Format

All responses received were in support. I think the use case for this seems
system-dependent. Though the proposal authors had asked for specific
examples from the rare materials community, no examples or other specific
comments were received by me.


*Proposal No. 2026-06: Support*
Defining a New Field for Notated Movement Characteristics in the MARC 21
Bibliographic and Authority Formats

All respondents supported; no specific comments.


*Discussion Paper No. 2026-DP05: Support*
Recording Choreographic Medium of Performance in the MARC 21 Bibliographic
and Authority Formats

All respondents supported this paper moving forward as a propsoal.

*Discussion questions:*
*6.1. Has the need for a separate field to record choreographic medium of
performance sufficiently been established?*
Yes

*6.2. Is MARC tag 364 a good choice for this data? Is there a different tag
which would be preferable? *
No responses received.
I don't object to 364, but a 35X tag might be a better fit, only to keep
the choreographic/movement fields closer together, assuming 358 is
established by proposal 2026-06.

*6.3. Do all of the subfields defined for the field make sense to include?
Should the field include any other subfields, including the ones we noted
that we omitted in Section 2.2.? *
No responses

*6.4. Is it acceptable to define this field without best practices or a
single specific source vocabulary for terms in mind? If this field is
approved, what group would be expected to create vocabularies and best
practices for this data? *
One respondent was not sure which group should be expected to create
vocabularies and best practices for this data, but thinks that group should
be identified/created before the field is finalized.

I don't think a single vocabulary or best practice needs to be assumed or
established by a specific group in order for this proposal to proceed. MARC
is an international encoding standard, and the source of terms can be
indicated in $2 once a code is established by NDMSO, so a single vocabulary
need not be assumed. Several communities already have policy statements for
the official RDA element Form of Movement Notation, and RDA also has
multilingual vocabulary encoding scheme for Form of Movement Notation. It
seems that the same does not yet exist for Format of Notated Movement.
After the field is established, different communities can revise existing
vocabularies and best practices, or develop new ones, to meet their needs.

*6.5. Does the optional ability to record separate instances of field 364
with non-repeating subfields, as described in Section 5.2. and demonstrated
in Example 4.4., sufficiently provide BIBFRAME compatibility, or should the
subfields be defined as non-repeatable?*
One respondent leans towards defining the subfields as non-repeatable, and
doing the same for field 382 as well

*6.6. Are there any additional issues which this discussion paper does not
address? *
Can a resulting proposal better explain the use case for the proposed
second indicator values (intended for access/not intended for access)?
Can a resulting proposal clarify why required apparatus or equipment used
by the dancer or performer is not considered part of the medium of
performance, like a musical instrument is?


*Discussion Paper No. 2026-DP06: Support*
Broadening Field 542 to Record Intellectual Property Disputes in the MARC
21 Bibliographic Format

All comments received support this paper moving forward as a proposal. One
respondent added that there may be a desire to record other information
related to intellectual property (not just disputes), and would support
broadening this field to other kinds of intellectual property information.


*Discussion questions:**6.1. Is field 542 an appropriate location for
recording information concerning intellectual property disputes related to
continuing resource titles?*
Yes.

*6.2. Is it sufficient to provide this new information in a note? *
Yes.

*6.3. Would it help to add an indicator to the field to denote what follows
is intellectual property information rather than Copyright information?*
One respondent said no.
I think it would help.

*6.4. Is the proposed broadening of the field definition sufficiently
clear?*
Yes.
One respondent suggested that this could also be extended to the name of
the field (e.g., "Information Relating to Copyright Status and/or
Intellectual Property")

*6.5. Should the publisher or publishers in the dispute be listed in $k?
Should the privacy indicator be used in this case?*
One respondent feels this is cataloger's judgment, not a MARC thing
I think the privacy indicator would make sense, since this information may
have legal considerations, especially while the dispute is active.

*6.6. Is adding a note field to field 264 a better solution since the
information pertains to the publisher?  *
No.
I would prefer using the 542 note field. However, I acknowledge that RBMS
recently established a precedent with 245 $z. I don't see a similarly
strong need for IP information to be immediately associated and display
together with the transcribed 264 data that it contextualizes. But if that
approach (e.g. 264 $z) is pursued, I think the scope of the new 264 note
subfield could be broader than just intellectual property information,
e.g., any other important context about the PPDM statement, e.g. notes
explaining false imprints, pirated/forged editions, etc.

*6.7. Would a general 500 note or a local note be preferable?*
No.
One respondent felt that this would be fine in a 500 note, but thinks it
makes sense to broaden the 542.
I agree and think 542 could support more precise mapping and display.
One respondent felt this doesn't sound appropriate for a local note if it
applies to the title broadly.
If there actually is a use case for a local note, I would suggest that
subfield $5 be defined in 542.

*6.8. Would the MARC community prefer a more structured approach for
recording rights disputes?*
No


*Discussion Paper No. 2026-DP07: Support*
Adding an Indicator for Non-preferred Variant Headings in 4XX Fields in the
MARC 21 Authority Format

One respondent was uncertain.
I support this moving forward as a proposal.

*Discussion questions:*
*6.1. Has the need for an indicator value explicitly labeling a variant as
non-preferred been adequately justified?*
One respondent did not understand why the same variant would be recorded
twice, once as preferred and once as non-preferred, and suggested this
could be clarified further.
I think it makes sense to use an indicator to differentiate variants
evaluated as non-preferred from those that have not been evaluated one way
or the other, since the evaluation process may involve multiple catalogers
with different language/script expertise.


*6.2. Do you agree with suggested use of value 0 for this?*Yes

*6.3. Are there any potential consequences to this proposed change that
have not been considered?*
It might help to address how systems like NACO and OCLC that conduct
normalization/comparison routines may be expected to handle "duplicate" or
identical variants that differ only in their preferred/non-preferred status.


*Discussion Paper No. 2026-DP08: Support*
Adding Subfield $5 to Field 340 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

One respondent supports; one respondent was uncertain.
I support this moving forward as a proposal. This paper has obvious rare
materials implications, as many of the examples show. There was not time to
seek formal co-sponsorship from RBMS for this discussion paper, but if this
moves forward as a full proposal, I would support seeking co-sponsorship.
In example 4.5, if the manifestation as a whole was issued with black and
white illustrations, some of which have been water-colored in the locally
held copy, then the second 340 should perhaps not be marked as
copy-specific. Conversely, in the second example found in the discussion
section, I think the 500 field (Mounted on wood) should be marked as
copy-specific.

*Discussion questions:*
*6.1. Do you agree that there is a use case for subfield $5 in field 340?*
One respondent was unclear what the advantage of using 340 over 655 would
be in tracing material characteristics.
One respondent, and I, agree with the use case.

*6.2. Are there any other issues or alternatives that should be addressed
in this proposal?*
One respondent felt that if this proposal moves forward, there should be
clear guidance on when field 340 would be preferred over 655, or when/if
both should be applied.
Since systems likely display and index 655 and 340 differently, I agree
that there is a need for this guidance, but think it may need to come from
standards communities like the RBMS/DCRM, rather than from MARC
documentation. The two fields are not mutually exclusive, and the choice
between them already exists for recording terms for physical
characteristics that are not copy specific (without $5). I think the more
precise subfields of 340 can potentially capture copy-specific physical
features and processes more precisely than the general 655 can (e.g.,
whether a material is part of the base, support, or binding of the copy).
In some cases, as with example 4.6, a 655 $a Trimmed edges $2 rbmscv $5 NNC
could indicate that the copy is cropped, while 340 can capture the actual
dimensions of the copy through recording the measurement, not a controlled
genre/form term.
If this paper moves forward as a proposal, I think some examples could show
cases where 340 and 655 may complement each other such as this.
This would probably require a separate paper, but since 340 $b with $5
allows for recording of copy-specific dimensions (of cropped, mounted, etc.
copies), I wish there was an equivalent way to capture copy-specific
extent. This could be through a new 340 subfield, or possibly through
establishing $5 in field 300 $a. This could be used for copies that are
extra-illustrated (and so have more leaves than the original), were rebound
into a different number of physical volumes than the original
manifestation, or are missing pages/sections.

*6.3. Would MAC be open to fast-tracking this proposal?*
One respondent, and I, think this could be fast-tracked since $5 follows
the standard definition.


-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu | 212-851-2451 | he/they
<https://universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20260716/b12d099b/attachment-0001.htm>