[DCRM-L] Outcomes of Today's MARC Advisory Committee Meeting

[Matthew C. Haugen]

The MARC Advisory Committee agenda was completed during today's
(Wednesday's) meeting; an additional Thursday meeting will not be held.

The next MAC meeting (Midwinter) is now scheduled for January 27-28, 2027.

A recording of today's meeting will be posted soon at
https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/recordings.html

A summary of outcomes of today's meeting:

Proposals:
2026-05: Approved with amendments. $n will be defined as: Barcode or other
machine-readable container designation (such as OCR) associated with the
container (e.g., a storage box or case) that is generally intended to house
multiple pieces. Each piece may be individually identified.

2026-06: Approved as written.

Discussion papers:
2026-DP05: Will move forward as a proposal. Areas of further consideration
include information about non-musical dramatic medium of performance, and
data about required props, ensembles, and gendered terms for performers.

2026-DP06: Will move forward as a proposal.

2026-DP07: Will move forward as a proposal.

2026-DP08: Will return as a proposal; the proposal authors may seek
consultation or co-sponsorship/endorsement from RBMS on the proposal.

Matthew
RBMS Liaison to the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC)

>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:37 PM Matthew C. Haugen <
> matthew.haugen at columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> 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:
> www.loc.gov/marc/marcforum.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/marc/marcforum.html__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!WDDGtS7-KdhKm7IhwX1hrVHJsq8PWgG978fPSRH6nrIc6U8vBcTiDXzfE8rSvMkzjs5_RG2KkGTAWANCrtjcizlvSFysjTk$>
>
> The first MAC meeting will be held on Zoom, Wednesday, July 22, 2026,
> 10:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (7:30 - 10:30 a.m.- Pacific). All
> are welcome to attend as observers, and recordings will be available
> afterwards.
>
> Agenda: www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2026_age.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2026_age.html__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!WDDGtS7-KdhKm7IhwX1hrVHJsq8PWgG978fPSRH6nrIc6U8vBcTiDXzfE8rSvMkzjs5_RG2KkGTAWANCrtjcizlvSGCIAOE$>
>
> Zoom connection information for the Wednesday meeting only:
> www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2026_age.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/an2026_age.html__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!WDDGtS7-KdhKm7IhwX1hrVHJsq8PWgG978fPSRH6nrIc6U8vBcTiDXzfE8rSvMkzjs5_RG2KkGTAWANCrtjcizlvSGCIAOE$>
>
> 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 $5 follows
> the standard definition.
>
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
> matthew.haugen at columbia.edu | 212-851-2451 | he/they
> <https://universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries
> matthew.haugen at columbia.edu | 212-851-2451 | he/they
> <https://universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns>
>   *Forward
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://connect.ala.org/acrl/communities/all-discussions/forwardmessages?MessageKey=8af20bdb-39cf-4682-b8d5-b1d6ecf154f9&ListKey=dca3040b-a35a-4b32-87d3-a169404d86b3__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!WDDGtS7-KdhKm7IhwX1hrVHJsq8PWgG978fPSRH6nrIc6U8vBcTiDXzfE8rSvMkzjs5_RG2KkGTAWANCrtjcizlvsEaZzFo$>*
>
>
>
>
> You are subscribed to "ACRL RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee Rare
> Books and Manuscripts Section" as matthew.haugen at columbia.edu. To change
> your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://connect.ala.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!WDDGtS7-KdhKm7IhwX1hrVHJsq8PWgG978fPSRH6nrIc6U8vBcTiDXzfE8rSvMkzjs5_RG2KkGTAWANCrtjcizlvGJXiDQg$>.
> To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://connect.ala.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=fde9c29e-b4d7-425d-99b3-48d165cc81ef&sKey=7864dedca99d4e8eb318&GroupKey=dca3040b-a35a-4b32-87d3-a169404d86b3__;!!BDUfV1Et5lrpZQ!WDDGtS7-KdhKm7IhwX1hrVHJsq8PWgG978fPSRH6nrIc6U8vBcTiDXzfE8rSvMkzjs5_RG2KkGTAWANCrtjcizlvOl0dIgw$>
> .
>


-- 
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/20260722/0af138f5/attachment-0001.htm>