|
CC:DA/Chair/2001-2002/1
May 20, 2002
Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
Chair’s Report on CC:DA Motions
June 2001–January 2002
Also available as an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file
The following are a record of motions made and votes taken between June 20, 2001 and January 17, 2002:
- Proposed Rule 9.7B17, Summary
- Rule Change Proposals for Cartographic Materials
- Rule Change Proposal for 1.2B3, Edition Statements
- Proposal to Change Rule 25.2E1
- Task Force on the Rule of Three
- Task Force on the Review of Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Rule Revision Proposals
- 12.3B1a/12.3C4 replace with:
12.3B1/12.3C4 [clean copy]: We agree with LC that the “PP1” example illustrates 12.3C4 since it turns out that the “75” represents the year. However, we do not feel that this example adds anything useful to the examples at 12.3C4 and recommend that it be deleted instead. If the example is retained in 12.3C4, we recommend that the parenthetical explanation be deleted since it adds nothing to the example itself.
- 2.4F2/1.4F8: add at the end of our comment:
We also note that the entire section allowing omission of the date when the relevant issue, iteration or part is not available may be in conflict with the revised version of ISBD(CR). If there is a conflict, is JSC concerned?
- 12.7B7.2b replace with:
12.7B7.2b [CCC response]: We disagree with adding the instruction to make a general statement. The phrase “if considered to be important” (clean copy) and cataloger judgment ought to be sufficient guidance in this situation. Changes in statements of responsibility that do not raise issues of main or added entries could be summarized in a general statement, but the frequency of the changes should not be the primary factor in determining when to make such a general statement. Since changes in statements of responsibility may also relate to the way the resource may have been cited, notes (and added entries) may indeed be important. It should also be noted that changes in statements of responsibility may even require creation of a new record, and that this rule will need to be considered as the Appendix on Major Differences and Changes is integrated into the code.
- 12.7B8e replace with:
12.7B8e [clean copy, CCC response, LC response]: We support the clean copy text; CCC’s addition of “is” doesn't seem to us to add anything to the example, and LC’s suggestion to return to “Title proper in Russian” misses the point of the rule, which is to indicate the translation relationship that exists between the two resources, not just their titles.
- 21.3B1 replace with:
21.3B1 [clean copy]: The use of the term “entry” in this rule is troubling. This use of “entry” where catalogers today would say “record” is common in the current text of AACR2. This is an area in which the Appendix on Major Differences and Changes will introduce a different set of terms and concepts, and editorial work will be needed to reconcile it with the current text. In that context, we urge that the current glossary definition of “entry” be deleted, and the use of that term in the rules be changed to “record.” However, if this revision is to be published before the Appendix is incorporated into the rules, we suggest that “description” be used in instructions relating specifically to changes in integrating resources. Thus the second sentence in 21.3B1b should read “Instead, change the description to reflect the latest information …” (This parallels the language in 21.2C1b.)
- Task Force on Alpha Prototype of Reorganized Part One
- Rule Change Proposal for 1.2B3, Edition Statements (cont.)
- Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes
- F.4D2. Change “A different publisher, distributor, etc., or a publisher, distributor, etc., that has changed named (see 24.1C) (e.g., Bailey-Firm Associates changed name to BFA Education Media)” to:
“A different publisher, distributor, etc.”
- F.5D2. Change “A different publisher, distributor, etc., or a publisher, distributor, etc., that has changed name (see 24.1C)” to: “A different publisher, distributor, etc.”
- Task Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources
- Brief explanation of recommendation #2.a. In its interim report (4JSC/ALA/36), the Task Force recommended that Area 3 information be relocated to Area 7 only, not to Area 5. A majority of JSC responses agreed. However, the Library of Congress proposed adding an option at 9.5B3 to describe “the actual content in addition to the specific material designation.” In addition, CC:DA received responses to the Task
Force’s interim report from Mary Larsgaard and from Elizabeth Mangan, the MAGERT representative, arguing that the description of cartographic materials, in particular, require that the type and extent of content be given, even for remote access materials; these responses are included in Appendix III.
- Recommendation #8. Amend (chapter 1) to show that notes should be both simple and specific. [was B.21 in February]
- Task Force on the Review of ISBD(CR)
- Rule Change Proposals for Cartographic Materials
- Proposed International Standard Textual Work Code
Michael Chopey made the motion (Peter Fletcher seconded) that CC:DA approve CC:DA/Schiff/2001/1, with the minor amendment that the existing second example in 9.7B17 not be deleted. Vote: 6-1.
John Attig made the motion (Dorothy McGarry seconded) that CC:DA approve CC:DA/MAGERT/2001/1/MAGERT follow-up/Rev., including the revisions to 3.7B7 and the example in 3.7B8 and the revision to 3.5B4 contained in CC:DA/MAGERT/2001/3. Vote: 8-0.
Brad Eden made the motion to accept proposal from the Appendix Task Force on edition statements (CC:DA/TF/Appendix on Major/Minor Changes/5).
John Attig made the motion that we approve the revision to 1.2B3 contained in CC:DA/TF/Appendix on Major/Minor Changes/5.
Attig amended his motion (and Eden seconded): “I move that we approve the revision to 1.2B3 proposed in CC:DA/TF/Appendix on Major/Minor Changes/5 but with the additional comment that the examples in this rule should be reconsidered in the light of the added conditions.”
After discussion, the proposal on edition statements was sent back to the Appendix Task Force for more work.
Eden made the motion to accept the Harcourt proposal on a revision to 25.2E1 [CC:DA/Harcourt/2].
Attig made the motion (and Eden seconded) that CC:DA approve the revision to 25.2E1 as proposed in CC:DA/Harcourt/2, with one change: delete the entire second example. Vote: 7-0.
Attig made the motion (seconded by Harcourt) that CC:DA accept the Report of the Task Force on the Rule of Three. Vote: 8-0.
Attig made the motion (seconded by Eden) that CC:DA approve the Report of the Task Force on the Review of Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Rule Revision Proposals with the changes given below. Vote: 8-0.
Harcourt made the motion (seconded by Eden) that CC:DA accept the Report of the Task Force on Alpha Prototype of Reorganized Part One and its recommendation that ALA continue work on recommendations 2-4. Vote: 8-0.
McGarry made the motion (seconded by Harcourt) that CC:DA accept the “Rule Change Proposal for 1.2B3, Edition statements” from the Appendix Task Force. Vote: 8-0.
Steven Arakawa made the motion (seconded by Harcourt) that CC:DA accept all emendations to the August version of CC:DA/TF/Appendix on Major/Minor Changes/3/Rev/4rev as submitted in the Sept 10, 2001 version, along with the following additional emendations:
Vote: 8-0.
Attig made the motion (seconded by Eden) that CC:DA accept the Report of the Task Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources, with our thanks for their extensive work, their thoroughness in exploring the issues, and their thoughtful consideration of possible solutions.
After much discussion, the document was sent back to the task force for revision.
Attig made the motion (as amended by McGarry and seconded by Eden): “I move that CC:DA approve the revised report dated Sept. 21, 2001, of the Task Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources.”
This included slight wording corrections/changes and 2 agreed-upon changes:
Vote: 8-0.
Eden made the motion (seconded by Attig) to accept the Final report of the Review of ISBD (CR) Task Force, chaired by Mary Larsgaard. Vote: 8-0.
Attig made the motion (seconded by Arakawa) that CC:DA accept the document CC:DA/MAGERT/2001/4 and forward it to JSC. Vote 8-0.
Chopey moved (and Eden seconded) that CC:DA recommend to Paul Weiss, ALA’s NISO voting member, that he vote “no with comments” on ISO Committee Draft 21047, the International Standard Textual Work Code (ISTC).
Chopey made the motion (as amended by McGarry and seconded by Arakawa) that CC:DA recommend to Paul Weiss, ALA’s NISO voting member, that he recommend a vote of “no” on ISO Committee Draft 21047, the International Standard Textual Work Code (ISTC). Vote: 8-0.