Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Transcription

1 March 8, 2004 Patricia Burch, Managing Principal The Stillwater Group 920 East Shore Drive P.O. Box 168 Stillwater, NJ

2 Page 1 1. Project Background and Objectives The German Committee for Library Standards is considering changing from national library standards (RAK and MAB) for cataloging library materials, to international standards (AACR2 and MARC21) 1. The Committee first needs to evaluate the current environment and the factors that may influence these international standards in the future. To this end, the Committee commissioned a study of the application and development of AACR2 and MARC21 in U.S. libraries. The project had two primary objectives: 1. To assess the stability and future development of MARC21 and AACR2 standards. 2. To analyze the potential impact of non-library standards and formats on library cataloging practices. The project was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) and managed by Die Deutsche Bibliothek on behalf of the Committee for Library Standards. The Stillwater Group was retained to conduct research and interview experts in cataloging codes and formats and non-library standards in the U.S. 2. Executive Summary Major Findings 1. Stability and Development of Current Standards With an installed base of thousands of library systems and Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs), MARC21, and the cataloging rules it is based on (AACR2), represent a significant economic and intellectual commitment on the part of U.S. libraries. For this reason, experts believe it is extremely unlikely that these standards will be replaced in the foreseeable future. Experts suggested that ongoing revisions to AACR cataloging rules, in particular the effort to incorporate Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, will be beneficial not only for Anglo-American libraries, but also for the international library community. It is likely that AACR will be more widely used outside of the Anglo- American community, and there will be increasing convergence on AACR as the international cataloging standard. 1 AACR2 refers to Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, which prescribe the content of bibliographic records; MARC21 refers to Machine Readable Catalog, which stipulate the format of records.

3 Page 2 Some experts believe that MARC21 format, which was designed to describe physical objects and to automate production of paper cards for library card catalogs, is not optimal for today s technological and bibliographic environment. Libraries should develop transitional strategies by making MARC21 records more accessible for translation and transformation to other standards. The Library of Congress has launched a variety of initiatives using Extensible Markup Language (XML) to employ more flexible metadata structures to express MARC records. The goal is to take advantage of emerging metadata structures while preserving the standardization of MARC21. The two major U.S. bibliographic utilities OCLC and RLG conduct and sponsor research projects on cataloging standards and the management of bibliographic records. Current research projects include the application of FRBR concepts to largescale union catalogs and metadata management. 2. Impact of Non-Library Standards Extensible Markup Language (XML) is rapidly emerging as a standard for encoding and transferring information on the internet. XML has many applications in libraries, and the library community is developing XML standards which are designed to facilitate information exchange and promote access to library resources. Online Information Exchange (ONIX) is an XML-based metadata standard for book and serial publishers in the United States and Europe. Although ONIX is not yet widely used by U.S. libraries, experts expect ONIX to become increasingly important for both library cataloging processes and OPACs in the future. For example, libraries could use ONIX to acquire basic bibliographic information during the acquisitions process, or use ONIX records to enhance the information available to users in the library s OPAC. Dublin Core is a metadata standard that serves as a useful, and perhaps essential, minimum standard for discovery and exchanging information about diverse resources. However, it does not have sufficient descriptive or bibliographic information to be useful for managing library collections and operations. Open Archives Initiative (OAI) has developed a protocol allows data providers (e.g., a library) to make their metadata available to repositories. OAI protocol is already used by a large number of digital repositories in universities, government agencies, and research institutes, and will likely become increasing important to libraries as a means of harvesting metadata and making it available on the Web.

4 Page 3 Conclusions Current international cataloging standards will function as industry-wide standards for the foreseeable future. AACR2 standards are evolving in a direction that can be more easily applied to non-print materials and that is more compatible with proposed FRBR principles. The MARC format will continue to evolve, and may eventually be replaced. The library community is preparing for this possibility with transitional strategies designed to preserve their investment in current formats and minimize the need for costly conversions. The development of XML-based standards is a key part of this transitional strategy. Experts agree that other non-library standards and protocols, including ONIX, Dublin Core, and OAI, will not replace existing library standards, but they do have significant potential to extend and enhance bibliographic records and provide new pathways and tools for search and discovery. Changing to international standards could have many short-term and long-term benefits for German libraries, including simplified record transfer and sharing, increased efficiency in cataloging, and the opportunity to participate in ongoing research and development on new standards. 3. Methodology and Sources of Data The study is based on two primary sources of data: 1. Site visits and interviews. Stillwater conducted site visits and interviews with experts at selected organizations that are involved in the development and application of international cataloging standards and formats. Prior to the interview, each participant in the interview process received background information about the project and the objectives of the study. Interview questions and protocols were developed in consultation with the project managers at Die Deutsche Bibliothek. A summary of the interview questions is provided in the Appendix. The interview sample included: Senior officers at the Library of Congress (LOC), which is among others responsible for the development, administration, and maintenance of cataloging rules, AACR2, and format, MARC21.

5 Page 4 Program officers and researchers at the two major U.S. bibliographic utilities, Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) and Research Libraries Group (RLG). Librarians and other experts in cataloging practices and the development of non-library standards for digital materials. A list of individuals interviewed is provided in the Appendix. 2. In addition to the interviews, Stillwater reviewed articles, conference proceedings, white papers, and web-sites for a wide range of libraries and organizations involved in the development and application of cataloging standards and formats. These sources provided additional information about the current context for Anglo-American cataloging practices and the factors that are influencing future developments. Selected references are included in the Appendix. 4. A Snapshot of U.S. Cataloging Practices Cataloging practices in U.S. libraries are characterized by a high degree of cooperation and standardization. These practices are predicated on well established cataloging rules (AACR2) and format (MARC21) that determine content and access points and facilitate exchange of bibliographic records. In addition, three organizations provide essential services that support shared cataloging and access to bibliographic records: the Library of Congress (LOC), which maintains key standards used by libraries (including MARC21), and the two major utilities, Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) and Research Libraries Group (RLG), which provide subscriptions to large-scale union catalogs and a variety of other cataloging services. The proliferation of digital and electronic resources has had a profound impact on both collection management activities and operations. To meet new demands for managing and providing access to digital resources, libraries have had to reallocate resources from traditional cataloging activities. As a result there is an increasing level of automation in cataloging. Libraries can contract with OCLC or book vendors (e.g., Blackwell, Yankee Book Peddler, Harrassowitz) to receive minimal catalog records at the time books are purchased. Many minimal records are upgraded by importing records from utilities when the books are received (copy cataloging). Incomplete records are periodically sent electronically to the utilities union catalogs for automatic update and augmentation. These practices have significantly increased efficiency and reduced duplication in cataloging.

6 Page 5 5. Findings Stability and Development of Current Standards 1. Investment in MARC Format The MARC format has been in use for three decades, and is the industry-wide standard for U.S. libraries. As such, it produces reliable cataloging data and fosters economical exchange of bibliographic information. In addition, integrated library systems (ILS) that manage library operations (acquisitions, circulation, etc.) are based on the MARC standard. With an installed base of thousands of library systems and Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs), MARC21, and the cataloging rules it is based on (AACR2), represent a significant economic and intellectual commitment on the part of U.S. libraries. There was general agreement among the experts we interviewed that the widespread use of MARC format for exchange of bibliographic information and for managing library operations in the U.S. made it extremely unlikely that it would be replaced in the foreseeable future. Even those who believe that MARC standards are becoming obsolete agree that any proposal to replace MARC would meet with overwhelming resistance from the library community, and would be an extremely costly undertaking. 2. Revision of AACR2 and MARC21 The process for revisions and modifications to AACR2 and MARC21 is a collaborative one that involves various user communities and oversight bodies: Proposed changes to AACR are reviewed and approved by the Joint Steering Committee for Revisions of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (JSC), whose membership includes: The American Library Association, The Australian Committee on Cataloguing, The British Library, The Canadian Committee on Cataloguing, CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, and The Library of Congress. Proposals for rule revision are submitted through the member bodies of JSC. Revisions for MARC21 are approved by the maintenance bodies: the Library of Congress, the National Library of Canada, and the British Library, with the assistance of the proposal originators and other experts. Any MARC21 user can initiate a proposal for changes to MARC format. The MARC Advisory Committee advises the maintenance bodies concerning changes to MARC21 formats. 2 2 The MARC Advisory Committee includes the American Library Association's (ALA) Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information (MARBI) committee, US national libraries, the British Library, the National Library of Canada and the National Library of Australia, the large bibliographic networks such as OCLC

7 Page 6 This process allows for constant revision of Anglo-American cataloging codes and formats. Several experts described the process as evolutionary. Others said that the pace of change has increased significantly in response to two major trends: (1) the need to address issues related to cataloging and access for digital materials; and (2) a desire to make AACR rules more consistent with the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). 3 Historically, AACR rules have been oriented primarily toward describing physical objects. As the FRBR framework is adopted, the focus of AACR cataloging rules will be shift toward describing the relationship between entities (i.e., works, expressions, manifestations, and items). In addition, there will be more uniform definition of rules for creating authority records which define access points to works, expressions, and manifestations. A new edition of AACR (referred to as AACR3) that incorporates these and other changes will be published in Experts suggested that ongoing revisions to AACR cataloging rules, in particular the effort to incorporate FRBR concepts, will be beneficial not only for Anglo-American libraries, but also for the international library community. It is likely that AACR will be more widely used outside of the Anglo-American community, and there will be increasing convergence on AACR as the international cataloging standard. The pending changes in AACR rules will not affect MARC21 format. Several experts speculated that there would be fewer revisions to MARC21 in the future. Rather than adding or modifying MARC fields, it will be possible to enhance bibliographic records by linking them to information in other metadata structures. 5 In addition, the availability of full text for electronic documents reduces the need for elaborate descriptive bibliographic records. 3. Limitations of MARC21 Format The MARC record format was designed to describe physical objects and to automate production of paper cards for library card catalogs. It was developed at a time when computer memory, storage and processing were expensive, and it was therefore designed to be compact. While this economy of expression may have been an advantage thirty and RLG, library associations such as the Music Library Association and Special Libraries Association, and library system vendors. 3 The final report describing FRBR concepts is available at 4 See for a summary of changes to be included in the new edition. 5 One example is adding table of contents data using ONIX, as described in the next section.

8 Page 7 years ago, many experts believe that it is a major limitation in today s technological and bibliographic environment. The limitations cited most often included: Idiosyncratic record structure and coding: Even after nearly thirty years of evolution and modification, MARC record structure and coding schemes are incompatible with current database design principles: Examples include: (1) combining information about data elements and attributes in the same line entry; and (2) recording the same information in different parts of the record. Compared to more recently developed metadata schemes, MARC record structure is relatively flat and does not easily support links or references to other bibliographic information. For example, it is difficult, if not impossible, to enrich records with links to Web sites, table of contents, reviews, graphics, etc. Inconsistent granularity: the rules that determine whether elements are encoded in constituent parts (e.g., names) are sometimes illogical or used inconsistently. As a result it can be difficult to manipulate MARC records in computer software. Technical obsolescence: the software required to handle MARC records is highly specialized and therefore limits libraries to vendors who have designed ILS systems based on MARC. Lack of scalability to digital materials: because MARC was designed to describe physical objects, it may not be appropriate, or even feasible, to apply the same format to digital objects. Although they disagreed about the seriousness of these limitations, the experts we spoke to agreed that MARC21 format will continue to be industry standard for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, libraries should develop transitional strategies by making MARC21 records more accessible for translation and transformation to other standards. 4. Evolutionary Strategies at the Library of Congress While the U.S. library community is not prepared to abandon MARC21, there are many efforts underway to employ more flexible metadata structures to express MARC records and tools to convert MARC records to these alternative structures. One expert at the LOC describes this process as an evolutionary pathway. The goal is to take advantage of emerging metadata structures while preserving the standardization of MARC21. LOC is pursuing a variety of initiatives to achieve these goals using Extensible Markup Language (XML), which is rapidly emerging as a standard for encoding and transferring information on the internet. LOC s efforts to develop XML-based standards and conversion utilities for the library community include the following:

9 Page 8 MARCXML. LOC has established a MARC standard in XML schema and provides utilities for conversion between MARC21 and MARCXML on their website ( Records can be converted from one standard to another with no loss of data. MARCXML provides a flexible structure for working with MARC data. Metadata Object Description (MODS). MODS uses fewer elements than MARCXML and is intended primarily for electronic documents, which many experts believe do not require the level of descriptive standards and format rules of MARC21. Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standards (METS). METS is a framework for encoding descriptive, administrative, rights management, and structural data about digital objects. It can be used to combine several metadata structures. LOC s website also provides mapping from MARC21 to Dublin Core and ONIX, which also use XML (see below). As these initiatives demonstrate, LOC continues to have a leadership role in the development and maintenance of international cataloging standards and formats. LOC s support for development and application of XML-based metadata standards in the library community increases the likelihood that the underlying format MARC21 will be viable for some time to come. 5. Research and Development at OCLC and RLG Like LOC, OCLC and RLG have recognized the potential of XML-based schemes for encoding and transferring many types of data. Both organizations are implementing new database platforms that support XML, and will be receiving MARCXML records from LOC. They believe this change will enhance their efforts to import and export bibliographic records using a variety of metadata structures. As managers of massive union catalogs with records that are based primarily on MARC21 format, OCLC and RLG have a vested interest in developing techniques to both manage their databases more efficiently and provide enhanced and expanded services to their subscribers libraries. Both organizations conduct and sponsor research projects on cataloging standards and the management of bibliographic records. Examples include: a) FRBR OCLC researchers believe that widespread adoption of FRBR will produce major changes to bibliographic databases, including OCLC's union catalog, WorldCat. Manual

10 Page 9 conversion of existing databases would be a massive undertaking, and would be prohibitively expensive. To address this problem, researchers at OCLC are experimenting with ways to automatically convert bibliographic records to FRBR definitions (a process referred to as "FRBRization"). Early research on how to divide a particular 'work' into its component 'expressions' revealed problems of inconsistency and unreliability in existing (MARC21) bibliographic records. Subsequent efforts to group bibliographic records corresponding to different works were more promising, particularly when the authority files were used to look up authors and titles. b) Metadata Management Both OCLC and RLG are actively pursuing metadata management techniques and services. For example, OCLC s Metadata Switch Project is experimenting with a variety of metadata services, including harvesting, combining metadata from different sources, schema transformation, augmentation of records, and terminology and name authority services. RLG s RedLightGreen project ( is an effort to make their union catalog accessible on the Web by taking advantage of internet portal technologies to provide enhanced search and discovery tools. RLG is using an outside vendor that employs data mining techniques to develop correlations between works and aggregate search results. Impact of Non-Library Standards 1. Extensible Markup Language (XML) XML is a standard to describe the structure and format of information. XML is managed and maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) When applied to MARC21 records, XML transforms MARC data elements and syntax into a format that can be read by multiple software programs and computer platforms. As the projects and initiatives underway at LOC, OCLC, and RLG demonstrate, XML is proving to be extremely useful for making MARC21 records available for exchange and presentation. One primary advantage of XML is extensibility. That is, different metadata schemas can be combined to produce a framework for encoding descriptive (bibliographic), structural, and administrative information about a resource. Without some degree of standardization, XML s inherent flexibility could lead to a proliferation of structures and definitions. To avoid this problem, the library community is developing XML standards, called document type definitions (DTD s) and schemas, which are designed for library resources.

11 Page Online Information Exchange (ONIX) ONIX is an XML-based metadata standard for book and serial publishers in the United States and Europe. It is jointly managed and maintained by Editeur in Britain ( and the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) in the U.S. and ( ONIX was designed to meet the need for a standard format for publishers to distribute electronic information about their books to wholesale, on-line and retail booksellers, and other publishers. ONIX is not yet widely used by U.S. libraries, primarily because it is oriented toward promotion and description rather than bibliographic control. The experts we spoke to expect ONIX to become increasingly important for both library cataloging processes and OPACs in the future. For example, libraries could use ONIX to acquire basic bibliographic information (provisional or minimal records) during the acquisitions process, thereby reducing cataloging costs. ONIX could also be used to enhance the information available to users in the library s OPAC by providing cover images, synopses, table of contents, and reviews. A prototype for this application of ONIX has been developed by LOC s Bibliographic Enrichment Advisory Team (BEAT) LOC provides links from catalog records to tables of contents (encoded with LOC subject headings), descriptions, sample texts and images in ONIX records. 3. Dublin Core (DC) Dublin Core is a metadata standard that was originally developed for web documents. The goal of the initiative was to develop a simple data structure and set of rules that could be used by non-catalogers (e.g., document authors) to describe resources on the web. Since its inception in the mid-1990 s DC has been used by many different types of organizations in a multitude of contexts (see for examples.) Library experts agree that DC has an important role as a transfer syntax between diverse communities. DC s key advantages are: Simplicity: there are relatively few elements and simple rules. The unqualified Dublin Core specifies only 15 elements. Cross-domain interoperability: DC serves as a least common denominator to exchange data across domains and disciplines with consistent data content and functionality. Extensibility: it is not based on an extensive or rigid set of rules; creators of DC records can extend the description of their documents with the addition of other existing metadata element sets.

12 Page 11 DC is a useful, and perhaps essential, minimum standard for discovery and exchanging information about diverse resources. However, it does not have sufficient descriptive or bibliographic information to be useful for managing library collections and operations. As one expert told us, We may have to adapt to fewer rules in the future, but Dublin Core has no rules. 4. Open Archives Initiative (OAI) OAI is an initiative to develop and promote interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. ( To achieve this goal, OAI has developed the OAI-Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-MPH). The protocol allows data providers (e.g., a library) to make their metadata available to repositories, who harvest metadata to create an aggregated descriptive database. These repositories can use this database to provide value-added services like search and discovery. The OAI protocol specifies unqualified Dublin Core encoded in XML as the minimum descriptive standard. Data providers can offer additional metadata in Dublin Core or other schemes, and there are a growing number of community-specific metadata schemes that use OAI protocol to exchange metadata. Many experts believe that one of the important benefits of OAI will be the development and standardization of more specialized metadata schemes. OAI protocol is already used by a large number of digital repositories in universities, government agencies, and research institutes, and will likely become increasing important to libraries as a means of harvesting metadata and making it available on the Web. 6 (The Metadata Switch harvesting and RedLightGreen projects described above use OAI protocols). It is a relatively simple, low-cost framework that has many potential applications for distributing information to search services and building union catalogs. 6. Conclusions 1. Stability of International Standards (AACR2 and MARC21) Our research suggests that current international cataloging codes will function as industrywide standards in Anglo-American libraries for the foreseeable future. There will always be a need for rules for describing objects and resources, be they books, electronic documents, or websites. Most experts believe that cataloging codes will be more flexible and less comprehensive in the future. AACR2 standards are already evolving in a 6 OAI recommends MARCXML schema for use in metadata descriptions.

13 Page 12 direction that can be more easily applied to non-print materials. In addition, the JSC is working toward making AACR rules more compatible with proposed FRBR principles. Experts disagree about the useful life of the MARC format. Some suggested that MARC21 could be replaced within five years, while others predicted that it would be in use for at least ten years, and possibly longer. One major obstacle to abandoning MARC format is the design of automated library systems. Almost all integrated library systems that are essential for managing library operations rely on MARC21 format. For this reason, libraries must depend on MARC unless and until ILS vendors develop alternatives that are acceptable to the library community. The MARC format will continue to evolve, and may eventually be replaced. The library community is preparing for this possibility with transitional strategies designed to preserve their investment in current formats and minimize the need for costly conversions. If MARC is eventually replaced by a more flexible format, experts believe the change will be evolutionary and orderly. 2. Impact of Non-Library Standards The development of XML-based standards is a key part of the library community s transitional strategy. According to one expert at LOC, the application of XML record structure to bibliographic resources has many advantages: The various schema and transformations will help to standardize MARC across this community for XML communication and manipulations, open MARC21 to XML programming tools and presentation style sheets, standardize MARC21 for OAI harvesting, and standardize transformations to and from other standard formats such as DC and ONIX. 7 Experts agree that other non-library standards and protocols, including ONIX, Dublin Core, and OAI will not replace existing library standards (AACR2 and MARC21). However, these non-library standards have significant potential to extend and enhance bibliographic records and provide new pathways and tools for search and discovery. LOC, OCLC, and RLG are actively pursuing these opportunities, as are many U.S. libraries. The proliferation of metadata schemas presents standardization problems for the library community. To preserve interoperability between schemas, there must be standards for transforming records from one schema to another. For MARC users, these translations are established and widely available through LOC and MARCXML provides a simple and flexible structure for exchanging records. 7 McCallum, Sally H. Library of Congress Metadata Landscape. Zeitschrift fur Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie Band 50 (2003). DIN A4.VI.

14 Page Implications for German Libraries Our research suggests that changing to international standards could have many short-term and long-term benefits for German libraries. Among them: Adopting the MARC21 and AACR standard would greatly simplify record transfer and sharing with Anglo-American library community. It is very costly to maintain separate standards and translate records from MARC and other formats to MAB and from RAK to AACR. Conversion to international standards could produce efficiencies in German cataloging practices. Using international standards, the German library system could adopt evolutionary strategies for transition to new standards being developed by Anglo-American libraries. In addition, German libraries would benefit from the research and development in metadata management and FRBRization.

15 Appendix Interview Guide 1. MARC21 format Which new or newly developed standards will have an influence on MARC21 and will they lead to a fundamental change in MARC21? Which other formats or schemes besides MARC21 are already in use in American libraries? Is it possible that MARC21 will be replaced by new standards? If yes, within what period of time would this happen? Within 5, 10, or more than 10 years? What is the basis for your assessment? 2. Cataloguing code Will there be a fundamental change of AACR2? If yes, in what respects? Is it possible that AACR2 will be replaced by new standards? If yes, by which standards and within which period of time? What factors are influencing the development of AACR2? Is it possible that AACR2 will develop into an international code instead of just an Anglo-American code? Why or why not? How will AACR2 be adapted to electronic and digital materials? 3. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records What experience have you had with efforts to implement FRBR? How will the implementation of FRBR concepts affect AACR cataloguing code? Will the changes have any effect on the MARC format? How can FRBR be established in existing data bases? What research has been done in this regard? 4. Non-library structures, standards, and protocol: XML, OAI, ONIX Is it possible to replace MARC21 by schemes like XML? What are the current applications of XML in library environments?

16 Page A-1 What tools are being developed for conversion of data bases (e.g., MARC21 to XML)? What will be the impact of OAI and ONIX on library standards? 5. Metadata How do you assess the development and the potential influence of metadata schemes like Dublin Core on the future development of MARC21 and AACR2? The Library of Congress has developed metadata standards like MODS and METS that differ from Dublin Core. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these standards compared to Dublin Core? Which of the metadata standards will find greater acceptance in the library environment?

17 Page A-2 Interviews 1. Library of Congress Sally H. McCallum, Chief, Network Development and MARC Standards Office John D. Byrum, Chief of the Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division 2. OCLC Glenn Patton, Director, WorldCat Content Management Cynthia Whitacre, Manager, Metadata Quality Eric Childress, Consulting Product Specialist, WorldCat content Management Thom Hickey, Chief Scientist, OCLC Office of Research Ed O Neill, Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC Office of Research 3. RLG Karen Smith-Yoshimura, Manager Member Services and Senior Project Manager Merrilee Proffitt, Program Officer Judith E. Bush, Manager, Software Development Linda West, Director, Member Programs & Initiatives 4. California Digital Library, University of California Roy Tennant, Manager, escholarship Web & Services Design 5. Stanford University Library Catherine Tierney, Associate Director University SUL/AIR

18 Page A-3 REFERENCES Danskin, Alan. UNIMARC, ONIX and the future. 67 th IFLA Council and General Conference August 16-25, Dawson, Laura. ONIX in the Library or, Why This Presentation Should Be Longer. National Information Standards Organization Godby, Carol Jean, Smith Devon, and Childress, Eric. Two Paths to Interoperable Metadata, A paper presented at the 2003 Dublin Core conference DC-2003: Supporting Communities of Discourse and Practice Metadata Research & Applications, Hodge, Gail. Metadata Made Simpler. Hegna, Knut, University of Oslo Library and Murtomaa, Eeva. Data mining MARC to find: FRBR? 13 TH march Hickey, Thomas B., O Neill, Edward T., Toves, Jenny, OCLC Research. Experiments with the IFLA Functional requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). September Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC) Format Variation Working Group, Update for MARBI. June Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR, Format Variation Working Group. Dealing with FRBR Expressions in MARC 21. May 30,2002 Discussion Paper No: 2002-DP08. McCallum, Sally H. Library of Congress Metadata Landscape. Zeitschrift fur Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie Band 50 (2003). DIN A4.VI.

19 Page A-4 Tennant, Roy. MARC Must Die. Library Journal October 15, Tennant, Roy. MARC Exit Strategies. Library Journal November 15, Williamson, David. Library of Congress. ONIX: What s In It for Libraries? The Technical Services Angle. National Information Standards Organization Tillett, Barbara B. Principles of AACR, Memorandum to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, May 8, Library of Congress Websites: Websites related to non-library standards: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Proposed changes to AACR: