The document discusses the evolution of machine-readable cataloging (MARC) since its introduction in the 1960s, highlighting its historical significance in library data management and its growing obsolescence in the internet age. It emphasizes the need for a transition to the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME) to better connect bibliographic data with the web and to enhance resource sharing and accessibility. The transition to BIBFRAME is presented as a substantial modernization effort that will change cataloging practices and library technologies.

1. Running head: Black/SLIS5210.001
Deidre Black
SLIS 5210.001
Dr. Miksa
March 29, 2015

2. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 1
The Future of the MARC Standard
Introduction
Since its introduction in the 1960s, Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) has become
the standard “mechanism by which computers exchange, use, and interpret bibliographic
information, and its data elements make up the foundation of most library catalogs used today”
(Library of Congress, 2006). MARC formats are standards that facilitate representation
and communication of bibliographic information in a machine-readable form. Although it has
played an enormous, historic role in the way libraries manage data, MARC’s limitations have
recently become apparent. In the Internet era, there is need for a less restrictive schema that fully
implements the capabilities of the web. Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME) “provides a
foundation for the future of bibliographic description, both on the web, and in the broader
networked world” (Library of Congress, n.d.).
MARC’s Contributions and Legacy
Before Henriette Avram developed MARC, many libraries operated as islands, recording
bibliographic information onto handwritten or typed catalog cards, while oftentimes using their
own cataloging rules. Before library automation, slow and localized practices were the means by
which libraries listed their particular holdings, making record and resource sharing with other
libraries difficult. Lack of automation meant lack of standardization and bibliographic control,
unless libraries chose to employ the National Union Catalog in copy cataloging. The disconnect
libraries experienced from one another prior to MARC, and lack of shared cataloging, serves as a

3. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 2
reminder “why a standard format for identifying elements of bibliographic data became
necessary and why it is still important” (Library of Congress, 2009).
Avram, who went to work for the Library of Congress in 1965, worked to revolutionize
cataloging systems in a time when computers were beginning to gain popularity. Combining
“computer programming and intricate cataloging practices, she and a small team completed the
MARC Pilot Project—for Machine Readable Cataloging—in 1968” (Schudel, 2006). This new
format radically simplified library searches and popularized the idea that all of a library’s
resources could (or should) be accessible from a single computer. Bibliographic information that
had formerly appeared on three-by-five catalog cards (resource descriptions, subject and author
headings and organizational elements such as classification numbers) now appeared in MARC
records. The Library of Congress adopted the MARC format in 1970, and libraries across the
country also began to adopt the automated system. It became possible for “libraries to exchange
information more quickly, and in greater depth, than ever before. Interlibrary loans grew more
common, as people could instantly learn where documents and other items were housed”
(Schudel, 2006). To date, most English-speaking countries have accepted the MARC structure.
MARC as an Outdated Carrier
It’s been 46 years since the introduction of MARC and, although “content fields have
been added or changed over the years . . . it is still a flat format in a multi-relational world”
(Fallgren, Lauruhn, & Reynolds, 2015, p. 124). MARC 21, which was meant to act as the
cataloging format for the 21st century, is now slated for replacement. The Internet has altered the
way people search for information, and the data stored in MARC is not easily accessible using
typical online search methods. “MARC data is hidden in the ‘deep Web’ in information silos

4. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 3
which cannot be found by search engines” (Rollitt, 2014, p. 16), therefore restricting its range
and audience.
In addition, Resource Description and Access (RDA) is not reaching its full potential
within MARC’s restrictive environment and communication format. “While one of RDA’s goals
is to explicitly express resource relationships, MARC will not allow . . . systems to easily display
and utilize these relationships” (Fallgren, Lauruhn, & Reynolds, 2015, p. 125). Until the time
comes to implement BIBFRAME, libraries’ data is essentially being tucked away inside MARC
records, disconnected from the semantic web.
An Alternative to MARC
The BIBFRAME Initiative was started by the Library of Congress in 2011 in order to
move away from a “MARC-based environment to one that fully integrates with and reaps the
benefits of the World Wide Web” (Library of Congress, 2014, p. 1). Due to its reliance upon the
MARC format, the library community is becoming isolated as more and more people turn to the
Internet for knowledge, and libraries struggle to be recognized as primary sources of
information. The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, in
its 2008 report, stated that:
No community other than the library community uses this record format, severely
compromising its utility to other communities as a data transmission tool. Bibliographic
applications being developed outside of the library environment are not making use of,
and may not be compatible with, records encoded in MARC. (p. 24)
BIBFRAME offers a linked data solution to MARC’s finite, controlled fields and offers a
way for libraries’ authoritative collection of data and resources to reach a global community. It

5. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 4
provides a flexible representation of data and supports Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) and
linked data that MARC cannot.
The Transition from MARC to BIBFRAME
The switch to BIBFRAME and linked data “represents an evolutionary leap for libraries
and not a simple migration” (Stahmer, 2014). It’s a modernization effort that will mean new
ways of thinking and working for libraries. Converting to BIBFRAME presents a daunting task
for libraries and other information organizations, due to its radically different approach to
sharing and finding data. Luckily for catalogers and IT professionals, the Library of Congress
has provided comparison and transformation services that can be implemented in the changeover
from MARC records to BIBFRAME resources.
In order to create a smooth transition for libraries who move from MARC to
BIBFRAME, a mapping of fields between the two has been a focus. The Library of Congress
states that “the repackaging is not of MARC data but of cataloging content data” (Library of
Congress, 2006). The two formats differ greatly from one another structurally, but they do share
a cataloging rule set: RDA.
How BIBFRAME Will Affect Libraries
BIBFRAME is an agreeable match with the RDA cataloging code/content standard and
the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), which uses an entity-
relationship model and is compatible with linked data technologies. This is good news for
catalogers who have already become accustomed to using RDA and FRBR and understand their
roles in resource description for MARC records.

6. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 5
With the introduction of BIBFRAME, “cataloguing will change from creating MARC
records to creating metadata with links” (Rollitt, 2014, p. 17). The term, “catalinking,” has been
coined to describe this new way of cataloging and libraries’ future existence as a part of the
semantic web.
The introduction of BIBFRAME also means changes for library systems and technology.
Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) technologies were largely built around the MARC record,
and this paradigm shift calls for new types of web interfaces.
Library services could someday resemble Google’s knowledge graph, which draws
information from multiple sources and creates a display related to a particular query. Fallgren,
Lauruhn and Reynolds (2015) give the example of a Google search of “Madame Curie” and how
the search engine not only finds information about Curie, but also about her husband, daughter,
related scientists and even the 1943 film made about her life. In future, a library’s linked data
could “lead to serendipitous discovery of relationships, unveiling unknown and unpredictable
possibilities” (Fallgren, Lauruhn, & Reynolds, 2015, p. 126.)
Conclusion
Historically, MARC has contributed a great deal to libraries and how data is curated,
managed, shared and retrieved. Henriette Avram and her team, in their development of MARC,
could not have anticipated the Internet or its effect on information searches and data sharing. The
Library of Congress and Avram did, however, acknowledge that computers and automation were
the ideal vehicles for distributing information in a standardized, modern fashion. Today, the
Library of Congress has a new vision for libraries that involves an increased growth and
relevance.

7. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 6
BIBFRAME represents the future of bibliographic description in the electronic era, but
transitioning to this framework may include inconveniences for libraries or other institutions that
currently use the MARC model. In order for libraries to reach an audience beyond its brick and
mortar establishments, they must utilize a framework that isn’t ON the web but OF the web

8. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 7
REFERENCES
Avram, H. D., & McCallum, S. H. (1980). Directions in library networking. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 31, 438-444.
Calame, A. P. (2000). Hitting the MARC: Database structure for library automation. School
Libraries in Canada, 20(1), 5-6.
Fallgren, N., Lauruhn, M., Reynolds, R. R., & Kaplan, L. (2015). The missing link: The evolving
current state of linked data for serials. Serials Librarian, 66(1-4), 123-138.
doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.879690
Fritz, D., & Fritz, R. (2003). MARC21 for everyone: A practical guide. Chicago, IL: American
Library Association.
Library of Congress. (n.d.) Bibliographic Framework Initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/
Library of Congress. (2006). Frequently asked questions (FAQ). Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html#definition
Library of Congress. (2009). What is a MARC record, and why is it important? Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html#part5
Library of Congress. (2014). BIBFRAME: Why? What? Who? Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibframe/bibframe-and-pcc.html
OCLC [OCLCVideo]. (2013, September 26). Transforming role - text to data: The GW
BIBFRAME [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN2BsIaMGag

9. Black/SLIS5210.001/p. 8
Rollitt, K. (2014). MARC21 to Bibframe: outcomes, possibilities and new directions. New
Zealand Library & Information Management Journal, 55(1), 16-19.
Schudel, M. (2006). Henriette Avram, ‘Mother of MARC,’ dies. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0605/avram.html
Stahmer, C. (2014, June 25). It’s Complicated! [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/bibflow/its-complicated/
The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. (2008). On the
record [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-
ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf