From: 10646er@sesame.demon.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:44 AM To: sc22wg20@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG20.2420) US MARBI 1998 Annual Meeting Minutes [excerpts] US MARBI 1998 Annual Meeting Minutes [excerpts] Although much of the following is library-specific, it does provide information on approaches used outside ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG20 and ouside of CEN/TC304 to things that these committees cover. This includes topics such as: - Unicode identification and encoding in MARC records; - apparent problems with round-trip mapping to Unicode; - use of private use space to get round such problems; - nonfiling characters (implementing two new control characters); - recording language of headings; - identifying transliteration schemes; - using non-Latin characters ("alternate graphics") in UCS * * * * * * * * 1998 MARBI Annual Meeting Minutes [excerpts] (http://lcweb.loc.gov/MARC/MARBI/minutes/an-98.html) 1998 MARBI Annual Meeting Minutes ALCTS / LITA /RUSA ___________________________________ ALA ANNUAL CONFERENCE WASHINGTON, DC -- JUNE 26-28, 1998 ___________________________________ MARBI MEMBERS: Josephine Crawford ALCTS University of Minnesota James Crooks RUSA University of California, Irvine Elaine Henjum LITA Florida Cntr. for Library Automa tion Diane Hillman LITA Cornell University Carol Penka RUSA University of Illinois Jacquie Riley RUSA University of Cincinnati Frank Sadowski ALCTS University of Rochester Paul Weiss ALCTS University of New Mexico Robin Wendler LITA Harvard University MARBI INTERNS: Annemarie Erickson RUSA Chicago Library System Anne Gilliland (recorder) ALCTS OhioLINK Chris Mueller LITA University of New Mexico REPRESENTATIVES AND LIAISONS: Joe Altimus RLG Research Libraries Group Karen Anspach AVIAC Eos, Intl. John Attig OLAC Pennsylvania State University Sherman Clarke VRA New York University Betsy Cowart WLN WLN, Inc. Donna Cranmer ALCTS Media Resources Cmte. Siouxland Libraries Bonnie Dede ALCTS CCS SAC University of Michigan Catherine Gerhart ALCTS CCS CC:DA University of Washington Kathy Glennan MLA University of Southern California David Goldberg NAL tional Agricultural Library Rich Greene OCLC OCLC, Inc. Rebecca Guenther LC Library of Congress Brian Holt BL British Library Michael Johnson MicroLIF Follett Co. Maureen Killeen A-G A-G Canada Ltd. Rhonda Lawrence AALL UCLA Law Sally McCallum LC Library of Congress Susan Moore MAGERT University of Northern Iowa Elizabeth O'Keefe ARLIS/NA Pierpont Morgan Library Louise Sevold CIS Cuyahoga County Public Library Marti Scheel NLM National Library of Medicine Margaret Stewart NLC National Library of Canada Rutherford Witthus SAA University of Connecticut OTHER ATTENDEES: Jim Agenbroad Library of Congress Everett Allgood New York University Randall Barry Library of Congress Jack Cain A-G Canada Mehmer Celik ELIAS Vinod Chachra VTLS Karen Coyle California Digital Library Ellen Crosby Indiana Historical Society Robin Dale RLG Harriet DeCeunynd Rutgers Paula DeStefano NYU John Espley VTLS, Inc. Bernard Eversberg Universit舩 Braunschweig, Germany Charles Gordon University of South Florida Jane Grawemeyer SIRSI Stephen Hearn University of Minnesota Jean-Frederic Jauslin Swiss National Library Bruce Chr. Johnson Library of Congress Jane D. Johnson UCLA Film and Television Archive William Jones New York University Shirley Kieran Best Seller Ken King UMI Deborah Leslie Yale University Elizabeth Mangan Library of Congress Christina Meyer University of Minnesota John Riemer University of Georgia Marie Robertson Book Wholesalers Inc. William Russell GEAC Donnell Ruthenberg Data Research Associates Mary Schneider Catalog Card Company Jacque-Lynne Schulman National Library of Medicine Ann Sitkin Harvard Law Library Gary Smith OCLC Karen Smith-Yoshimura RLG Steve Squires UNC-Chapel Hill Daniel Starr MOMA Barbara Story Library of Congress Gary Strawn Northwestern University Bob Thomas WLN Grace Thomas University of California, Santa Barbara Russ Thompson BRODART David Walker Follett Library Resources Bob Warwick Rutgers University David Williamson Library of Congress Bob Wolven Columbia University Ruth Wuest Endeavor Joe Zeeman CGI Group NOTES: The minutes do not necessarily record discussion in the order in which it occurred. Material has been rearranged to increase comprehension and to collocate items related to specific topics for clarity. Abbreviations used in these minutes include: AALL - American Association of Law Libraries ALCTS - Association of Library Collections and Technical Services ARLIS/NA - Art Libraries Society of North America BL - British Library CC:DA - Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (of ALCTS CCS) CIS - Community Information Section (of PLA) CCS - Cataloging and Classification Section (of ALCTS) LC - Library of Congress LITA - Library and Information Technology Association MAGERT - Map & Geography Roundtable MLA - Music Library Association NAL - National Agricultural Library ND/MSO - Network Development and MARC Standards Office (of LC) NLC - National Library of Canada NLM - National Library of Medicine OLAC - Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. PLA - Public Libraries Association RUSA - Reference and User Services Association SAA - Society of American Archivists SAC - Subject Analysis Committee (of ALCTS CCS) VRA - Visual Resources Association ___________________________________ Proposal 98-18[14]: Unicode identification and encoding in USMARC records Gary Smith introduced this proposal on behalf of the Unicode encoding and recognition technical issues task force[15]. It addresses technical issues remaining unresolved from proposal 97-10 (June 1997)[16], including encoding of Unicode characters in USMARC communications records and a method for identifying the use of Unicode in USMARC communications records. There are two options for identifying records encoded in Unicode. Option 1 is to use leader/09 for this purpose; option 2 is to use leader/23. Sally McCallum spoke in favor of using leader/09 to remain in compliance with iso 2709. She also made the point that this byte will not be optional, but the encoding in Unicode will be optional. Implementation is up to community and exchange partners. The task force did not make a decision on encoding double diacritics (issue 4) because of the variation of practice in existing records. This has a bearing on problems raised in proposal 98-16[17]. Committee members commented that position counts and lengths (issue 5) should be carefully documented. There was a suggestion to re-word 3.1.h to note that this is not a requirement of MARBI. When LC does this, they will propose nothing that is contrary to Unicode. Diane Hillmann moved to approve option 1 of proposal 98-18. Paul Weiss seconded the motion. The motion to approve proposal 98-18 passed unanimously. The Task Force was asked to continue its work so that the questions and issues raised in appendix a are discussed and resolved. Items 2 and 3 in appendix a will be given highest priority (and it was noted that item 6 was actually no longer needed as it is treated in 98-18). RLG will study the issues raised in item 5 of Appendix A. ___________________________________ Status reports East Asian character set task force[19] John Espley, Task Force chair, reported on the difficulty mapping this character set to Unicode. There are problems with round-trip mapping, and the task force anticipates using the private use space to clarify some of the problems. The Task Force plans to bring a proposal to the MARBI meetings at 1999 ALA Midwinter in Philadelphia. ___________________________________ Proposal 98-16[22]: Nonfiling characters in all formats Sally McCallum introduced the proposal, which follows discussion paper 102 (June 1997)[23] from the 1997 ALA annual meeting. The increased use of the 246 field has made the need for a nonfiling indicator more urgent. This is also a recurring problem in names and in fields that use $t. Paragraph 1.3 of the proposal summarizes the requirements for any changes to current practice. This proposal takes the position that a control character should be used to show the nonfiling requirements, because this is what is used most often throughout the world. It is anticipated that systems would adopt some eye-readable convention for showing them, but there are no obvious keyboard equivalents. Currently, other control characters, such as the end of file mark, the delimiter, and the end of record mark, are represented by various visible symbols. Karen Coyle reiterated some of the points she had made in her June 18th message to the USMARC listserv, stressing the difference between filing and sorting on one hand and retrieval on the other. This spurred a discussion about how systems do or do not handle articles when sorting. to further complicate matters, in some languages articles come after the words they modify. Bernard Eversburg (Universitat Braunschweig) commented that many years' experience in Germany leads him to believe that it is best to use one control character, which surrounds whatever is supposed to be ignored for filing or sorting. Vinod Chachra (VTLS) commented that he would prefer to implement two different characters in case there are problems discerning where the non-filing text begins and ends. Gary Smith (OCLC) concurred. Representatives from OCLC and RLG said that this would be a major change to implement, but that they could see many advantages in doing so. Discussion then turned to the impact of this change. Rich Greene (OCLC) pointed out that utilities will need considerable lead-time, and that decision will be needed about converting records. Randall Barry (LC) reported that the Unicode consortium, ISO 10646, is interested in what MARBI decides about this issue, but will not accept the same solution immediately. Nevertheless, the use of two different control characters will probably be more compatible with Unicode. This led to more discussion of using one character or two, with some saying that logically it should not be necessary to use two different characters, and others saying that using two characters would cut down on human error. There was also discussion of how diacritics are marked. USMARC and CANMARC do not handle them the same way, and actual practice, including LC's practice through the years, is mixed. There was also a discussion of the need for sorting and non-sorting guidelines. Such guidelines might need to vary by country and language used. Jacquie Riley called for a straw vote. Most were in favor of implementing two new control characters and making the filing indicator obsolete for those fields. Most also favored using the control characters in all fields except the 0xx fields. More discussion ensued about whether to try to amend the proposal to include diacritics or whether to deal with the immediate problem of filing indicators and deal with diacritics separately. Diane Hillmann moved to approve proposal no. 98-16 in principle, but to defer a final vote to the 1999 Midwinter conference. Paul Weiss seconded the motion. there was considerable discussion about whether this was a proper way to proceed. When the vote came, the motion to approve proposal no. 98-16 in principle, but to defer a final vote to the 1999 midwinter conference was defeated, with 4 voting in favor, and 5 against. The proposal was referred back to ND/MSO for additional work. ___________________________________ Discussion paper 108[24]: recording language of heading in USMARC authority records Sally McCallum introduced the discussion. These issues were originally raised by an IFLA working group on authority data elements. The group had noted that, especially when working with subject authority records, there was often confusion between the language of the catalog and the language of the heading. There was also some interest in achieving cost savings through the use of model A of the DP. Concern was expressed about situations where there are multiple languages in headings, as was illustrated by several examples, and about marking language rather than cataloging/thesaurus rules. Because headings are established and live in an environment set by the cataloging or thesaurus rules used to formulate the heading, the linked record approach used by the Canadians and others is a good method (model B) in multilingual situations. While marking can be interpreted as being needed to distinguish a language, it is probably more accurately described as being needed to distinguish a thesaurus, with the thesaurus having a base language. NLC authority file can be viewed as an English-based thesaurus and a French-based thesaurus, with many records appropriate for either and so indicated at the record level. Discussion turned to the best way to choose a default language. Would this be the language of the catalog or the language of the cataloging? there could also be the problem of conflicts with cross-references in other languages. There was some discussion of the experience of Swiss libraries in using catalogs in multiple languages. Discussion of this paper will continue on the USMARC listserv. ___________________________________ Discussion paper 109[25]: identifying transliteration schemes in USMARC formats Sally McCallum introduced the discussion paper. This issue arose from CPSO's need to identify Pinyin and Wade-Giles transliterations in MARC records there was however some feeling that the need to identify transliteration schemes might exist more broadly. Because of lack of time, discussion moved quickly to the questions at the end of the paper. there were no comments on the first question. Opinion was divided on the second question: is there a need to link corresponding transliteration-related fields, such as non-roman and transliterated roman data? There was no opinion on the third question. On the fourth question, the opinion was that the lowest level used for identification would be the field level. For the first part of the fifth question (what is the impact on cataloging efficiency?) The comment was made that there will be no impact unless systems can display non-roman scripts. discussion of this paper should be continued at the 1999 ALA Midwinter meeting in Philadelphia. ___________________________________ Discussion paper 111[26]: alternate graphics without 880 in bibliographic, holdings, authority, and community information records Sally McCallum introduced the paper, commenting that, although the discussion paper uses the term "non-roman," the appropriate name is "alternate graphics." Because time was getting short, discussion quickly turned to the questions at the end of the paper. On the first question, both Rich Greene and Joe Altimus commented that this change would have a very great impact on OCLC and RLG. Joan Aliprand elaborated that internally, RLG does not store information as an 880, but the 880 is important for validation when a record is being contributed to RLIN. In line with the second question, there was also discussion of how records with transliterations and alternate graphics would be handled. John Espley asked what will happen to systems that cannot handle alternate graphics if 880s are abolished and what was the impetus for considering doing so. Sally McCallum replied that using 880s is a roman-centric solution, and may not be appropriate in the long term. Paul Weiss suggested that the problem could be solved by specifying the use of 880 more clearly. Joe Altimus commented that single fields that contain all scripts would be the most desirable model. Due to time constraints, discussion will continue at the 1999 ALA midwinter meeting in Philadelphia. Adjournment The next meeting will be Saturday January 30, Sunday January 31, and Monday February 1, 1999, at the usual times. Time having expired, the chair declared the meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Anne Gilliland ___________________________________ GO TO: List of MARBI Meeting Minutes[27] MARC Home Page[28] MARBI Home Page[29] Library of Congress Home Page[30] ___________________________________ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Comments: lcweb@loc.gov[31] (10/15/98) *** References from this document *** [orig] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/an-98.html [1] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-08.html [2] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-09.html [3] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-10.html [4] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-07.html [5] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp106.html [6] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-15.html [7] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-17.html [8] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp105.html [9] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-12.html [10] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-14.html [11] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-13.html [12] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp107.html [13] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp110.html [14] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-18.html [15] http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/div/marbi/tf-un-1a.html [16] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1997/97-10.html [17] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-16.html [18] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-11.html [19] http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/div/marbi/tf-ea-1a.html [20] http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/ccda/ [21] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp110.html [22] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/98-16.html [23] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp102.html [24] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp108.html [25] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp109.html [26] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp111.html [27] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/minutes.html [28] http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/ [29] http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/div/marbi/marbi.html [30] http://lcweb.loc.gov/ [31] mailto:lcweb@loc.gov Best wishes John Clews -- John Clews, SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG Email: European@sesame.demon.co.uk; tel: +44 (0) 1423 888 432