ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services

CC:DA/JSC Rep/MLB/2002/2

September 30, 2002

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee
Report on JSC meeting,
9-12 September, 2002,
York, England

Adobe Acrobat .pdf file   Also available as an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file

The Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules met in York, England, September 9-12, 2002. The minutes of the meeting are forthcoming.

Although the main part of this report follows the agenda of the meeting (4JSC/A/16/Rev), I have put brief ALA action items organized by action date at the beginning of my report. I hope this will help us to plan our CC:DA work and meet deadlines for JSC action and subsequent publication of rule changes in AACR.

I have included a draft (Sept. 17, 2002) of the JSC’s Program of Work at the end of this report. It is a brief or cryptic summary of who on JSC will do what work by when on each proposal for revision.


Ann Huthwaite (Chair), Sally Strutt (BL), Matthew Beacom (ALA), Barbara Tillett (LC), Sue Brown (CILIP), Marg Stewart (CCC), Nathalie Schulz (Sec.), Mary Ghikas (CoP Chair)

Observer: John Attig

CC:DA Action items (in action date order)

There is a lot to do, and some of it has very short turn around time. We’ll work on it all together and get it done.

SEPT. 30

  • ALA response on FRBR terminology: replace “item” with “manifestation” instead of “bibliographic resource.” This is our idea; the other reps liked it; all constituencies must respond. NOTE: Done.

OCT. 14

  • ALA response to LC/53 on revision to 21.2A2. CILIP also to make formal response. I said, “yes” by the way. That was in keeping with the direction of the discussion ALA was having. Recall that the CC:DA vote was derailed by frozen email. Thus I was at the JSC meeting without formal direction from ALA on this item. NOTE: Done.

NOV. 1

  • Form a task force with BL members on reconceptualization of chapter 9 (per BL response and Michael Chopey’s model. NOTE: This is to be a joint task force. It is organized as a CC:DA task force with participation from BL. It needs to be formed by Nov. 1. So this is an immediate action for the CC:DA Chair.
  • ALA (all constituencies) response to ALA Rep/1 on terms of reference for revising chapter 21. NOTE: 4JSC/ALA Rep/1 was a draft charge for a person or group to use as guidance for revising Chapter 21. When we discuss this in CC:DA, I can give more details from the JSC discussion. Overall, the gist of the comments was that the terms of reference or charge needed to be more directive.
  • ALA response to LC/54 on authority control.
  • ALA response to LC/55 & 56 on multiparts.
  • ALA response to LC proposal for rec. 2 in ALA/36/rev. NOTE: LC will propose wording for recommendation 2 by Oct. 1.
  • ALA proposal on related rules per ALA/43/LC response. NOTE: ALA was asked to do a small fix to 25.2E1 and footnote 2 to 26.4B1.

DEC. 16

  • ALA Response to ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2. Rule of three
  • ALA response to CILIP-BL/1: the Introductions. JSC wants this for the 2003 update. I don’t think it can happen that fast. In time for the 2004 package would be good.

FEB. 10

  • ALA Consistency TF to make new proposals (some areas)
  • ALA Consistency TF to make new proposals for carrying FRBR terms across Part 1.
  • ALA to make new rule proposal on punctuation in dimensions (ALA/45); rather than just changes to examples, they want to see a rule.

MAR. 24

    ALA responses to new proposals on
  • Revisions to chapters 25 from FVWG
  • Multiparts rules from revisions of LC/55, 56
  • Leftover bits from the appendix (LC to make proposals)
  • FRBR terminology (JSC has made some tentative decisions & hopes to see some proposals for Part II)
  • SMDs and “terms in common use” for chapters 6, 7, and 9 (CCC to make proposals)
  • Capitalization of initial letters (BL to revise BL/7)
  • Malay names (ACOC to revise ACOC/2)
  • “Main entry” terminology (CCC to make proposals)

Report in agenda order

Welcome from Ann and comments about the great hotel and meeting room. Sally gave local information.

  1. Approval of the agenda

    Approved with a few small changes to sequence and grouping that are reflected below.
    JSC ACTION: Host at JSC meetings will have a complete set of documents cited in the agenda; JSC will not post all older documents on Web.
    JSC ACTION: Chair and Sec will decide on the critical documents and will shade (highlight) them in the agenda.

  2. Minutes

    Moved to Executive Session. As the New Haven meeting was itself entirely in executive session, so discussion of those minutes is in executive session.

  3. Format variation Working Group (FVWG)

    The FVWG met in London on Friday. Matthew distributed their agenda and provided an update. The attendees were mainly the UK members of the WG as well as Mick Ridley (U. Bradford; BOPAC). The meeting included a telephone conversation with Rich Green, Bob Pearson, and Dena Bovee of OCLC regarding OCLC’s work with FRBR displays.
    ACTION: Matthew will send the WG members appropriate JSC documents (e.g., the new Introductions, Riva’s documents, etc.)

    FVWG membership
    Sue will write to OCLC Europe thanking for participation to date and concluding membership.
    ACTION: Jennifer Bowen will be asked to send a general invitation to utilities and vendors to participate with us. Jennifer is to keep Nathalie updated on the membership in order to update the list of JSC.

    Term for the FVWG
    We expect proposals for chapter 25 in time for discussion at the April 2003 JSC meeting in Washington, D.C. JSC reviewed the revised WG terms of reference. It is estimated the investigation of experimental databases (started this year) will take about 2 years, to Sept. 2004, but they may finish sooner. It is already clear that some rules will need to change to enable the FRBR collocation by work and expression, and that full incorporation of FRBR requires the rules to be more explicit.

    Outcomes (from the FVWG interim status report)
    The FVWG answered their own questions in the affirmative at the London meeting. However, JSC went through each as follows: The WG asked if they should think of system developers for pre vs. post-coordinated approaches. – JSC suggested “keeping in mind developers’ needs” but not as 1st priority. The WG should suggest guidance for system developers and offer criteria for evaluating expression-aware displays – for JSC approval and distribution. Such criteria would include what’s needed for matching, sorting, displaying, etc. Also they should continue to comment on the OCLC and VTLS projects as individuals. The WG should clarify the usefulness of uniform titles, relator information, etc. and give the rationale for them explicitly. It may be that uniform titles cover all the elements needed and we don’t need to get into “coding” in the rules. The JSC wants to keep an open mind but it may be too early to tell – we prefer that the FVWG not get into codes, but we would wait to see what the WG proposes. JSC feels the “partial expression-level format issues” are out of scope and may be a local level decision, but again it may be too early to tell. JSC recommends the FVWG focus on AACR rules for creating new records. The AACR focus should be on the objectives (see rationale in above) and leave local decisions to local options.

    Staying in touch with other groups and opening communication channels
    FVWG met during ALA and plan to continue meeting at ALA with OCLC, LC, and VTLS.
    ACTION: Barbara will send IFLA’s FRBR WG mailing list and Web site information soon. Jennifer will be speaking about FRBR to the Endeavor customers at their annual meeting, and Matthew will speak to the New England OCLC members group as part of the outreach and communication effort of the FVWG.

  4. Incorporating FRBR Terminology in AACR (Pat Riva’s proposals regarding FRBR vocabulary)

    ACTION: LC, BL, and CILIP are to respond to 4JSC/Chair/76/Chair follow-up/2 following this discussion.

    We are moving to FRBR vocabulary to give the rules more precise and universal terminology. FRBR is becoming the global language and is integral to the FVWG work. The CCC response was used as the guide for discussion along with the responses from ACOC and ALA.

    ACTION: Constituents are asked to respond specifically to changing the term “bibliographic resource” or “resources” to “manifestation” – by September 30 as email. If all agree, Ann will ask Pat (Riva) to make that global update and to give us a clean base with her remarks. In our constituent responses, we should separate out issues JSC has tentatively agreed (see below) and then do other comments in a separate section of our response. By April we should have all responses and Pat’s revised document, so we can propose changes for the 2004 revision – could be the start of the new edition.

    ACTION: Additionally constituents are asked to respond to the following 6 terms:

    1. “Item” – new definition offered in ALA response to make synonym of “copy”
    2. “Statement of extent,” “Multipart monograph,” and “Multimedia resource” – do we agree on those terms?
    3. “Work,” “expression,” “manifestation” – JSC provisionally agreed we would keep the FRBR definitions in the Glossary and expand on the concepts in the new introduction (see ALA response on p. 4) – do the constituents agree to those new definitions (and ALA’s expanded definition for “manifestation”? We would also put more examples into the new Introduction with the core principles.
    4. “Edition” – JSC had already instructed Pat to collapse the 4 definitions into one and focus “editions” on “manifestations” with the concept of “editions as expressions” to be explored further using the term “expression” with some qualification. Does that work? Do we agree with the ALA definition (see their response p. 8)? In constituent responses, address the treatment of “edition as expression” in the ch. 21 rules; examine each one and propose rewording as necessary (see Riva’s document remarks).
    5. “Facsimile reproduction” – Do we agree with CCC? (JSC provisionally agreed, suggesting this is a relationship and would not be in the Glossary, but rather in a future section on bibliographic relationships (new ch. 21?). CCC suggested deleting Riva’s 2nd sentence.
    6. “Game,” “impression,” “issue,” etc. – respond to CCC’s comments on the remaining terms and any others we feel need adjusting (main entry, mixed responsibility, predominant work, producer, reprint, statement of responsibility, tracing, plate number (music), materials, and the issue of “embody” vs. “represent” from ALA’s response p. 10).

    ACTION: On 1.5A3, JSC provisionally agreed with CCC to drop Riva’s addition. LC may offer a shorter rule.

    1.5B4d) – LC does not agree with CCC and there was no JSC decision yet on this. ACTION: LC needs to explain in its response.

    Chapter 21 revised terminology – it was suggested that we go ahead and revise the terms even though we are exploring having a complete reconceptualization of ch. 21, in order to get the entire rules updated.
    ACTION: Focus the constituent responses on the issues of main entry, added entry, and edition as expression. Focus responses to the Riva ch. 21-26 issues on the terminology and leave the rest for later responses – esp. see 21.2B2 and the LCRI 1.0.

    JSC agreed we would look at incorporating bibliographic relationships at a later date.

    Regarding Appendices, JSC provisionally agreed with Riva changing to “manifestations” and in B.3A2) using “work” and “expression.”

  1. Terms of reference for ch. 21

    Rule of 3, ACOC wanted as rule, JSC said to treat as option. Need to be more specific about what we want done in the terms of reference and make it clear we want to develop rule revision proposals.

    ACTION: By Nov. 1, all constituencies to respond to Matthew’s document regarding the terms of reference and remarking if we wish to suggest another approach (do we want to suggest it be done by one of the constituents rather than consultant?)

    ACTION: By Nov. 1, ACOC to prepare follow-up/2 to summarize the situation and call the question; constituents to respond by Dec. 16 with how we stand on the rule of 3. It’s possible that Deirdre Kiorgaard in ACOC wants to work on this (she may be the next ACOC rep after Ann); Pat Riva has also shown interest and did an outline. Would need CoP approval to hire a consultant? Basic question: Is consultant the right choice?

  1. Appendix of Major Changes

    ALA has a Task Force drafting “Guidelines on when to create a new record” as a non-JSC publication.

    ACTION: LC to respond to the Secretary document with rule revisions as time permits. LC also to offer suggestions on how to include the Basic guidelines in the new Intro and send to BL & copy JSC.

  2. Authority Control

    ACTION: Barbara to send JSC next draft of FRANAR report when available (Oct.?) ACOC endorsed the thrust of the LC proposal and likes the proposed arrangement. Attig observed some of the work to work relationships may belong in the Chapter 21 bibliographic relationships.

    ACTION: JSC constituent responses to LC by Nov. 1, then LC would proceed with more complete proposal for new rules. It would be expected that examples minus the MARC info would be included.

  3. Multipart monographs

    CCC felt the proposals from LC were great. ACOC also responded. Other responses due by Nov. 1. If all agree, LC will proceed with rule revision proposals.

  4. Specific characteristics of e-resources (add agenda 25 and 26)

    BL had heart-rending debate and turned around their thinking on e-resources. They liked Michael Chopey’s comments, and felt he helped focus that the current chapter 9 was not the way to deal with this. They agree 2a is a stepping stone to a more fundamental reconceptualizing of chapter 9, will need future changes to 9.5 wording – go ahead with current changes but don’t stop there. They are now quite zealous on this point.

    JSC responses to the 8 recommendations made by ALA are as follows.

    Recommendation 1: All ok with proposed revising (include in next revion package)

    Recommendation 2: Need constituent responses on the ALA rule revision proposals of Aug. 6, 2002 follow-up).
    ACTION: LC to send by October 1 so others can also respond to LC’s proposal on rewording (D. Reser’s proposal).
    ACTION: Other constituencies to respond by Nov. 1 (using LC proposal on wording as base document).

    Recommendation 3: All agree but need formal responses. CCC observation on 9.7B8 to give example but don’t force in rule should be responded to, but JSC has provisionally agreed. All ok with clean copy of 9.7B10.

    Recommendation 4: ACTION: Respond with comments on ACOC’s views for a single list of conventional “terms in common usage.”

    Recommendation 5: superseded by Rec. 2.

    Recommendation 6: all ok, but just do example. ACTION: include in LC response.

    Recommendation 7: Not agreed to. This was not considered necessary.

    Recommendation 8: is not a rule revision proposal and so JSC took no action beyond noting the recommendation.

  1. Chapter 6 (CCC/6)

    There was considerable discussion of this proposal, and some discussion of the relation between this proposal, the twin proposal for Chapter 7 and issues relating to Chapter 9.

    The ALA suggestion to use both the SMD and an uncontrolled parenthetical term was not favored by the other representatives or their constituencies. Apparently there has been some confusion over what was meant by “conventional terminology.” ALA thought it meant “uncontrolled vocabulary,” the others thought it meant updated or revised controlled terms. Thus the idea of adding uncontrolled terms to the current SMDs was not pursued.

    All constituencies reported strong interest in using controlled terms, a list. For example, NLC Music Team members were not keen about the potential of inconsistency in area 5.

    The JSC wishes to pursue updating or revising the list of terms to be used. Marg noted it would be hard to devise such a list. JSC noted that without such a list in the rules, the terms used by the national libraries would become the de facto standard. It was noted that some terms on the current lists are in common use. ACOC suggested having a single list of terms in each relevant chapter, i.e., updated lists for the SMDs in the rules. JSC would like to have a consistent approach for chapter 6, 7, and 9.

    ACTION: JSC constituents to respond and say if they agree with ACOC model and suggest the list of terms from their experts. An effort should be made to reach out to other communities to ask them for responses or recommendations on the terms. CCC will do follow-up, and constituents are to respond.

    ACTION: For Recommendation 4 in 4JSC/ALA/36/Rev/, respond to ALA/36 and offer a controlled list. If agree, then do same for CCC/6 and CCC/7 (ch. 6 and ch. 7) by Feb. 10 if consensus, CCC to do revisions to CCC/6 and CCC/7 and to do a new proposal for chapter 9 to keep consistency of wording.

  2. Ch. 7 (CCC/7)

    Same approach in response noted above.

  1. Introductions

    ACTION: LC will offer suggestions on incorporating the basic guidelines for major changes (from ALA’s report) into the new Intro. LC may suggest other things from LCRI 1.0 to include in the Introduction (as time permits).

    The following details of the comment on the draft introductions reference the CILIP/BL document, 4JSC/CILIP-BL/1.

      0.1 needs more words from the Strategic Plan. ACOC suggested separating out the statements on AACR from the relationships to other standards and to combine 0.1 and 0.2 statements on that aspect and reorganize the two. In 0.1 say “bibliographic lists” and “bibliographic databases.”

      0.3 – Give a list of objectives at the end of the 1st paragraph. ACOC wants more links between 0.2 and 0.3 – better transition sentences – e.g., move final sentence of 0.3 to be the first. CCC wants to qualify term “agents” with “(person or corporate body).” Agreed to leave “bibliographic resource” here as a general term. ACTION: Barbara to provide citations for the footnotes 1 and 2.

      0.4 – perhaps add “brevity and clarity” to principles as cite those later. “User convenience” needs stronger than “keep in mind” – see document for rewordings.

      0.5 – CCC wants to link back to the objectives of the catalog and ACOC wants a transition sentence or paragraph. Also add examples and not just of books/texts. Suggested to expand each entity to explain what it is and to give examples and how they relate to each other, since it is the first introduction for the reader to these new concepts.

      0.6 – Keep as is.

      0.7 – Change voice and perhaps use some of the LCRI 1.0 here to say the steps for cataloging – also need to address authority control and ch. 13 issues and rework the sentence at the end of p. 5. Delete last sentence of 0.7.

      0.8 – ok.

      0.9 – See doc.

      0.10 – Change voice and use “manifestation.”

      0.11 – Get rid of second paragraph on printed catalogs to generalize – becomes “display of bibliographic records.” ACTION: Barbara to send JSC the final IFLA “Guidelines for OPAC Displays” to include reference here and some of the concepts.

      0.12 – Nathalie to add to the “to do” for JSC to decide the rationale between “optional additions” and “optionally” but we will leave as is for the moment (CCC). Suggested to get rid of “distinguish … and”.

      0.13 – JSC would like to see “predominance” in Glossary in some form. Add “ISBD” before “areas 1 and 2.”

      0.14 – Change voice and “if” important.

      0.15 – We agreed that we would not consider the Glossary an Appendix – place it after the Appendices and before Index. Want to make a new section in the Introduction and to explain that the Glossary does not include terms that are just dictionary definitions. ACTION: CILIP to get a subscription to Catalogers Desktop for Sec for the next rule revision package.

      0.16 and 0.17Chicago Manual of Style – be sure have citation to latest edition and get a copy for the JSC Secretary to bring to meetings. (We realize we already violate some of the CMS rules, but will try to follow as much as can).

      0.20 – Fix voice and indicate “where the ellipses appear in bold …”

    Pt. I Introduction

      0.21 – See doc.

      0.22 – AACR uses levels of description instead of “mandatory elements.”

      0.23 – ACOC would like the 1st paragraph moved to the General Introduction. Add ch. 9 also to partial generality in 2nd paragraph last sentence. JSC tentatively decided to keep mnemonic numbering for rules. ACTION: John Attig’s Consistency Task Force will propose how to do that – will mean gaps in rules in any given chapter.

      0.25 – To catch in ALA consistency proposals.

      0.26 – ACOC suggests looking back to 0.4 to reflect the purpose.

      0.28 – Move up before 0.24.

      0.29 – Change entry to record and drop the end of the 1st sentence.

    Pt. II Introduction – change voice.

      20.1 – Add more on controlled vs. uncontrolled and the rationale of relationships.

      20.2 – See doc.

      20.3 – Remove last sentence.

      20.4 – ok.

      CCC asked if we want to refer to FRBR here. Attig noted with Pt. III and a new ch. 21, much of this may go there or other things could be in the Introduction, but for now leave as is. BL looks forward to other ideas from LC and others and will get a revised version out after that.

    ACTION: BL hopes to have a clean copy by October 14 and then constituents would respond by Jan. 6 with hopes of getting it in to the next rule revision package by end of February.

    JSC feels we have a general plan for FRBR terminology, and it would be good to have the new Introduction, even if we don’t yet have the vocabulary changed until the following year in the rest of the rules, as it gives people an early warning. We noted that there are other Introduction ideas in LC/51.

  2. Consistency in Pt. I

    John Attig provided a status report about the ALA Task Force – they started with ch. 2, 3, 6, and 5 and then will do area 8. They expect ch. 2, 3, and 6 proposals for the April JSC meeting (Feb. 10 to JSC) and possibly area 5 proposals. They will put all of their documents on the Web and also address the mnemonic rule number. They found the punctuation rules in .A1 are consistent except in area 3, so plan to suggest we provide them only in ch. 1.

    Ch. 4 is likely to be the most out of synch, as those communities do not use AACR. It is hoped that through working with those communities, we could have more significant revision for ch. 4 in future. The scope of the chapter will be an issue, as now it says it is for manuscripts and not archives as a whole, but in the other chapters there are references to ch. 4 for “unpublished” materials, so this requires attention.

    The TF has not resolved the “edition” concepts. “Edition statement” is ok, but “statement of responsibility related to the edition” is problematic, and that term is used in the ISBDs. They are still debating whether to refer back to ch. 1 or give an abbreviated rule plus the reference in al the other chapters. John prefers to simplify and reorganize so all the rules would be in ch. 1 by ISBD area. JSC likes the idea of reducing the size of the rules and ACOC likes Bruce Johnson’s suggestion to put as much as we can in chapter 1 but keep smaller chapters separately for the specific types of material (as now but shorter).

  3. Heads of government (CCC/5) as modified by LC

    Sally handed out the BL response. ACOC’s open entry example was agreed. Matthew reversed the ALA response about making this an option, so will go with the others and keep monitoring to see if presents future problems.
    ACTION: This goes for the 2003 rule revision package.
    ACTION: CCC/5 clean copy, the parentheses around the qualifier should not be in italics.

  4. See above.
  5. Strategic plan for AACR

    See doc for editorial changes from ACOC, BL, CCC, etc.
    All felt the timetable was ambitious and even unrealistic but a target. “Web-based environment” was intended to mean today’s environment not just the limited interpretation of it being the rules on the Web. Agreed to replace “operation” with “use” and remove “recall” under III, next to last bullet.
    ACTION: Ann and Nathalie will rewrite to present to the CoP on Friday.

  6. JSC Web site

    John Attig has it nearly ready for Nathalie to take over as Web master as soon as he finishes the re-design – may need to change font and colors and some headings to reflect the new 2002 revision. Expects by end of calendar year to have it done and will move it over and replace his name with Nathalie’s. He’ll reserve a space for archived documents and do a link with index pages without changing the directory structure.

    All agreed we want to have a link or information about acquiring AACR up front on our public site, and we’d like the publishers to give us the wording and permission to link to their order form pages.

    Nathalie needs some graphics software and will request purchase when she determines what is needed. She suggested changes to the document distribution page to have columns to arrange by distribution date, document date, and document number orders. On the announcements she will continue to include a brief description of what the document is about (on emails). She won’t add that to the document distribution list, as it will make it too unwieldy.

    ACTION: The password and logon will be changed every 6 months. The password is to be considered confidential and should not be distributed.

Executive Session information not included in these notes.

  1. Summary (12.7B18 (ALA/41))

    CCC’s revised wording for the rule – all agree – will be in 2003 rule revision package.

  2. URN’s (ALA/42)

    JSC felt LC made a good case. We need to know what ISBD is doing. Ann will contact Byrum. If we are talking about eliminating area 8, we will want to work with them – Ann to refer to LC’s response in our message to IFLA.

  3. Added entry under title (21.30J (ALA/43))

    CCC’s proposal gives catalogers permission to do this and LC agrees. BL disagrees, but after discussion Sally agreed to turn their response around. LC’s proposal to omit the “earlier” titles of multipart monographs was seen a premature, so we will wait to do a follow-up to omit that word when the other rule revisions are ready to go. (It will be put on the JSC to do list).
    ACTION: Use CCC’s response with the LC wording of 21.30J a, b, and c – and no change to 21.30J2
    ACTION: By Nov. 1 ALA was asked to do the fix to 25.2E1 and footnote 2 to 26.4B1 for the 2003 rule revision package – responses by Dec. 16. Nathalie will record our decision in the cover letter to the rule revision package.

  4. See above.
  5. See above.
  6. “Issue” definition (CCC/8)

    Proposal was killed. CCC will withdraw it.

  7. Capitalization of Earth in AACR2 (ALA/44)

    Although noted to be contrary to Chicago Manual of Style (which allows only a subset of what AACR is doing), all agreed to approve and will be in next rule revision package.

  8. Punctuation in recording dimensions (ALA/45)

    Agreed to do this but to defer it for the new edition (editorial clean-up of examples). ACTION: ALA to make a rule for this punctuation in the rules in chapter 3 and have their Consistency TF look at other chapters for fixing.

  9. Metric units of measurement (ALA/46)

    No agreement – CILIP disagrees; BL reluctantly agrees in principle, but they still see it as an abbreviation. Chicago Manual of Style permits it as symbol (no terminating period), but the UK does not like it. Sue Brown will inform CILIP of the Chicago Manual of Style authority, in which case we presume all JSC constituents would agree to this proposal. JSC agreed to use the ALA document (with CCC’s minor revisions) as the main tool for revision when we do the next edition of the rules. It will be put on the JSC to do list.

  10. Capitalization of single letters used to represent words (App. A.4A1 and A.30 (BL/7))

    All agree, but also recognized we need to add in personal and corporate names and the CCC’s recommendations, so BL will do a “rev.” document for discussion at next April’s meeting.

  11. Qualification of standard numbers and/or terms of availability (BL/8)

    Agree to 1.8E1 (to be in 2003 rule revision package) and wait on 1.8E2 until area 8 is sorted out with ISBD (to put on future agenda).

  12. Revision of 21.2A2, category i): type of resource (LC/53)

    CILIP and ALA agree – all approve – will be in next package and ok for LC/PCC to implement ASAP.

  13. Malay Names (ACOC/2)

    ACOC checked IFLA Names of Persons and turned it into the rules for AACR (not what JSC had intended, but per Ann’s instructions).
    ACTION: Constituents will respond by March 24 (prefer sooner) ’ Noted we hoped to reduce the size of rules by just referring to the IFLA Names of Persons, if it worked for those languages. We recognize we’d miss the examples and references and could anger those communities who rely on AACR for this information. We will wait for constituent responses. Ann noted this will mean the NACO load of the Malay records would need to remain on hold, as there is no JSC decision (her proposal came too late for responses).

  14. Next meetings

    The next JSC meeting will be in Washington, D.C. ALA has arranged for meeting and lodging at Radisson Barcello in the Dupont Circle area, April 23-25, 2003 (after Easter).

    Ann proposes Brisbane for early October 2003 for the transition of the ACOC member and her last meeting.

  15. Program of work – See Sept. 2002 version of this document.

    0.24 – by Feb. 10, FVWG to do draft changes to ch. 25 including expression-level citation and expression-level indicators for GMDs proposals. By March 24, constituent responses.

    Appendix of major changes – LC to do ch. 9 and ch. 12 rules as follow-up on the Appendix, per our proposals, due Feb. 10, if want as new proposals for April.

    Rule of 3/Ch. 21 – respond to Matthew’s terms of reference and later respond to ACOC. We’d get a consultant if needed or propose another method and decide at the end of Jan.

    Authority records – LC to do more – rework and do new proposals as time permits, if get JSC approval (expected by Nov. 1).

    2003 rule revision package – Timetable: For Feb. 28 to publishers, expect package Jan. 13 from Nathalie for national libraries to proof and comment.

    ALA/36 – We hope all agree to finalize recommendations 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. – Respond to all recommendations in the ALA/36 follow-up. If agree on 1) recommendation 4 feedback on the ACOC model and 2) if ok to use the model for CCC on ch. 6 and 7, then this goes into the cycle for April; other recommendations could be part of the review package.

    Introductions – CILIP/BL to have revised draft by October 14. Responses by Dec. 16. LC to offer suggestions to include the Basic guidelines for major changes – may want to include things for LC/51 (authority control), but on longer term.

    GMDs , etc. – see doc for further notes.

The JSC observed a minute of silence for Sept. 11 at 1:46 pm.

  1. JSC List of tasks (Sec/2/Rev)

    “Considered to be important” – the Secretary will do for Feb. 10 and March 24 responses due from constituents for April discussion. Will add to Program of Work.

    Punctuation in language examples changing a comma to semicolon – the Secretary will do for the next edition of rules.

    Singular/plural inconsistencies in ch. 21 – will leave on the tasks, but suggest the ch. 21 consultant do this.

    Use of “description” and “entry” (“record” is considered separately) – Pat did some of these.

    Definition of numbering with respect to e-resources in the glossary – is this still needed?

    “Edition” – We’re doing ?????

    Bold/italic conventions – the Consistency TF can do for Pt. I, but we would still need to check in Pt. II.

    Nathalie will add others from this meeting.

  2. Policy and procedures (Policy/4/Rev/3)

    4.5 and 4.6 and 4.7 are new. 5. 2 is new and will change 5.1 if the publishers agree. 8.8 is new.
    ACTION: Documents for “internal distribution only” will be given a document number series of “Restricted”, e.g., 4JSC/Restricted/ALA rep/1.
    ACTION: Nathalie will issue two versions of Minutes – one with the Executive Session and one without (for public view).
    The Secretarial duties in Chair/77 will be moved to the Policy series, adding editorial tasks assigned by JSC – so new document in new series (to reference old series).

  3. Other business


JSC Program of Work

  • Rule 0.24 (Format variation) [ALA/30; Chair/71; Chair/72]:
    additional terms of reference for Format Variation Working Group, by Oct. 14, 2002;
    draft changes to Chapter 25, including expression-level indicators, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • “Rule of three”/Chapter 21 [ACOC/1; ALA Rep/1]:
    constituents’ responses on ALA Rep/1, by Nov. 1, 2002;
    ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2 document to summarize Rule of three progress;
    constituents’ responses to follow-up/2, by Dec. 16, 2002; JSC to decide on need for a consultant on Chapter 21, by Jan. 31, 2003
  • Authority records [LC/50; LC/54]:
    constituents’ responses to LC/54, by Nov. 1, 2002;
    if agreement, LC to prepare revision proposals
  • Multipart items [LC/51; LC/55; LC/56]:
    constituents’ responses to LC/55 and LC/56, by Nov. 1, 2002;
    if agreement, revision proposals from LC, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at April 2003 JSC meeting
  • Specific characteristics of electronic resources [ALA/36]:
    LC response to ALA/36, by Oct. 1, 2002, to include draft proposal on Rec. 2;
    remainder of constituents’ responses, by Nov. 1, 2002;
    if agreement on Rec. 2, Recs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses to revision package, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • Introductions [CILIP-BL/1]:
    revised draft from CILIP/BL, by Oct. 14, 2002;
    constituents’ responses, by Dec. 16, 2002;
    if agreement, included in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses to revision package, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • GMDs/Class of materials concept [Chair/73]:
    “form of expression” included in revised terms of reference for Format Variation WG, Oct. 14, 2002;
    draft changes to Chapter 25, including expression-level indicators, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Consistency in part I [Chair/75; Sec/3]:
    first set of revision proposals from ALA, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Rule 24.20C1 (Dates or names to heads of governments) [CCC/5]:
    included in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • FRBR terminology [Chair/76]:
    email confirmation on using “manifestation” for “item,” by Sept. 30, 2002;
    if agreement, Pat Riva to incorporate change in rev. document;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Rule 12.7B18 (Summary) [ALA/41]:
    included in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • Uniform Resource Names [ALA/42]:
    query to J. Byrum on ISBD plans, by Oct. 14, 2002;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Rule 21.30J [ALA/43]:
    follow-up revision proposals from ALA on 25.2E1 and 26.4B1 footnote 2, by Nov. 1, 2002;
    constituents’ responses, by Dec. 16, 2003;
    if agreement, included in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • Conventional terminology in area 5 for chapters 6 & 7 [CCC/6; CCC/7]:
    if agreement on Rev. 4 in ALA/36/Rev/ACOC response, revised proposals (plus new proposal for chapter 9), by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Capitalization of Earth [ALA/44]:
    included in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • Punctuation in dimensions [ALA/45]:
    follow-up proposal to change text of rule in chapter 3, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting;
    editorial clean-up in next edition
  • Abbreviation of metric symbols [ALA/46]:
    included in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • Strategic plan [Chair/79]:
    pending approval by CoP, added to JSC Web site, by Nov. 29, 2002
  • Capitalization of single letters [BL/7]:
    revised proposal, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Qualification of standard numbers [BL/8]:
    1.8E1: included in 2003 revision package;
    1.8E2: query to J. Byrum on ISBD plans, by Oct. 14, 2002; discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Revision of 21.2A2 [LC/53]:
    ALA, CILIP responses, by Oct. 14, 2002;
    included in 2003 revision package, by Jan. 13, 2003;
    national library responses, by Jan. 27, 2003;
    revision package to publishers, by Feb. 28, 2003
  • Malay and Indonesian names [ACOC/2]:
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Reconcile Chapter 22 with IFLA’s Names of persons [ACOC/2]:
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Ch. 9 and Ch. 12 rules related to Appendix [Sec/4]:
    revision proposals from LC, by Feb. 10, 2003 (if possible);
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Replace “main/added entry” terminology:
    proposals from CCC, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting
  • Review/update examples:
    proposals from ACOC (9, 10, 13); ALA (3, 7, 24); BL (2, 4, 26); CCC (8, 22, 25, App. A); CILIP (12, 23, App. B); LC (1, 5, 6, 11), for inclusion in next edition
  • Chapter 9 reconceptualization:
    ALA, BL to form Task Force, by Nov. 1, 2002
  • “Considered to be important”:
    rule revision proposals from Secretary, by Feb. 10, 2003;
    constituents’ responses, by Mar. 24, 2003;
    discussion at Apr. 2003 JSC meeting

Submitted by Matthew Beacom
ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee