Re: MARC vs XMLMARC

I would say both. As I say, the group is advisory to LoC and there is no
group other than LoC that can make decisions about MARC21, although
MARC21 now includes LoC, the Canadian national library, and the British
Library. Those latter two (which I had forgotten in my earlier post)
also have non-voting seats on MARBI, much as LoC does. However, LoC sits
at the head of the table and presents the proposals for changes. I don't
know within LoC if there is any other structure that combines the three
"national" libraries for decision-making. LoC does not have direct
control over ISO 2709, but I think it is highly unlikely that there will
be changes to that standard since it has not changed since it was
created in 1966 or so.

kc

Andrews, Mark J. wrote:
> Is LoC's control de facto, de jure, or a mixture of the two?  Mark Andrews
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries on behalf of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Sun 5/27/2007 9:13 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] MARC vs XMLMARC
>
> I'll take on these two questions about MARC.
>
>
>> Maybe you can explain a couple things about MARBI for me.  First, by what authority does MARBI even exist and do what it does?  Second, can anybody join MARBI and participate in its deliberations, whether or not that "body" is an ALA member?
>>
> MARBI is an ALA *advisory* body to LoC. I don't know who fixed the
> composition of the group initially, but it consists of 9 voting members,
> 3 each from LITA, ALCTS and RUSA. The committee also consists of
> non-voting members representing key stakeholders: RLG & OCLC (well, now
> OCLC, and once WLN, RLG and OCLC); various national libraries (NAL,
> NLM); representatives from associations of non-general libraries (Ass'ns
> of Music Libraries, Law Libraries, etc.); one vendor representative
> (AVIAC).
>
> The meetings are held at ALA and anyone can attend and speak up. The
> listserv is open (marc_at_loc.gov).
>
> HOWEVER, LoC has control over just about everything. If you submit a
> proposal for a change, it goes to LoC and they decide *if* it goes to
> the advisory group. If they do send it to the AG, they can and do edit
> it beforehand, so as the submitter you do not control the content of the
> proposal. And because the group is *advisory*, LoC can choose to ignore
> the advice, or to make changes after votes are taken. This happens
> seldom, but it has happened.
>
> More info at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/marcadvz.html
>
> Andrews, Mark J. wrote:
>
>> One more thing...as I recall, ISO 2709 = ANSI/NISO Z39.2, correct?  If there are complaints about field and record length limits, limits built into these transport formats, then one way (not necessarily the best way) to proceed would be to increase the record length and field lengths.  Of course then everybody gets to re-write, well, a lot of code.
>>
>>
> Length limits cannot be increased because the ISO 2709 structure allows
> only 5 characters for record length (99999) and 4 characters for field
> length (9999). What could be changed would be the number of indicators
> (0-9, currently at 2) and the size of the subfield code (0-9, currently
> at 1). But the lengths are fixed, which is why moving to MARCXML is seen
> as an advantage by some. (MARCXML does not solve other problems, like
> running out of subfield codes when you have exhausted a-z, 0-9). For
> some statistics on the MARC record, see this pbwiki page
> http://futurelib.pbwiki.com/Data+and+Studies where I put some of the
> results of a study I did. And this page
> (http://futurelib.pbwiki.com/DataFormatIssues) enumerates some of the
> limits we have run up against.
>
> kc
>
>> Mark Andrews
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
>

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------