ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services


Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Minutes of the meeting held in San Antonio, TX
January 15 and 17, 2000

Members present:
Daniel Kinney, Chair
Matthew Beacom
Susan M. Hayes
Carol Hixson
Wayne Jones
Sherry Kelley
Mary L. Larsgaard
Shirley J. Lincicum
Adam L. Schiff
Michael A. Chopey, Intern
Kristin Lindlan, Intern
John C. Attig, CC:DA Web site coordinator
Lynne Howarth, Consultant

Ex-officio representatives present:

Brian Schottlaender, ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee
Barbara Tillett, Library of Congress
Glenn Patton, OCLC
Ed Glazier, Research Libraries Group

ALA Liaisons present:

Sarah Su-erh Elman, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM
Lowell Ashley, ALCTS/MRC
Ann Sandberg-Fox, ALCTS/NRMC
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Carolynne Myall, ALCTS/SS
Aimée Quinn, ALA/GODORT
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
David Williamson, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Gene Kinnaly, ALA/NMRT
Margaret Shen, ALA/PLA
Noelle Van Pulis, ALA/RUSA
Larry Heiman, ALA/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons present:

William Benemann, AALL
Judy Knop, ATLA
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Laurel Jizba, ARSC
Gertrude Koh, CLA (represented by Conrad Winke on 1/15)
Valerie St. Pierre Gordon, MedLA
Matthew Wise, MusLA
Joan Scuitema, PCC
Michael Fox, SAA
Cynthia Whitacre, SLA


  1. The minutes do not necessarily record discussion in the order in which it occurred. Material has been rearranged to increase comprehension and to collocate items related to specific topics for clarity.

  2. Due to background noise, inconsistent use of microphones, etc., tapes of the meetings are of variable quality. The secretary regrets any loss of detail.

  3. In CC:DA minutes, a “vote of the Committee” indicates a poll of those Committee members appointed in their own right rather than those representatives of a particular constituency. These votes are a formal representation of Committee views. The Chair rarely votes except to break a tie. The term “straw vote” indicates a poll of the ALA and other organizational representatives to CC:DA who are present. Such voted are advisory and are not binding upon the Committee. Where no vote totals are recorded, but a CC:DA position is stated, the position has been determined by consensus.

  4. In CC:DA minutes, the term “members” is used to apply to both voting and non-voting appointees to the Committee. Where a distinction is necessary, the terms “voting members” and “representatives” are used.

  5. Abbreviations used in these minutes include:
    CC:DA = Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
    JSC = Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR
    ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
    CCS = Cataloging and Classification Section
    SAC = ALCTS/CCS/Subject Analysis Committee
    CSSC = ALCTS/Serials Section, Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
    CCC = Canadian Committee of Cataloguing
    IFLA = International Federation of Library Associations
    BL = British Library
    LC = Library of Congress
    NLC = National Library of Canada
    CDS = LC Cataloging Distribution Service
    CPSO = LC, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
    PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
    AACR = Anglo-American Cataloging Rules
    AACR2 = Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1998 rev.
    FRBR = IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
    ISBD(ER) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources
    ISBD(M) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications
    ISBD(CM) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Cartographic Materials
    ISBD(NBM) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Non-Book Materials
    Concise = Gorman, Michael. The Concise AACR2, 1998 Revision
    IRRT = ALA/International Relations Round Table
    MAGERT = ALA/Map and Geography Round Table


Saturday, 15 January 2000, 2:00 to 4:30 p.m.

660. Agenda item 1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair

Committee Chair Daniel Kinney called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Holiday Inn-Riverwalk Tarantella Ballroom 2-4. He distributed a roster to Committee members for corrections and passed an attendance sheet to the audience.

661. Agenda item 2. Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives: Group

    [CC:DA/Roster/2000 January]

Committee members introduced themselves.

662. Agenda item 3. Adoption of the agenda: Chair

A motion to adopt the agenda was made by Sherry Kelley and seconded by Carol Hixson. The Committee adopted the agenda.

663. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 1999 Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, June 26 and 28, 1999: Chair

John Attig noted a discrepancy in #653 and asked for a clarification from Brian Schottlaender on one sentence. He said the sentence should read: “Schottlaender said that, given this daunting list of possible terms for inclusion, ‘an awful lot of effort should NOT go into this’.” Kinney asked if there were other corrections. A motion to adopt the minutes as amended was made and seconded, and the Committee adopted the minutes as amended.

664. Agenda item 5. Report from the Chair: Kinney

Kinney reported that Monday’s meeting would begin at 8:30 a.m. rather than the 8:00 a.m. scheduled time (later changed back to 8:00 a.m.). He thanked the Committee for all of its work over the summer in time for the Joint Steering Committee meeting at the end of October.

Kinney read a letter from Ann Huthwaite, Chair of the JSC, expressing appreciation for CC:DA’s contributions to the AACR revision process:

On behalf of the JSC, I would like to express our appreciation to CC:DA for its recent significant contributions to the AACR revision process. As you know, JSC reviewed both the Task Force report on rule 0.24 and the Task Force report on the harmonization of ISBD (ER) and AACR2 at its last meeting. The identification of issues and recommendations, as set forward in the Task Force reports, assisted the JSC on focusing on the important areas that needed to be addressed and allowed us to make significant progress.

It is extremely gratifying for JSC to begin to see results on the more challenging issues in AACR that have been long-standing problems. The work of CC:DA has been pivotal to the progress that has been made.

Once again, thank you for your continuing support of the work of JSC.

Yours sincerely,
Ann Huthwaite,
Chair, Joint Steering Committee

Kinney added that since the work of the task forces was adopted over email, they had not been thanked and discharged. He recognized the task forces that had worked over the summer:

Task Force on Rule 0.24: Martha Yee (chair), John Attig, Michael Fox, Ed Glazier, Crystal Graham, Laurel Jizba, Bruce Johnson (1998/99), Sherry Kelley (1998/99), Elizabeth Mangan, Glenn Patton, Ann Sandberg-Fox, Joan Swanekamp, and Verna Urbanski were thanked and the task force discharged.

Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) and AACR2: Lynne Howarth (chair), John Attig, Matthew Beacom, Laurel Jizba, Mary Larsgaard, Ann Sandberg-Fox, Pat Vanderburg, and Matthew Wise were thanked and the task force discharged.

Task Force on the Review of the Logical Structure of AACR: Philip Schreur (chair Aug. 1999), Joan Schuitema (chair, Apr.-July 1999), John Attig, George Johnston, John Kloswick, Mary Larsgaard, Ingrid Mifflin, and Cecilia Sercan were thanked and the task force discharged.

Task Force on Seriality and AACR2R: Wayne Jones (chair), Everett Allgood, Ruth Christ, Judy Knop, Adam Schiff, and Mitch Turitz were thanked and the task force discharged.

Schottlaender said he wanted to underscore the JSC’s letter to the committee because an incredible amount of work had been done in the previous six months. Kinney also expressed his appreciation to several committee members (Beacom, Jizba, Schiff) who had helped when things slowed down and thanked Attig for putting the reports up on the web.

Kinney said that there were three ongoing task forces, including:

  1. Task Force on Metadata, chaired by Larsgaard
  2. 2000 Preconference Planning Task Force, chaired by Larsgaard
  3. Task Force on the VRA Core Categories. Sherry Vellucci had had to resign as chair and Kinney said he would need to do some work to get the task force reconstituted. Sherman Clarke had agreed to coordinate some of the goals they set up at an early meeting. Kinney said he would contact Clarke and would also try to get more membership. Kinney reported that Clarke was also on a VRA standards committee that was just finishing up version 3.0, so it may have been better to wait anyway.

Kinney brought up the idea of a joint meeting on Monday afternoon with MARBI (and hosted by MARBI) at the ALA annual conference in July. Glazier questioned the need for a meeting, unless there were specific agenda topics. Kinney asked for suggestions for topics and Attig said there were some topics meriting discussion with MARBI: (1) a discussion paper or proposal on seriality-related issues on the MARBI agenda; (2) the metadata task force report due to CC:DA June 1. Mark Watson said there was a propensity for the two groups to do their own thing without considering how they impact each other and agreed that a meeting would be useful.

Attig asked for input about the format of the web site, particularly for large documents, and asked whether there were any problems with the Acrobat or word versions; the Committee said there were no problems. He also asked about the guidelines for documentation for rule revision proposals because the mark-up documentation used in the MAGERT report had not matched what had been used previously. He asked if it would be acceptable if he marked up the report for the web and Schottlaender said it would be easier if CC:DA were to use the same conventions as the JSC. Schiff asked to see the revision; Attig agreed to post it on the web and announce its availability.

665. Agenda item 6. Report of the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett

The report of the Library of Congress representative is available as a separate document.

Tillett also spoke briefly about IFLA, because she is chair of the Section on Cataloguing. IFLA is developing a multilingual glossary of cataloging terms, an important first step towards being able to analyze and compare cataloging codes worldwide, another initiative they’ll be undertaking.

666. Agenda item 7. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Schottlaender

Schottlaender distributed 3 JSC documents that had been late in reaching him:

  • 4JSC/ALA/30/Chair follow-up, a memo from Ann Huthwaite, Chair, JSC, documenting JSC decisions regarding the 0.24 Task Force report
  • 4JSC/LC/37/CCC response/BL response/LC response/LC follow-up, in which LC withdrew LC/37
  • 4/JSC/LC/45/BL response/LC response/LC follow-up, in which LC withdrew LC/45

Schottlaender then reported on a few of the more important points of the Brisbane meeting [CC:DA/JSC Rep./BECS/1999/4]

The JSC approved the 1999 revision packet [4JSC/Rule Revision/1/Consolidated/2 Rev./1] and it has been forwarded to ALA.

The JSC approved a proposal to create a new Initial Articles Appendix [4JSC/LC/29/ALA response/3]. LC has agreed to “polish” it with Patton, incorporating input from the CCC response to the ALA response. LC and NLC have agreed to serve as the maintenance agencies for the appendix, which will be issued as 4JSC/LC/29/LC follow-up.

The JSC also approved proposals on British terms of honour [4JSC/BL/5] and Terms of address of married women [4JSC/BL/6]. Minor follow-ups on both proposals were required by BL and had been received.

He reported that the JSC had approved a draft AACR website, because the Toronto website had been getting behind and was in need of revision. The JSC endorsed a proposal for the revision with a minor amendment and NLC agreed to host the site. JSC has accepted Attig’s offer to serve as webmaster.

The Seriality Report was reviewed in great detail by the JSC [4JSC/Chair/68] and the JSC endorsed many of its proposals. Schottlaender said that Hirons (LC) would report at the Monday meeting. She had been asked to take the endorsed proposals and draft rule revision proposals for the JSC meeting in March. A recommendation in the Seriality Report to add a new introductory chapter to AACR2 was also in other reports received by the JSC. BL has agreed to draft this chapter, using input from the various reports. The JSC endorsed the first recommendation in the Delsey report to consider reorganizing AACR2 by area, but wanted to look at this in a draft format, and has asked Bruce Johnson (CDS) to produce a “proof-of-concept” prototype in machine-readable form by March.

The JSC considered the 0.24 task force report [4JSC/ALA/30]. Recommendations 1 and 3 were endorsed by the JSC. The report also made a proposal for an appendix to the code documenting major and minor changes in a bibliographic item warranting creation of a new bibliographic record. The Seriality Report also recommended such an appendix, but the specific contents of the reports were different. The JSC asked that CC:DA, using these 2 reports, appoint a group to begin drafting such an appendix. Recommendation 2 in the 0.24 Report, regarding “multiple versions,” was circulated to all constituencies for comment for JSC consideration at the March meeting. The JSC was reserving judgment on whether Recommendation 2 was the best solution or not. Schottlaender thought CC:DA might welcome another chance to evaluate that recommendation before the JSC takes action.

Schottlaender said remaining actions were documented in his report from November [CC:DA/JSC Rep./BECS/1999/4]

Schottlaender asked whether CC:DA would like to work on the appendix on major and minor changes. Larsgaard said it would be logical for CC: DA to do, since CC:DA had already had two task forces, 0.24 and Seriality, that had worked on this. Attig asked whether, since it appeared that the JSC was interested in addressing the general issue of changes major and minor throughout the rules and not just in the title area, the request was for a broad-based look at change in the rules or if there was a way to limit the scope. Schottlaender replied that the JSC was interested in the circumstances under which a new bibliographic record is created as a consequence of change to a bibliographic item. Given that we may reorganize the code according to ISBD areas of description, to attempt to address change in situ in the body of code would not be advantageous. He expressed that it would be better to consider the entire notion of major and minor change and how they require the creation of a new bibliographic record. Attig asked if the appendix were to address only the question of a new bibliographic record or also changes needing to be recorded in the description of an existing item. Schiff added that in some circumstances a change requires a new heading and not necessarily a new bibliographic record. Schottlaender responded that the focus of the JSC’s thinking had been largely on those changes that require or do not require a new record, but he understood Schiff’s point that once one enters the terrain it may be difficult not to consider changes that require something else. However, there had been a number of reports received since the Toronto conference about circumstances in which a new bibliographic record is necessary or not, and it would seem an opportune time to document them. Beacom mentioned that the 0.24 recommendations included when to create a new record for a change in format and he assumed that would be a part of the appendix work.

Schottlaender said that the constituencies had been asked to respond to the 0.24 recommendation by the end of February in preparation for the March JSC meeting and he would like input from CC:DA. He agreed that Recommendation 2 and the appendix were related, but he thought it would be useful to evaluate the recommendation on its own. Beacom made the motion for a task force to work by email to readdress Recommendation 2 and have a response to the JSC by February 29. The motion was seconded by Schiff and adopted by the Committee.

Attig mentioned that a task force on major/minor changes needed to be set up before June and Schottlaender asked whether CC:DA wanted to do something it by August 15. Larsgaard made a motion that CC:DA set up a task force in response to the JSC’s request to draft an appendix on major and minor changes for AACR, with a draft final report due in June for discussion at the ALA annual meeting this summer and a final report sent to the JSC by August 15. The motion was seconded by Schiff and adopted by the Committee.

Schottlaender reported that the JSC had so much work to do that it would meet twice in the year 2000, March 22-24 in San Diego and September in London, and might also need to meet twice in 2001. There would be three substantial topics at the March meeting: other recommendations in the Delsey report; a review of the prototype of the code rearranged by ISBD area; and consideration of the seriality proposals from Hirons.

Schottlaender said he had put together a list of JSC documents that CC:DA needed to consider, including documents that have been on the table awhile, but were not yet resolved:

  • Music uniform titles document [3JSC/ALA/11/ALA follow-up/2]
  • Recommendation 2 in the 0.24 report [4JSC/ALA/30], which CC:DA had already addressed by establishing a task force
  • JSC response to ISBD(ER) harmonization proposals [4JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4]

New documents from CCC that the JSC had received were:

  • Revision of 1.4C3 [4JSC/CCC/2]
  • Definition of “main entry” in the AACR2 glossary [4JSC/CCC/3]
  • Subordinate conference headings [4JSC/CCC/4]

Schottlaender reported that LC had already responded to these documents. The CCC 1.4C3 proposal suggested that a couple lines of text be excised, but LC disagreed with the proposal. Hixson said she supported the LC decision. Tillett added that LC had considered the rule in the course of ISBD harmonization efforts and said that it would take away from that. Schiff asked if Schottlaender knew what the justification had been for the proposal and Schottlaender replied that the proposal was for purposes of standardization and ease of international exchange. Given the congruence between the current rule and ISBD, he wondered about the international exchange of records part. Beacom and others expressed agreement with the LC response.

Schottlaender said that 4JSC/CCC/3 attempted to redefine “main entry” in the glossary. He said that although no one thinks the current definition is very good, LC recommended deferring consideration of the proposal until after complete review of the Delsey report, because it also included a proposed definition of main entry. CC:DA expressed agreement with the LC recommendation.

Schottlaender reported that 4/JSC/CCC/4 proposed to insert the parenthetical “including that of a conference entered subordinately, see 24.13” into 24.7A1 in order to bring it into harmony with 24.7B1. CC:DA expressed agreement.

Schottlaender’s report turned to the music uniform titles document [3JSC/ALA/11/ALA follow-up/2]. He asked Wise (MusLA) to brief CC:DA where matters stood with the proposal. Wise reported that the original proposal had been submitted to CC:DA in 1990 to clarify the use of the terms “musical work” and “work” in those rules in chapter 25 that pertain to music. They had negotiated to change most of the rules that had been in the original proposal. In rule 25.25, there are rules for uniform titles for individual musical works, parts of musical works, and collections of musical works. Unfortunately, “work” had crept into the rules when it was referring to “musical work.” In rule 25.35, “work” referred to musical works, parts of musical works, and collections of musical works. Elsewhere in the rules the word “work” has meant something broader and the proposal tried to make it clear that in 25.35 “work” meant something other than “musical work.” The negotiations had been summarized in a document in 1995, but a footnote had probably been mistakenly added. Wise commented that the MusLA was still in favor of including something in 25.35 to make it clearer, with the possibilities being: (1) adding a footnote, or (2) excising the term “work” from those rules and using “music” instead. The BL response had also brought up the possibility of adding a footnote to 25.25 to indicate that the term “musical work” would only be used to apply to the rules for individual pieces of music. MusLA would support a footnote, but could not support the definition being deleted from the glossary. MusLA wanted to know whether CC:DA wanted to pursue a footnote to 25.25, as the BL suggested, and asked for input on the best way to correct 25.35.

Tillett replied that the JSC had already approved a footnote to musical work for 25.25; there was a 1991 rationale when a similar footnote had been added for liturgical works and art works, etc., and JSC was not interested in making cosmetic changes. Attig questioned whether a footnote at the first occurrence could cover the subsequent occurrences and Wise replied that it was too spread out. Attig asked if there was a heading “Musical works” and Schottlaender said that the portion of the code is introduced by the heading “Musical works.” He was reminded that it had been changed to “Music” in the 1999 revision packet. Schottlaender questioned whether that meant that 25.25A would read “Formulate a uniform title for music as instructed …” No, the first sentence would remain as is. 25.26-25.31 refers only to individual musical works and 25.35 to all types and collections of musical works.

Schottlaender said that it seemed that MusLA was in the best position to evaluate the BL response and that CC:DA would probably benefit from something to substantiate what MusLA is recommending. He added that responses were due from JSC constituencies by the end of February and that CC:DA might want to wait until they’ve been received, because of the long history of this document and the amount of responses. He said it would be useful to have one document summarizing the history of what was now on the table. Attig asked why this needed to be on the March agenda, given the two meetings a year of the JSC. Schottlaender replied that the response to this document was on the March agenda. Schiff proposed that CC:DA wait until the July meeting in order to have the JSC response to the CC:DA document, decide what it wants to do in July and in that way give the MusLA time before the July meeting to discuss it and prepare an alternative proposal, if necessary. Schottlaender agreed to this proposal.

Schiff asked what was happening with 4JSC/ALA/28 and 4JSC/ALA/29 and Schottlaender replied they were pending on the JSC docket for March, awaiting some input to LC, which Tillett now had from CC:DA.

Attig asked if there were action required to the follow-ups to 4JSC/BL/5 and 4JSC/BL/6. Schottlaender replied that they had been endorsed by the JSC with the understanding that BL would do a little more work with examples, which the BL had since provided. Nothing in 4JSC/BL/5 and 4JSC/BL/6 was dissonant with what CC:DA wanted, as distinct from BL 1-4, which BL needed to completely rethink.

Schottlaender reported that the JSC had reviewed in great detail ISBD(ER) harmonization proposals [4/JSC/27/ALA follow-up/4]. In that document he had tried to excise everything from ALA follow-up/3 except for the specific rule revision proposals, but added that one needed ALA follow-up/3 to be able to track modifications in ALA follow-up/4.

The CC:DA proposal to 9.0A1 was approved, with the only modification to the CC:DA proposal being to excise the word “disc” in the parenthetical in the second paragraph, leaving “disk,” because the JSC was recommending that only the “disk” spelling be used. Attig asked for clarification whether Schottlaender was saying this would be done throughout the text or just in the description. He thought it was still in the list of specific material designations in area 5. Schottlaender replied that it would be true also for the description. Schiff said that had not been reflected in the changes and Schottlaender agreed, but added that, although the JSC had not changed all “disc” spellings in the paper, it recognized that that would be necessary.

Larsgaard asked Schottlaender to explain why the JSC was recommending the “disk” spelling, rather than using “disk” and “disc.” Schottlaender replied that the JSC believed that “disk” was the more commonly used word internationally and in dictionaries. Attig asked whether this recommendation applied only to chapter 9, since chapter 6 and other chapters also use “disc.” Schottlaender said that, while JSC thought it was eliminating some dissonance in the code, it recognized that it hadn’t succeeded in doing so. Beacom commented that the “disc vs. disk” spelling issue had been looked at by the ER harmonization group and they had found that in the more scholarly dictionaries in the field the distinction between “c” and “k” was clear. He added that keeping that distinction would be helpful and changing to one single spelling added the complication of correcting other chapters. Kelley added that, in addition to the dictionaries, the ISBD(ER) also used the two separate terms. Schottlaender replied that this was not the only circumstance where the JSC diverged from ISBD(ER) and JSC opinion was that ISBD(ER) substantiated practice that was three years old. JSC believed there had been a change in practice in the intervening years and that “disk” was now the predominant spelling.

Jizba said that most standard dictionaries continue to use the “disc” spelling in addition to “disk” and that, if one looked at chapter 7, area 5, “videodisc” is used. Research indicated and dictionaries supported that it hadn’t been changed to “disk.” Schiff said that in some general reference dictionaries, e.g., Random House, the correct spelling was “disk,” but the alternative spelling of “disc” was also given. If one looked at trade and subject specific dictionaries, they made the distinction that Jizba referred to. He asked whether the JSC was trying to follow standard dictionary spelling or those more applicable to a certain type of material. Schottlaender replied that he didn’t think there was a principle regarding generalist vs. specialist dictionaries, but said that the principle informing the code was that the code should use language that most cataloger users would expect to find. He said that if CC:DA has reservations on this point, it should say so. Tillett added that it would be helpful for CC:DA to articulate to the JSC why this distinction was important to users. Susan Hayes said that it was her impression that users were confused about the two spellings. Schottlaender said that users probably just mean generic “disk” and added that the spelling is irrelevant but currently two spellings exist. Jizba responded that for catalogers there are two separate meanings and two separate technologies. Tillett questioned whether it really helped the users to have that distinction made clear. Jizba replied that practicing catalogers who are creating records for users are trying to identify the technology involved. Schiff said that he could go either way on one vs. two spellings and that one spelling might be easier, but he thought the contradiction with chapters 6 and 7 was an important one. As Jizba added, they’re both optical technology. Schiff said that if the terminology were standardized, it should be done across chapters. He also said he would support “disk” if all instances were changed to “disk” and, if not, he would prefer the status quo. Beacom agreed with Schiff. Hayes questioned whether “disk” would stay prevalent. Crystal Graham suggested the spelling should be changed in all records and Schiff added in LCSH, too. Larsgaard said that it seemed that we’re following what our users think to be correct, but she had seen many reference desks where the distinction between technologies hadn’t been explained. Users often assume we don’t know how to spell correctly. Attig said that retrieval may be affected by spelling, but he wasn’t sure to what extent that was a concern.

Attig added that if this change were to go further than chapter 9, other constituencies would need to be consulted and that would take time. However, he did express a preference to maintain the distinctions. Schottlaender said that CC:DA’s options were to recommend that the distinction be maintained, or recommend that, if a single spelling be used, it be used across chapters. Jizba mentioned that in the late 1990’s a survey had been done on Intercat or Autocat and responses were received from international members of those groups with 75% preferring optical “disc.” She added that area 5 in all chapters can be looked on as a semi-controlled stable field and it would be good to maintain stable terminology in that field.

Schiff made the motion to retain the current distinction of “disc” and “disk” spellings in chapter 9 and also recommended that other chapters be given careful consideration if the JSC preferred to have only one spelling, “disk.” The motion was seconded by and approved by the Committee. Beacom added that constituencies should also be consulted if consideration is done across chapters.

Jizba asked what was CC:DA opinion on dropping chapter 9 definitions from the glossary. Schottlaender said that the JSC was not in favor of having terms in the glossary that are in common usage. Schiff said he’d like to see them in the glossary because of the confusion between the two spellings. Jizba reminded him of the reticence of JSC for glossary terms, but added that perhaps they could be reintroduced in the future if really necessary.

Schiff made a motion that, if the JSC accepted the CC:DA recommendation to retain the two different spellings, that we reiterate our support for the two glossary terms. Larsgaard seconded the motion and it was adopted by the Committee.

Schottlaender asked to clarify the proposal, because the proposal transmitted in ALA 27/follow-up/3 was that two definitions be added, “disc” and “disk.” Schiff asked what had happened to ALA 25. He and Shirley Lincicum mentioned they had wondered what had happened to the computer disk and computer optical disc definitions. Schottlaender replied that the JSC had speculated that ALA 27/ALA follow-up 3 may have superseded ALA 25, since they were both recommending definitions for the same things, but with different words and definitions. He added that it would be helpful to know what definitions CC:DA was trying to reinstate. Schiff and Jizba proposed a few different ideas for glossary terms, but after some discussion Attig suggested a postponement. Schottlaender commented that there was a motion on the floor that had been approved, but discussion had modified it. Jizba and Schiff agreed to write up a proposal on glossary definitions for discussion on Monday.

For 9.0B1, Schottlaender reported that the CC:DA proposed revision was approved with minor modifications: (1) the addition of a parenthetical “s” after the word file, because a resource can comprise multiple files; (2) the addition of parenthetical qualifier in the indented paragraph, “If the information required is not available or is insufficient, take it from the following sources in this order of preference, physical carrier, its labels, printed or online documentation …”: after “printed or online document,” the parenthetical qualifier “for direct or remote access resources” was added. Attig questioned whether it was added in both paragraphs and Schottlaender replied just the second one. Schiff asked why it had been added and he responded to make it clear (as was made clear in the other two indented circumstances) for what type of resources you’d draw on these resources.

Schottlaender reported that the CC:DA revisions for 9.0B2, 1.4C8, 1.4D9, 1.4F9 were approved.

Schottlaender reported that, for 9.2B1, the CC:DA revision was approved with revisions: the change of word “a” to “that” in the instruction “that resource”; the substitution of “For frequently updated remote access electronic resources, see 9.2B9,” for the task force recommendation, “Consider in addition to consist of all copies embodying essentially the same content, e.g., produced from substantially the same master copy“; elimination of the proposed “School of Education” example; and the change of “interactive edition“ to “interactive version.”

For 9.2B2, Schottlaender reported that the CC:DA proposed revision was approved tentatively with revisions pending input from Bob Ewald (LC), who was going to look at the JSC wording, i.e., excising the phrase “may or may not be a new edition” and substituting “should be taken to indicate a new edition.”

Schottlaender said the CC:DA proposed revision for 9.2B3 was endorsed in part. The JSC endorsed the proposed new examples but not the new text, because the new text didn’t make sense grammatically when the rule was read from beginning to end.

He also that there was a host of revisions suggested by the task force for 9.2B4, only one of which was accepted, the change of “a file” to “a resource”, in part because the other suggested changes called into question the 0.24 discussion. Since those recommendations were out for additional comment, it was not a good time to make changes. Jizba questioned whether they could come up again after the report is out and Schottlaender replied in the affirmative, but he thought the development of an appendix on minor and major changes could obviate the addition of the language that CC:DA had suggested.

Kinney said that the rest of the JSC report would be picked up at 8:00 a.m. on Monday and the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.


Monday, 17 January 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

667. Agenda item 8. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair

Committee Chair Daniel Kinney called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. in Tarantella Rooms 2-4, Holiday Inn Riverwalk. Kinney distributed a roster to Committee members for attendance and corrections and passed an attendance sheet to the audience. ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee Brian Schottlaender was introduced and asked to conclude the report that he began on Saturday, January 15 (agenda item 7).

666 (cont. from 1/15/00). Agenda item 7. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Schottlaender

Schottlaender said that he would focus on those items in 4/JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4 which involved substantive differences from revisions proposed in 4/JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/3, rather than go through each item individually [section and page numbering refers to ALA follow-up/3]:

4.2   Additions to Rule 9.3B1 (p. 6)

Schottlaender reported that the revision suggested by the JSC is to move the long list of terms out of the body of the code into an appendix. Rather than saying “use one of the following terms:” and then listing them, saying instead, “use the term as given in Appendix [XXX].”

5.1   Rule 9.4B2 (p.7-8)

Schottlaender reported that the JSC had voted down the addition of the new [CC:DA proposed] rule 9.4B2.

AS: Did they say why?

BECS: Primarily for two reasons. First of all, the JSC had a long discussion about the final statement in the proposed addition, “consider all remote-access electronic resources to be published.” We decided that, frankly, we don’t agree with that statement. We do not consider all remote-access electronic resources to be published. Furthermore, even if we did agree with the statement, we didn’t think that the rule needed to be added, given the tenets of cataloger’s judgment.

SK: I think that someone from the ER task force should respond to this. It is a major change, (and one that I could live with) …

LJ: Well, if we’re leaving the rule out and leaving it up to cataloger’s judgment, some catalogers will decide that they do want to consider all remote-access electronic resources to be published, so […] the majority of the people want to be […]. I’m not too concerned about it …

MB: I was on the ER task force, and […] we had the same doubts as the JSC did about considering all Internet resources to be published, and we considered enumerating examples of Internet resources that we would not consider to be published. The task force would probably not be strongly opposed to the JSC decision.

JA: That’s basically the point I was making: that this has always been a problem. It first came up with the OCLC Internet cataloging project. This is an area where catalogers have a difficult time making a judgment, and will most likely wish their judgment to be guided by somebody.

6.1   Rule 9.5B1 (p. 9)

Schottlaender said that he hesitated to use the word “substantive” in reference to this revision. He said he was pointing it out only because there were so many versions of the proposal submitted by CC:DA that he wanted the group to know which version JSC had approved.

BECS: If you go to the original proposal, you will see that there was a lengthy proposed revision that sort of begins on page 32, and then way down at the end of page 33, something that identifies itself as an “addendum,” which is, in essence, the same revision, only the terms that are listed as being appropriate for description are all put into alphabetical order. That is the revision that was approved by the JSC.

AS: Just a question, or perhaps a discovery. In the rules, as you see, in the crossed out portion on the bottom of page 9, there’s something called “computer tape cartridge.” That no longer appears in the list above. Did we decide that that was no longer an SMD that was worth including, or did we submit it by accident? In the rules as they now exist, there is this SMD “computer tape cartridge,” and we’ve eliminated it.

(After some discussion, it is decided that the omission of the SMD “computer tape cartridge” in the addendum was an inadvertent omission on the part of the task force. Schottlaender makes a note to reinsert it between “computer optical disc” and “computer tape cassette.”)

BECS: Towards the end of that addendum proposal, on page 34 of the original proposal, is the first of two optional statements: “Optionally, record the specific format of the physical carrier …” The JSC has revised the proposed language from the task force to move the specific format term out of the parentheses, and just have it stand on its own.

(Jizba suggests that Schiff comment on the terms “DVD” and “DVD-ROM.”)

AS: Well, the example in the addendum with DVD-ROM. Ann Sandberg-Fox also pointed out in her e-mail [1/12/00; subject line: “Initialisms in Area 5”] that there is a difference between a DVD-ROM used as a computer file, and a DVD used as a video, so I would suggest that the “-ROM” be reattached to “DVD.”

BECS: Does the rest of the group agree with that?

(The committee agrees.)

BECS: Does anyone actually refer to “DVD-ROMs” in your libraries?

AS: Well, very briefly, I guess the distinction is that if the DVD disc is being used as an electronic resource, rather than for playing a video or music, the standard format is called “DVD-ROM.” That’s what computers play, as opposed to DVD players, which play videos and video games.

ASF: It gets a little technical. Actually, what DVD-ROM requires is an MP2 decoder, which converts from the digital to the analog, and that’s there in the DVD-ROM. […] so I’m supporting what you’re saying. I sent out a memo to Dan, and I don’t know how many people have that memo, and how much detail I need to go into. It’s not very long, and I just make a few points about this particular option that has come up. Basically, what I’m concerned about is that when you get into initialisms, especially when you see “CD-ROM,” most catalogers are going to jump to use that, and I don’t blame them, because it’s much clearer. But I think we have to look at the larger picture. We’re not just talking about CD-ROMS – we’re talking about an alphabet soup of a number of initialisms, some of which might be very clear to people in particular fields, like the music field, or people in the video area, or the computer area. But I think it’s going to be very confusing if people start using this option, and you’ve got users and catalogers looking at initialisms that really don’t make much sense, unless you’re going to go to a technical dictionary to look them up. And also, I think we have to think about the technology, which is such that these initialisms are going to become obsolete sooner rather than later. Already, the CD-ROM industry is talking about CD-ROMs demising within the next couple of years, and being replaced by yet other advanced technologies, with more initialisms. So I think we’re getting into a real conundrum here, of a lot of initialisms, a lot them being meaningless, and some of the words that we know now becoming very obsolete in the future.

“I bring up the example of an ‘LP.’ I was talking about LPs to my son years ago, and he said ‘What in the world is an "LP"?’ And I got to thinking as I read this option, if we had ‘1 LP’ or ‘2 LPs,’ or whatever, throughout all the records that we created for music in that area, imagine users’ reactions today, looking at all those records that say ‘2 LPs’ and not knowing what in the world an LP is.

“In addition, I was concerned about the DVD technology, but that seems to have been cleared up now. But ‘DVD’ is a case where, right now, the technology is such that that term, that initialism, could be used and applied in Chapter 7, for video stuff, and when we get into initialisms, let’s go on to Chapter 6, where we have ‘compact disc’ used as a note, and we have people and users calling ‘compact discs’ ‘CDs,’ and if we’re going to go this way, with the addition of an option in Chapter 9, I think we should be consistent and think of the option as valid in other chapters, such as in Chapter 6, where we could say ‘CD.’

“So that was my point and my concern, and I feel very strongly, though I have to admit that the [ISBD(ER)] review group made a very wise decision because we discussed these very issues lengthily, and with some tension, but I must say, I thought we came up with a very good solution, a nice compromise, that we could use these initialisms, but use them in parentheses, as qualifiers, more than as an SMD. So we retain the integrity of the SMDs, and yet we allow for the introduction of the things that people know, if they know ‘CD-ROM’ or other initialisms. And my feeling is that if we go that way, we’re more likely to add as a qualifier ‘CD-ROM,’ and not get into some of these unknown or more specious types of initialisms. So those were my concerns about the outcomes of the decision about this, and I wondered if it might be of concern to others, to possibly look into this issue further.”

BECS: Can I just comment, before we solicit additional comments from the committee itself? Again, this is a case of déjà vu all over again, in the sense that the JSC had this very same discussion, so I don’t think anyone would disagree with you that there is going to be some confusion on the part of users as to exactly what a particular initialism means. The JSC is not convinced, however, that preceding a particular initialism with the phrase “computer optical disc” is going to do anything to alleviate that confusion.

“Number two, the JSC also would not disagree with you that, having made this decision at the optional level in Chapter 9, one would logically go to make it in Chapters 6 and 7, as well. So you’re not getting any argument from the JSC there. We didn’t make that recommendation because we were talking about Chapter 9.”

Schottlaender asked if there were additional comments, and said that his understanding was that the committee was in favor of retaining the JSC’s revision, but reinstating the initialism “-ROM” following ’DVD.”

(The committee confirms that this is correct.)

6.2   Rule 9.5B3 (p. 10)

Schottlaender noted that the proposal to add this rule was not approved. He explained that the JSC felt that 9.5B3 as articulated was not needed because the circumstances described in it are already covered by 9.7B16 and 9.10A.

6.4   Rule 9.5D (p. 11)

Schottlaender said that he just wanted to make sure that everyone understood what the modification to the CC:DA proposed language was. He said that the JSC had relocated the “Optionally, …” from before “e) …” to after “e) …” because in the JSC’s opinion, the “Optionally, …” statement really applies to a), b), c), d), and e), not just to a), b), c), d).

7.1   Rule 9.7B1

Schottlaender pointed out that in the heading for 9.7B1, the JSC had added the final phrase “and mode of access.” They also found in the rule what they were fairly sure was an inadvertent error introduced by the task force: “In the list of examples, about one third of the way down page 13, the example that reads ‘System requirements: Apple II, II+, IIe; 48K; DOS 3.3; Applesoft BASIC; some programs require game paddles.’ In fact, that example is a conflation of two examples from the current text. So we’ll just reinstate the current example.”

7.5   Rule 9.7B6 (p. 14)

Schottlaender noted that the revisions proposed by CC:DA to 9.7B6 included a substantive addition to the text of the rule, plus the addition of various examples. He reported that the substantive addition to the text of the rule was not approved by the JSC, that only some of the examples were approved, and that one of them was revised. “Generally speaking,” he said, “the JSC tries to avoid what I would call ‘example creep’.”

AS: I just want to go back a rule, to the parallel title rule [7.3 Rule 9.7B4 (p. 14)], to the second example. What the JSC has done is cut into it in such a way that makes it less comprehensible than I think it was intended to be, but I think we can solve that. The original example showed a title and a parallel title from the HTML header. Both the title and the parallel title in the header were different than the title screen title and parallel title, so the example was showing parallel titles from the header that were different. I can understand that that may be confusing in itself, so the point of this example was to show that you might have a parallel title in the header that might not appear on the source that you have chosen for your title. Why don’t we change this note to “Parallel title in HTML header: …” Otherwise it’s not clear why this example is under that rule.

(Schottlaender and the committee agree that the note should be changed to the wording that Schiff suggested.)

8.2   Direct access (Electronic resources) (p. 18) (glossary entry)

Schottlaender pointed out that the original language of the proposed revision to the definition for Direct access included the statement “also known as local access,” and noted that this is not conventionally how the glossary operates. Therefore, he said, that part of the proposed revision was struck, and instead, the reference from “Local access (Electronic resources)” to “Direct access (Electronic resources)” was added.

8.5   Edition: Electronic resources (p. 19) (glossary entry)

Schottlaender reported that the JSC had not approved the CC:DA proposal, which introduced the parenthetical “e.g., produced from substantially the same master copy.” The JSC preferred instead the revision proposed originally in ALA follow-up 2.

8.9   Hard disk (p. 20) (glossary entry)

Schottlaender pointed out the addition of the parenthetical qualifier “Electronic resources” to the word “disk,” and the addition of the second cross-reference, the reference from “Floppy disk.”

8.11   Metadata (p. 20-21) (glossary entry)

Schottlaender reported that this was the first of a few proposed glossary additions from CC:DA that were not approved by the JSC, given the policies as articulated in 4/JSC/Policy/3 against the addition to the glossary of what are considered to be commonly used terms. “Metadata,” “Peripheral (Electronic resources),” and “TEI header” all fall into that category, he said.

Attig expressed support for the JSC’s decision not to add a definition for metadata to Appendix D. “ ‘Metadata’ may be commonly used,” he said, “but it’s just not commonly and consistently defined. I’m not sure that there is enough consensus on a definition. The glossary of AACR2 is the place to remedy this, but it is true that more people use the word than know what it means.”

Beacom also expressed support for the decision, saying that the task force on metadata had a group working on a definition of “metadata” that had come up with something like 37 definitions.

Schottlaender said that unless the committee felt strongly about reintroducing one of these definitions, he had reached the end of his report on substantive changes. He said he would summarize the committee’s discussions in the form, probably, of a document 4/JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4/ALA response, which would actually be the ALA response to the JSC summary. He said that he would welcome any further comments from committee members by e-mail, but that he wanted to get the response document to the JSC by the end of February.

Kinney thanked Schottlaender for his report, noted that it was 8:30, and said that the meeting was now back on schedule.

668. Agenda item 9. Report on the IFLA Conference in Bangkok: Patton
[Related document:]

Patton reminded the committee that several months earlier he had distributed to the CC:DA list the URL of the Section on Cataloguing report that he and Barbara Tillett had prepared after the Bangkok conference, and said that he wanted to call the committee members’ attention to the fact that in that same area on the ALCTS Web site [], there are reports from a variety of the IFLA sections to whom ALA sends representatives. He suggested that committee members might find it useful to read some of those other reports, as well.

Patton announced that the IFLA general conference will be in Boston in 2001. He urged committee members who are making travel plans and travel budgets for 2001 to consider attending the Boston IFLA conference. He said that over the years he had found it very useful to meet people from around the world who were involved in cataloging activities, and that committee members would, too. He said that there was already a link on the IFLANET Web site to the Boston organizing committee’s initial Web pages [], and that the dates of the conference could be found there. He said that IFLA meetings are generally open to all conference registrees.

Patton went on to say that, speaking of IFLANET, he would encourage committee members to take a look at that Web site. He said that IFLA was moving rapidly toward publishing all of the conference papers, in most cases in advance, and in most cases in translations into the five IFLA languages.

Reporting on the activities of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing, Patton said that one of the most noteworthy news items was the election that took place at the Bangkok meeting. He reported that Barbara Tillett had been elected Chair of the Section on Cataloguing, succeeding another one of our well known colleagues, Ingrid Parent of the National Library of Canada, who is now moving on to activities with the professional board.

He reported that there are several working groups that are active right now. One of these is the Working Group on Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, that initially started out to revise a now somewhat ancient publication of IFLA, and have quite sensibly seen that that’s not going to work. He said that publication had been putting forward the idea that it was possible to devise one form of a corporate heading usable in any catalog anywhere in the world. He said that everyone had realized that this was not in the catalog user’s best interest, so they are now focusing on developing guidelines that can be used in the construction of corporate headings according to various kinds of cataloging rules by defining patterns of corporate headings used and patterns of construction of corporate headings.

He reported that another group is working on revising the anonymous classics document. He said that work has been going on for quite some time, and we may yet see something next year.

Patton reported that another working group, one that he and Barbara Tillett are both members of, is working on revising the IFLA Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. He said that that revision is also going through some final polishing, and that he thought it would be presented for approval at the next conference in Jerusalem.

Referring to Tillett’s report on Saturday [CC:DA/M/665], Patton said that as Tillett had already reported, a new project has been begun that will be working on a multilingual glossary for cataloging terms. He said that that was something that he and others who have been involved in various rule-harmonization processes over the last couple of years have been desperately wanting.

Patton said that one paper from the Section on Cataloguing’s programs that he particularly wanted to call the committee’s attention to is an excellent paper [] on the IFLANET Web site prepared by Kirsten Marie Strunck of the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen, “describing how that institution has incorporated the IFLA functional requirements for bibliographic records into basically their entire curriculum-not only into their cataloging courses, but incorporating aspects of it into a wide variety of other courses, like collection development, library management, […] and other things. So really, in effect, bringing up a new generation of Danish librarians who are very familiar with the terms and concepts that are the foundation of the IFLA functional requirements.” He encouraged committee members to read the paper, and said that he had been encouraging people he knows who are involved in library education in this country to go forth and do likewise.

Tillett commented that the IFLA journal International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control is working with the author to get the paper published in their publication, so hopefully the paper will be more widely available.

Patton said that one other area he wanted to call the committee’s attention to was the area of ISBD-related activities. He reported that the ISBD review group had completed an examination of ISBD(M) in relation to the IFLA functional requirements, and has recommended a series of changes to ISBD(M) to make a number of elements optional, elements which are now not optional. “For example, parallel titles: parallel titles for series will become optional; some other elements will become optional. Again, the process being to test the elements that are specified in the ISBDs against the elements that are laid out in the functional requirements. And that set of proposed changes will be distributed soon for a rather brief 3-month worldwide review. John Byrum, who is the Chair of the ISBD review group, is polishing up the final version of that now.” Patton said that he suspected that the committee would want to look at those suggested changes. He said the draft, which would be quite brief, would be posted soon on the IFLANET Web site [].

Patton concluded his report with an early warning to the committee about two ISBDs that will be revised soon: ISBD(CM) for cartographic materials, and ISBD(NBM) for nonbook materials. He reported that there is a newly formed IFLA Section on Audiovisual and Multimedia, which was previously the Audiovisual and Multimedia Round table, and that this group has expressed an interest in beginning a revision to the ISBD(NBM), which is long overdue for revision.

Kinney asked Patton if he thought it was too early for the committee to discuss setting up a task force to review ISBD(M).

Patton said that he did not think it was too early. He said that the last time he had talked to Byrum about this, Byrum was hoping he would be able to release the draft document for review towards the end of February, and that since the review would be an approximately 3-month process, the CC:DA review would need to take place in the interim between this meeting and the annual meeting in July, 2000.

Kinney said that CC:DA has traditionally reviewed ISBD revisions, and that he would turn that over to the committee.

Kelley moved that a CC:DA task force to review ISBD(M) be formed.

Larsgaard seconded the motion.

There was no discussion, and the motion was passed unanimously.

669. Agenda item 10. Report from the MARBI representative: Watson
[Related document:]

Watson announced that MARBI had finished its business for this conference the day before (Sunday, January 16), and said that his report this morning would be a final wrap-up. He asked the committee to refer the document CC:DA/MARBI Rep/2000/1, which he had distributed before the meeting.

[Recording secretary’s note: the heading for each proposal below contains a hypertext link to the documentation for pertinent proposal on the MARC Standards website. Below each heading is the transcription of MARBI representative Watson’s comments to CC:DA on each proposal. Please note that Proposal 2000-01 has been revised since Watson’s report. The hypertext link below 2000-01 here is to the documentation for the proposal as it read at the time of this meeting.]

Proposal 2000-01: Definition of Subfield $z (Numbering scheme) in Fields 853-855 (Captions and Patterns) of the MARC 21 Holdings Format

MARC21 Format for Holdings Data includes a block of fields and subfields that are intended to contain publication pattern information, and in fields 853 to 855, various levels of caption information are captured in subfields $a through $h, and since enumeration can be expressed in different ways using different schemes, an element is needed to characterize the kinds of values to be found at a given level of enumeration. For example, it is necessary to indicate whether the numbering scheme is expressed as Arabic numerals, upper- or lower-case Roman numerals, or upper- or lower-case alphabetic letters. MARBI discussed two options for capturing this information, and is leaning towards an option where you would use a two- or three-character code: the first position would indicate the numbering scheme; the second and third would indicate the script if it is an alpha numbering scheme or the type of number if it is a numeric scheme. This is going to be pursued and developed more, so I expect a report back at Annual about final action taken on the definition of subfield z to achieve this. So, “to be continued” on this one.

Proposal No. 2000-03: Definition of Subfield $2 (Source of term) in Field 583 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats

Standardized terminology [Standard Terminology for MARC 21 Field 583] has been developed to describe retention and preservation actions in this field, and as sources other than what is being used to determine terminology for MARC21/583 are developed, it is felt that the field needs an indication of the source of those terms. So MARBI did go ahead and approve the definition of subfield $2 to indicate the thesaurus used for the terminology in a particular note.

Proposal No. 2000-04:Anonymous Attribution Information in Personal Name Headings

This proposal came from the Art Libraries Society of North America, Cataloging Advisory Committee. I thought that this was an interesting proposal. I learned that art works that cannot be attributed with certainty to any known person are common in the art world, and art historians express gradations of certainty about the relationship between a work and a known artist or group of artists by coupling a known artist’s name with a qualifier, so librarians and visual resources professionals who use MARC21 formats in cataloging art works or surrogates of art works need to be able to record this information somewhere.

Proposal 2000-04 discussed two options for handling anonymous attribution information associated with personal names. The first option was to redefine subfield $g to include this information along with other miscellaneous information, and the second option was to define a new subfield $j (Anonymous Attribution Information) to handle this, and the second option was approved, so there will be a new subfield $j to be used in conjunction with the X00 fields to give this information.

Discussion Paper No. 120: Community Information Format Integration with the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format

The MARBI action taken there was none, in the sense of doing much more than having an interesting discussion around the possibility of integrating the Community Integration format with the format for Bibliographic Data, and there are pros and cons, but after the discussion, [MARBI Chair] Bruce [Johnson] took a straw vote of the whole committee, and 30 were in favor of dropping the idea of integrating the two formats, and 13 were in favoring of pursuing it further, so I would expect that MARBI probably will not do too much more with this.

Proposal No. 2000-06: Defining URI Subfields in Fields 505, 514, 520, 530, 545, 552, and 773

You might recall that at Annual, MARBI went ahead and approved the inclusion of subfield $u in the 555 to record the URI for electronic finding aids, and also in field 583 to record a link to an action note, so MARBI did go ahead and approve the addition of subfield $u to all of these fields, with the exception of the 773 field.

An important point that should be made here is that one of the main concerns about the proliferation of URLs throughout the bibliographic record is the real possibility that a field will simply contain a URL, and no other information. MARBI discussed, as sort of a principle for the format, to make sure that there was some kind of label-general text or caption information-that would indicate to a user why it is that it might be valuable for him or her to follow the link. So, in all of those fields, with the exception of the 514 and the 552, there is either a print constant or a subfield that will allow general text or caption information, so LC is going to identify a spot in the 514 and the 552 for this information.

Proposal No. 2000-02: Renaming of Subfield $u to Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) in Field 856 in MARC 21 Formats

We could see this one coming at Annual, because in the 856 field, what happened was, there were two subfields for URIs: there is the subfield $u for the URL, and there is also the subfield $g for the URN, and, having the taken the step of defining a subfield $u for the 555 and the 583, MARBI declined to define a subfield $g for a URN. So, we set a precedent at Annual by only defining one subfield for a URI in those two fields, and that was of course continued with the fields that I just mentioned in the last proposal, so you really need to come back now and talk about what’s going on in the 856, and that’s what this proposal was about. And it proposed to make the subfield $g for Uniform Resource Name obsolete, in favor of recording both URLs and URNs in subfield $u, and of course, if you want to do that, you need to make subfield $u repeatable within the 856, so that was accepted and approved. That doesn’t mean that if you want to record two URLs, you need to repeat the 856. So, you can have a URL and a URN, but you can’t have two URLs. Some people put a URL in subfield $x if they’re using a PURL in subfield $u, and that’s OK.

So I think we’ve got it all straightened out. [Jokingly:] It just remains to define subfield $u for the rest of the fields in the bib format, and there you have it.

Each one will be carefully considered, though.

Proposal No. 2000-05: Uncontrolled Names as Subjects in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Community Information Formats

This proposal originated with the OCLC CORC project, and was needed because in order to map between Dublin Core and MARC and back again, in the CORC project, a subject name would go into a 653 field for an uncontrolled subject name, but then you can’t get it back out because there is really no way to identify what’s in a 653 once you put something in there. So this was a proposal to define an indicator so you could tell it was a name and print it back out, but the discussion was wide-ranging, and people talked about a need to then define indicators for other types of names, including geographics, and conferences, and corporate bodies, and why not topicals. So we tabled this proposal. Once again, “to be continued” on this one.

Watson said that he had concluded his report, and invited questions and comments from the committee.

Jizba said that, regarding the recording of URLs in note fields, she believed this had been discussed by the Task Force on Harmonization of ISBD(ER) and AACR2, and that the task force had concluded that this was holdings data, and should not be included in bibliographic data fields.

Attig said that the discussion she was referring to had to do with whether to include URLs as standard numbers in Area 8. He said that the rules do not say anything about including the text of a URL in a note.

Schiff commented that the inclusion of URLs in MARC records raised the issue of whether these URLs would print on cards that are produced from MARC records, and suggested that the committee might want to consider addressing in the rules the inclusion or exclusion of URLs in notes.

MARBI Chair Bruce Chr. Johnson replied from the floor to Schiff’s and Jizba’s comments, saying “Nothing in the proposal that you are considering spoke to whether it would print on cards or not. It is really up to individual institutions to decide how they want to implement it. It was quite clear from the discussion that the character of the information that would be linked to from the MARC record varies very widely. It is by no means limited to holdings information. MARBI is taking the approach of approving this subfields on a field-by-field basis, rather than make a blanket approval, because we do not believe that it is necessarily appropriate for every field, and we want to consider them carefully, one by one.”

670. Agenda item 11. Report from ALA Publishing: Chatham

Don Chatham: I came here today to talk about the amendments package. The amendments package is ready to go. We received the amendments from the JSC in the middle, toward the end of November, and proceeded to prepare for electronic distribution as well as print distribution. We have it here. I need to meet with Troy Linker during the week in order to ask a couple of questions about the PDF format, and then we’ll e-mail it to Ann Huthwaite for one more review, and then we’re ready to release it.

Our plans are to have an electronic option and a print option. The electronic option will have two choices. One will be that the user can download a file of the amendments for free. They would click the download option, save to a file, and then open that file, and run a program that would provide automatic installation of the amendments into the electronic file for AACR2E. The second option is that we would send a CD to the user with the amendments file on it, which will then automatically install the file in their CD version of AACR2E. The download off the Web will be free; sending the CD will have a price tag on it. Our expectation at this point is that the price tag on that option will be $15.00.

For the print option, we again have two choices there. We will have a .PDF file that simulates the page in the book-the trim size and the typeface of the book. That will have its own URL, and we will have a link to that file at the ALA Online Store, so a user can access the URL, download, and print out the PDF file, which will have trim marks that approximate the size of the page. That option will be free.

The second option is that we will print the amendments on demand, trim them, and send them out to the user. That option will have a price tag, and that price tag will be the same as the CD – $15.00 – is our expectation at this point.

That is our plan, so how does that work for you? Will that be adequate?

(The Committee indicates that it will.)

We should be ready to go at any point. Now we just have the final approval, and I think that will be a pretty fast process.

Attig asked what the turnaround time would be after ALA Publishing got the final approval.

Troy Linker responded from the floor, “Around the first of March, hopefully earlier. March 1st at the latest.”

Chatham said that, in the future, this process will go faster. “Our objective here is to get a 30-day turnaround. This came at a time when there were a lot of things going on. With the holidays, and people’s various schedules, … I think it will go faster next time.”

Kinney commented that when he had reported to the CCS Executive Committee at 1999 Annual, [CCS Chair] Paul Weiss had mentioned to him that CC:DA should consider Concise to be within its purview, and that the committee had never reviewed it before. He asked Chatham to say a few words about Concise.

Chatham: Concise is a part of the AACR fund’s group of products, which is really the AACR2, the Amendments, and Concise. Over the years, I think mainly since the 1988 version, there was some confusion about how we implemented that process, but from this point on, we regard this as an AACR fund title, and therefore subject to the processes that apply to AACR fund titles, and that means that, it is my understanding that the project will be reviewed by the JSC, it receives their authorization or they make modifications, and ultimately they pass on the manuscript, and then we proceed with publication. It is an outgrowth of AACR2, it’s an abridgment, those were the original words when it started. But my understanding is that the way the fund would work is that there are three designated functions: JSC is the author group for the materials; the three co-publishers, CLA, LA, and ALA are the publishers of the project; and the third group is the trustee group, which manages the financial aspects of the fund. Those three groups report to the Committee on Principles, which is the overriding authority for those three functions. I stand to be corrected, but I think what the process entails is that the CC:DA’s relationship would be to make recommendations for rules or amendments to the JSC, just as the CLA and LA would, and that then the process moves forward. The manuscript comes back to the publisher, and we publish it under that authority. With regard to the amendments, per se, we have not in the past incorporated or provided for amendments with Concise. The author of Concise always reviews the amendments to make sure that it is not necessary to incorporate amendments, but the purpose of the Concise is to deal with broader issues, as opposed to the finer points, and it has turned out that the finer points that the amendments have addressed, at least in ’97, and probably with this set, would not qualify for an addendum to Concise. That’s yet to be determined, but that’s probably what will happen, that Concise will not be affected by the amendments. They would, of course, be affected by major changes to AACR2, and that would follow [inaudible] as it has in the past. But the CCS Executive Committee with regard to the CC:DA is expected to comply or operate with that process.

Jizba expressed a long-standing personal objection to the characterization of Concise as a work of personal authorship, with entry under Michael Gorman’s name heading in catalog records.

Schottlaender commented that the historical characterization of the document as an abridgment of the code, rather than as a derivative work, had not escaped the JSC’s notice.

Bruce Chr. Johnson asked from the floor whether the current iteration of the Concise had gotten the JSC’s careful review.

Tillett responded that there had been many negotiations back and forth between Gorman and the JSC, and that Gorman had ultimately left in some things that the JSC disagreed with.

Schottlaender added that most of what the JSC did not agree with did not get into the revised Concise.

Johnson said from the floor, “I think that because it is published by the publishers of AACR2, most of us view this as an official statement, a policy statement, of our respective bodies, and I think the choice of whose word to accept would be the JSC’s word.”

Schottlaender said that the JSC agreed.

Chatham said that the process had gone awry in the past for some reason, but that ALA Publishing was now apprised of the situation, and that they had done the best they could to correct it by stopping the process and interrupting their publication schedule in order to get the manuscript into the hands of the JSC. He said he was sure that in the future, ALA Publishing would be much more compatible with the JSC and CC:DA.

Schottlaender said that he would like to go on record saying that “the JSC really does appreciate your sensitivity to that, and that you did literally stop the press to get that to us. Also, I must say that despite what you were saying about shooting for a 30-day goal, I think a 30-day turnaround on the amendments package is pretty good.”

Kelley asked the Chair if there was some kind of statement that the committee could make to ALA Editions to indicate its great appreciation for their meeting the committee’s concerns.

Chatham said that that would not be necessary.

Johnson commented from the floor that he had worked closely with Troy Linker on updating AACR2 in Cataloger’s Desktop, and that Linker has done a terrific job of keeping LC apprised of what’s going on.

671. Agenda item 12. Report from the 2000 Preconference Planning Task Force: Larsgaard
[Related document: Task Force charge and roster]

Larsgaard reported that the task force had met on Friday [January 14] afternoon from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m.

She said the roster of faculty and speakers was set, and that she had sent the roster to CC:DA listserv as an attachment. Two important topics of discussion were the publication of the papers prepared by the faculty, and vendor support for the food events. Wayne Jones has volunteered to edit the papers presented by the faculty at the preconference. These will appear in the ALCTS Papers on Library Technical Services and Collections series. That series is edited by Brad Eden. She said that the task force was going to do our best to encourage faculty to get their papers in as early as possible, so that the proceedings could be published, preferably, by the end of the summer, or by the fall at the latest.

Regarding vendor support for the food events, Larsgaard reported that OCLC had kindly volunteered to sponsor the coffee breaks on both days, July 6 and 7. She said that a location for the preconference had not yet been decided upon. She said that the task force was actively seeking vendor support for the lunches, and possibly for a reception, and that Sally Tseng, who is serving as her unofficial co-chair, is in charge of that. Larsgaard said that Tseng was doing an excellent job.

Larsgaard said that she had concluded her report, and asked if there were any questions.

Jizba said that the IRRT Executive Council would like to have IRRT be a cosponsor of the preconference.

ML: I will pass that on to Karen Muller who is in charge of that.

LJ: Also, the council would like to know if it would be possible for international visitors to get a reduced rate. If that is possible, Michael Dowling will be in touch with the ALCTS office about how to handle that.

JA: What is the estimated cost?

ML: The estimate is $235.00. I want to emphasize that this is just an estimate. I spoke to Karen Muller yesterday, and we are estimating an attendance of 200 to 275, but Karen sounded dubious about 275. I also asked Karen if she had any idea where this event would be held, and she said that there were [inaudible] that ALCTS puts forward to ALA for the various programs that ALCTS wants to put on, and the preconference is one of them. I did express to Karen a strong concern of the task force that the event not be held at the conference center, given how difficult it is to get to the conference center from the hotels. I expressed the task force’s wish that the preconference be held at one of the hotels if possible.

Kinney informed Jizba that the committee probably did not have the authority to give a discount to any particular group.

672. Agenda item 13. Report on “Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality”: Jean Hirons, CONSER Coordinator, Library of Congress
[Related document: April 1999 report to the JSC]

Jean Hirons, Library of Congress, began her report with a brief outline of her talk: (1) what the JSC approved and did not approve; (2) how this will affect different kinds of continuing resources, and (3) report of the ISBD(S) meeting that occurred Wednesday and Thursday (Jan. 12 and 13, 2000) and its possible impact on some of these decisions as well.

Hirons reported on what was approved by the JSC:

  • Model of finite and continuing resources for successively-issued serials and integrating resources
  • The use of successive entry cataloging for serials and latest entry cataloging for description and title changes for integrating resources, but calling it “integrating entry” to distinguish it from latest entry cataloging in AACR1
  • The revised definitions of serial and monograph and a new definition for integrating resource
  • The inclusion of electronic serials, loose-leafs and electronic integrating resources in chapter 12
  • The eventual elimination of the chief source concept, perhaps at the time the entire code is revised
  • Many of the smaller recommendations, including correcting inaccuracies in the title, not routinely recording other title information, the elimination of statements such as “welcome to …” from the title; the instruction to add “new series” in the numeric designation for titles for which the numbering starts over again so that a new record isn’t necessary. The last one is an important harmonization with ISBD(S)
  • The concept of major and minor changes for titles and corporate bodies, so that we’re not calling a title change what may actually be a corporate body main entry change
  • The addition/deletion/change of the name of the issuing body anywhere in the title as a minor change in title
  • She was assuming JSC had approved the change to “In case of doubt, consider a change to be minor rather than major.”

She also reported what was NOT approved by the JSC:

  • The description from the latest title with inclusion of the earliest forms of the title in a uniform title (Hirons said we would still need this, although she was not surprised that it was not approved; she expressed hope for an “international benchmark” title); and the inclusion of the earliest and latest publishing statements in the description (but Hirons said that she hoped to achieve this via the MARC record and displays in OPACs)
  • The addition of definitions for loose-leaf, database, web site, electronic journal for the glossary in AACR2
  • Special provisions for determining the source of title for different types of continuing resources
  • Much of the title change proposal, including use of the first 3 words rather than the first 5 words; the addition or deletion of a word representing the type of publication, such as “magazine” at the end of the title (is problematic for French titles and Canadian bilingual publications)
  • The use of angle brackets in records (which have been used in CONSER records for over 20 years)
  • The use of uniform titles for integrating resources (although this might be revisited with the ISBD(S) recommendations)
  • The recommendations that linking entries be acknowledged as performing more than a note function

She reported that chapter 12 was currently under revision to be expanded to include “continuing resources,” i.e., to include the seriality aspects of all tangible and intangible resources that have no predetermined conclusion. This includes print and non-print serials, loose-leafs, updating databases, web sites, etc. Rules that strictly related to the electronic aspects of a resource would be in chapter 9 and rules for dealing with change to the electronic resource would be in chapter 12.

The term “serial” was changed to “continuing resource” in many rules where appropriate, with distinctions for the rules for serials and the integrating resources also being added to the chapter. Rules were also added to accommodate the different ways in which changes to the description would be handled in successive and integrating records.

Hirons reported that electronic journals were to be considered serials, even titles not published in issues. The major problems with the cataloging of e-journals were determining the source of title information and deciding how to handle title changes. One problem is that e-journals vary so much that no one approach can adequately work for all. As a result, the rule was expanded to specify a “complete” source of information for title transcription, rather than specifying one source. Successive entry cataloging would be used for electronic journals. However, an electronic journal would be treated as an integrating resource in cases where the earlier title(s) were not retained. In area 3, in addition to the word “issues,” the word “parts” had been added to the rules for designations to acknowledge the fact that not all electronic serials have issues per se; it may only be the article that has numbering.

Hirons said that a few very specific rules relating to integrating resources were also added to chapter 12. A rule for applicability was added to the designation area (area 3) to make it clear that this area would not be applicable for most integrating resources. The rules would also accommodate description from the latest iteration and the inclusion of earlier information in notes. It was proposed that this be called “integrating entry,” with all title changes retained in one record. With the exception of legal loose-leafs, uniform titles would not be used for integrating resources. Hirons also reported that many of the general rules accommodating change for integrating resources would cover the basic principles of cataloging loose-leafs. Some other specific rules would also be added, but not all of Adele Hallam’s Cataloging rules for the description of looseleaf publications would be included. The most specific rules in Hallam would be retained in a revision of it as a cataloging manual. Also, although not all integrating resources are continuing, cataloging rules for finite integrating resources would be found in chapter 12.

The revised definition of serial and the addition of specific provisions would accommodate unnumbered series as continuing resources.

Hirons also reported on the ISBD(S) Working Group meeting held earlier that week. They agreed to an expanded scope from “serials” to “continuing resources” and a change of name to ISBD(CR). They also agreed to the same basic definition of serial as included in the chapter 12 revisions, but with a few improvements, the inclusion of “usually” before “no predetermined conclusion” and the addition of “newsletters of an event” in the list of examples.

ISBD(S) would be working on an “International Standard Title” (IST), previously called a “benchmark” title. The benchmark proposal had originally been written by Regina Reynolds, Gunter Franzmeier, and Hirons; it had been revisited this year by Hirons and Reinhart Finn (Deutsche Bibliothek). Reynolds was working on a revised proposal to test titles in the US, France and Germany. The IST would be the title against which title changes would be tested in successive entry records and could serve as a stable title for links and citations. It would replace the key title in all cases and the uniform title in most cases. It would be tested in preparation for a decision in late May. Jean recognized that it would not be easy for the AACR community because of author/title main entry, but there had been a lot of enthusiasm expressed for description from the latest issue. The IST would provide the stability for the title entry and the latest title could be used in the title area.

According to Hirons, the ISBD(S) group went well beyond the JSC proposals for title changes. They agreed to keep the first five words as the break off point for determining title changes, but recommended as minor changes: addition or deletion of the issuing body anywhere in the title; the addition or deletion of a word denoting the type of publication anywhere in the title (JSC rejected this proposal for words appearing at the end of the title); addition or deletion of words in a list.

Kristin Lindlan asked whether the problem with different transliterations for key titles and titles proper had been discussed at the ISBD(S) meeting in relation to the IST; Hirons replied that it was necessary to find a way to harmonize a title proper between AACR2, ISBD(S) and ISSN.

Kelley asked how the revisions to chapter 12 and the amendment proposal to the JSC fit into the CC:DA process. Hirons replied that her original thought had been that the JSC would send them out after the March meeting for comment, but she was now wondering if they should be sent out later. Schottlaender had been envisioning sending them out for comment after the March meeting also, but said he wouldn’t know how the information from the meeting of experts would be integrated into that until after the JSC meeting.

673. Agenda item 14. Report of the Task Force on Metadata: Larsgaard
[Related document: Task force charges, roster, interim report, and meeting minutes]

“The final report of the CC:DA Task Force on Metadata is due on June 1 of this year, and our meeting on Sunday morning was pretty much focused on that. The task force had five charges, and the final report will speak specifically to each charge. The charges were as follows:

  1. Analyzing resource-description needs of libraries, seeking input from interested librarians and discussion via the metamarda-l email reflector;
  2. Building a conceptual map (or maps) of the resource-description terrain/landscape and developing models for accessing/using metadata both within and outside the library community;
  3. Devising a definition of “metadata” and investigating the interoperability of newly emerging metadata schemes with the cataloging rules (AACR2R) and the USMARC format;
  4. Recommending ways in which libraries may best incorporate the use of metadata schemes into the current library methods of resource description and resource discovery; and
  5. Recommending, as needed, rule revision to enable interoperability of cataloging (with AACR2R) with metadata schemes.

“Charges 1 through 4 were, in the main, dealt with in a summary report [CC:DA/TF/Metadata/4] that was written by my unofficial co-chair, Rebecca Guenther, and that came out in June 1999, and is on the CC:DA Web site [ tf-meta3.html]. Thank you, John [Attig, for putting the report on the Web site]. The final report is going to plagiarize extremely heavily from what Rebecca put together.

“As I said, we had a working group on each of these first four charges, and they did excellent work. Rebecca summarized the reports that each one of them made, and I’m going to be working from that. At the meeting we had on Sunday morning, we did have a bit more on charge 4, which had to do with prototypes that search across various possible types of electronic indexes and data that are available to our users. I’ll just skip to the ones that I know most about because I am at a University of California institution. One is PHAROS, which is the California State Universities Library’s effort to provide a search engine that searches across a multitude of databases at the same time. The other one, and the one that I know a little bit more about, is the University of California’s California Digital Library’s SEARCHLIGHT, which does the same sort of thing.

“Steve Miller and Mary Woodley gave an excellent presentation comparing different prototypes. There are pluses and minuses. The prototypes range from these two obvious California ones to a social sciences data search engine based in Scandinavia and moved on to one in England. It was a very worthwhile presentation, which is going to be available on the Web. I’ll send out the URL [] to the CC:DA listserv. It’s really worth your time. I found it extremely helpful. The summary that Steve and Mary came up with overall is that the current prototype search systems that search across multiple databases at the same time give very high recall with very low precision. That’s something that needs to be improved. That will certainly appear in my final report.

“On Charge 5, which has to do with changes to AACR, this also includes, rather informally, changes to MARC21. The reason for this is that at the time the Task Force on Metadata was formed by CC:DA, we knew very much that there is this sort of a relationship, as far as all of this is concerned, between AACR and MARC, even though MARC is certainly not devoted to AACR, for practical reasons, but this says “we need to be able to do in MARC.” At the same time, because MARBI is a creature of three different divisions in ALA, the work required to get a joint committee between CC:DA and MARBI was simply too horrifying to contemplate. So instead, the Task Force on Metadata remains a CC:DA task force, but since we can appoint pretty much anyone, or rather [CC:DA Chair] Daniel [Kinney] can, as long as we have at least one CC:DA voting member on the task force, the idea was to have Rebecca Guenther be the representative from MARBI, and having her on the task force as my completely unofficial co-chair has been invaluable.

“For Charge 5, on changes to AACR, we’re really depending very heavily on, paying very close attention to, what Brian has just presented about the JSC changes to ISBD(ER), and I’m going to be reporting back to the Task Force on Metadata the end result of the presentation that Brian gave on the first meeting and on this one. And then if the task force members have any other suggestions as to additions to AACR that are required in order to catalog Web resources adequately, we will bring those forward. Quite obviously, I should mention, the seriality work that Jean Hirons has done, that she just reported on, has a similar considerable impact upon what the task force is going to recommend as to whether other changes are needed to AACR.

“For the changes to MARC21, again, Rebecca is really in charge of this. She is very heavily involved in Dublin Core. There are two of the elements of Dublin Core, “date” and “relation,” where the qualifiers that the working groups on these two elements have come up with – believe it or not-the Dublin Core working groups I should explain, are approximately, give or take, one-third librarians and two-thirds non-librarians, computer technical persons and so forth-and believe it or not, these very inventive persons have come up, for “date” and “relation,” with qualifiers that we don’t deal with in MARC, and may not even deal with in AACR. Anyhow, I’m looking forward to seeing what Rebecca comes up with on this.

“The Dublin Core qualifiers are to be finalized, for the first time, on February 11, so we are going to have some really tight timelines here, but Rebecca and I think we can make it. We want to have a draft of the final report of the Task Force on Metadata out for comment on March 1, and the final report in to Daniel on May 1, so we’ll see how close we can get to that. Are there any questions?”

(There were no questions or comments from committee.)

674. Agenda item 15. Rule change proposals from MAGERT: Mangan
[Related document: Text of rule change proposals presented]

Mangan apologized for the late delivery of some of the documents. She said that she had distributed, at Saturday’s meeting, a set of the changes that were made in the original document that the committee had received via the CC:DA listserv, as well as a summary of the proposal.

“As background, this is a group of proposals that was put together as a result of a meeting that was held in September of 1998 of the Anglo-American Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials. This committee is an international committee, made up of the same five countries that are involved in AACR2. We had a six-day meeting, rather non-stop, trying to accomplish all of this to modify our interpretive manual, which was published in 1982, and obviously needs a lot of revision. One of the things that we have tried to do is to incorporate electronic resources, and the contents matters for digital geospatial metadata. The MARC fields for this information were approved a couple of years ago and have been being tested by a number of libraries. One of the pieces in the document are two very complex and detailed rules dealing with the graphic representation method, and dealing with the geospatial representation method.

“After some review, I think the Anglo-American Cataloging Committee for Cartographic Materials would agree that probably all of the detail does not need to go into the AACR2, but rather a statement that this kind of information should be included, and then have the details of how to include that in the interpretive manual. So that would be one change from the package that was presented. The 3.3F and 3.3G would probably be reduced to a simple rule telling us that the information should be included, but not going into all the detail.

“There are a couple of changes that occurred when the MAGERT Cataloging and Classification Committee met yesterday, which I can go over. I don’t know if you want me to go through the package rule-by-rule, and discuss it that way – is that the best approach?

(The committee indicates that rule-by-rule is the best approach.)


EM: This is a revision to the GMDs. The cartographic community has never been happy with the GMDs in LIST 2, and we are asking that the GMD be changed to “cartographic material,” and deleting “globe” and “map,” which are the two GMDs that are there for us now, from the list.

Schiff indicated that there were typographical errors in this and other sections of the rule revision proposals document.

Beacom suggested that the committee skip discussion of typos at today’s meeting, and convey them to MAGERT later. The committee agreed with the suggestion.

AS: Can you say any more about why this change is necessary?

EM: Well, maps and globes are just two of the types of cartographic materials that we deal with, and the types are becoming more, so they are not really reflective of the material. Had we been able to use “cartographic material” from the beginning, we probably would have used the GMD, but we were not pleased with what we were given to use, so we made the decision not to use the GMD.

AS: When you say “we,” you mean LC?

EM: The community in general does not use the GMDs. They aren’t used in OCLC, either. It started, obviously, with the Library of Congress deciding not to use it.

SH: I notice that it is the term that the British Library uses, too, so that would make it more consistent.

EM: Right. It is the term that’s in LIST 1, and that was the thing. We always wanted to use LIST 1, but we were instructed to use LIST 2, so we decided not to use anything.

AS: “Computer file” should be “electronic resource.”

EM: Yes, I realize that the change from “computer file” to “electronic resource” has already occurred and is in the new package of amendments, but my rule revisions here are based on the current publication. This will have to be changed everywhere where “computer file” occurs.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Kelley seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.

1.1C3 [and 1.1C5; see below]

EM: We realize that at one point 1.1C3 and 1.1C5 were very controversial, and I’m sure a lot of discussion has already occurred, and I also realize that we probably won’t get any kind of definitive decision in the near future, but we also wanted to get this on the table for discussion. Both with dealing with reproductions, and with the content and the carrier of the item, we are suggesting the use of two GMDs.

“In the case of a reproduction under 1.1C3, you would give the GMD for the original format, followed by the GMD for the reproduction format.

“Giving the format using the semicolon was one of the options we came up with. Giving it parenthetically, the way ‘Braille’ is done, would be another option. We aren’t tied to any one way to do this, we just want the ability to do it.

JA: A third way to do it would be to actually repeat the GMD. In other words, each would have a separate set of brackets, and the MARC would have a separate, repeatable subfield.

LJ: Another way to handle it would be, if you’re using Area 3, to repeat that. The problem I have with a double GMD is that we use subtitles, and you don’t, and this makes for a really long break between the title and subtitle…

EM and ML: We use subtitles.

LJ: You all do use subtitles? Well, I hear from discussions with some map people that it seems to be less of an issue … it sets a bad precedent for […] materials.

EM: I think it’s an issue that covers all materials. I mean it’s a broader issue than just our material, but, again, we think it’s something that needs to be done and we want to put it on the table for discussion.

JA: Yes, that’s where I was going, too. And, in fact, the question of whether GMDs should continue to be in the rules needs to be considered. I don’t know that we have to do this to get this on the table, but just to throw out an idea, would it be possible to forward this proposal without endorsing it? In other words, use this as a way of asking JSC to consider this issue.

BECS: In fact, the issue of to what extent GMDs ought to be in the code at all is already on the JSC agenda, so another option would be to table the consideration of this pending the outcome of that JSC discussion.

Kelley moves that CC:DA table the proposed revisions 1.1C3 and 1.1C5, pending the JSC’s discussion. Beacom seconds the motion.

DK: Discussion?

BECS: Yes, one brief point. By “table,” I assume you recognize that that means as far as forwarding the rest of these to the JSC, this will be excised from the package for the time being.

(Voting members indicate that they recognize this fact.)

EM: If the decision of the JSC about the GMD is to keep them, will these two concepts be part of the discussion by default, or do they need to be raised as uses of GMDs? This isn’t just about whether GMDs are there or not, and if the decision is that GMDs are going to continue to be part of the record, will discussions consider multiple GMDs for such things as reproductions or items that the content and the carrier are represented by different GMDs?

BECS: The discussion probably would consider that, but even if it didn’t, as soon as we realized that, we could reintroduce the issue for discussion.

AS: Basically, if we were to, and the JSC were to agree to do this in Chapter 3, it would impact on all the other chapters, as well.

(Several committee members point out that the revision under discussion is for a rule in Chapter 1.)

BECS: Right, which is what’s informing the JSC’s realization that a general discussion of this has been desired for a long while.

CC:DA vote on the motion to table the proposed rule revision 1.1C3 and proposed new rule 1.1C5 is unanimous.


EM: 3.1B3 is a revision to the rule to add an instruction for giving the location of the title chosen as the title proper in some instances. Particularly with maps, but it can also occur with atlases, you can have multiple titles on the same item, and since our chief source of information is the entire item, the rule currently does not tell us to add a note giving the source of the title chosen as the title proper when it does come from the chief source. However, particularly for another cataloger attempting to use this record, knowing which title was chosen as the chief source helps them to identify whether or not they have the same item.

“I’ve brought a couple of examples of maps where this has been the case, where we have picked the panel title instead of the title on the map itself as the title, and added the note of “panel title” in the record, which is one of the examples given in the note area.

“If anyone would like to see those, I would be happy to hold one up to show them.

[Larsgaard holds up a map]

“The first one is a AAA map of Wisconsin and Minnesota, with Minnesota on one side and Wisconsin on the other. This is very prominent. The panel title is “Minnesota ; Wisconsin,” which was chosen because it was a collective title, but we would want to identify that simply by making a note “Panel title” under 3.7B3.

“The second example is a map that’s a little bit more complicated. The title that was chosen is “Street map of Princeton and Bluefield, including Mercer County, West Virginia,” which is the panel title, and you can see that one side is Mercer County, and on the other side, there are actually three titles for two maps, because Bluefield is both in Virginia and West Virginia, and so they are identifying Bluefield, Virginia; Bluefield, West Virginia; and Princeton, and so we selected the collective title again for all of the maps, but we want to identify that as the panel title.

“If anyone would like to see the records, I also have printouts of the records.

“It was also pointed out by Bob Ewald, from CPSO, when he reviewed the document, that this also necessitated a change to 3.7B3, which is the final part of the request, and I can either talk about that change now or later.

(The committee indicates that Mangan should discuss this later.)

BECS: May I ask a question at this point? Did your group consider generalizing the additional instruction that you have recommended? Which is to say, rather than circumscribing the situation to one in which the title has either come from the verso, the container or cover, or the panel title, generalize the symptom to say “give the source of the title proper if you have taken it from someplace other than the chief source of information as expected.”

EM and ML: But it’s all chief source of information.

AS: Could you rephrase it that way?

EM: We started out giving the general instruction “give the source of the title proper in a note,” and that opened up cases when we didn’t want to have to give the source of the title proper because it was the title on the map itself. This is the language that we have used in the Map Cataloging Manual since it was published in the early 80’s and it is general practice, at least in this country and in Canada.

JA: Just a comment to Brian: the question that you ask is referring to the implications of treating the entire item as the chief source, and if we do that throughout the rules, we’re going to have to consider issues like this.

BECS: Of course, an alternative general way to address the situation is to articulate an instruction along the lines of giving the source of the title proper in a note when that’s considered useful information.

AS: Another thing I noticed in this is that this is dealing with printed maps. If you have an electronic map, these instructions don’t apply.

EM: That’s true. Part of it is that we did not – in our manual work, we are picking up a lot of Chapter 9 to deal with electronic resources, and we took the position that we didn’t want to try to touch any rules in Chapter 9 right now, as recommendations are changing, a lot is changing …

AS: This doesn’t work for a globe either …

EM: Well, you normally don’t – the situation doesn’t normally occur with a globe. The common situation for this, at least that we’ve encountered so far, is paper maps. It rarely happens with an atlas, but it can happen with an atlas.

AS: I’m wondering if the rules should say something within that topic, say something like “for printed maps …” or “for printed cartographic materials …”

ML: But that’s not correct, because printed maps are very often scanned into an individual form. Particularly, just talking about considering our previous request that for cartographic materials we are interested in having the option of being able to record two different GMDs. The map chapter is one of the few chapters where the matter of the chapter is the intellectual content – that’s the focus of the entire thing. Whether the map is in paper or scanned – we really don’t care – the intellectual content remains the same. Physical carrier is extremely important to us – it is secondary – but it’s extremely important.

BECS: The physical variations that you described suggest the possibility that one might be taking title proper information from sources other than those described here, depending on the particular physical format. A more general instruction, along the lines of “if you think it’s useful, give the source of the title proper” might actually do you more good.

EM: Yes, I do too.

BECS: And that’s consonant with the JSC’s general thinking, at this stage, which is that we should rely on cataloger’s judgment.

EM: So that would be basically changing following the word “when,” which follows “(see 3.7B3),” to “when it is considered important.”

AS: “If” or “when?”

BECS: I think it says “if.” [he is correct]

BECS: I will just prep you for a possible inevitability: the JSC generally is of a mind that, when it comes to notes, the code pretty much lets you do whatever you want, so don’t be terribly surprised if their response is “yeah, sure, do that, but you don’t need to be explicit about it in the code.”

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision with the alternative wording. Beacom seconds the motion.

DK: Discussion?

EG: With that generalization, has it become a general rule, rather than a rule for Chapter 3? I mean, if you had some reason to make a note about the source of the title for any other type of material, why limit it to cartographic materials?

EM: Only when the whole item is the chief source. That’s our problem in this. For most materials, the whole item and its container are not the chief source of information.

AS: But they’re going to change that.

EM: Well, when they change it …

JA: The JSC has not been shy about identifying rules that they think ought to be generalized. I think if they wish to retain it, it is not unlikely that they might want to move it to Chapter 1, but I don’t think we have to worry about that.

BECS: I agree. I would be inclined to stick to what you are actually doing.

Vote to accept the proposed rule revision with the alternative wording is unanimous.


EM: This is one of the changes from the first package. We originally were modifying the rule when we discovered that, in fact, the rule we were attempting to change it to already existed. After some discussion again with Bob Ewald, we decided that we would request to delete this rule. It is not carried verbatim into any other chapter except Chapter 3, and the community feels that it leads to some confusion because it tends to imply that we are to have a statement of responsibility, that you do not go back to Chapter 1. So we would like to simply refer always back to Chapter 1 for creating our statements of responsibility.

“The other problem is that ‘edited by,’ the example, is not really reflective of the material because ‘edited by’ is not a common relationship.

JA: So the recommendation is to delete the rule?

EM: Yes.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule deletion. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: The change is to, first of all, change the name from “MATHEMATICAL DATA AREA” to “MATHEMATICAL AND OTHER MATERIAL-SPECIFIC DETAILS AREA,” and to add four additional subareas: 3E, 3F, 3G, and 3H. John [Attig] pointed out that I omitted the rules for 3E and 3H in the original package. I handed those out on Saturday. They are simply pointers to Chapter 9 and Chapter 12, to use the instructions in those chapters. And 3F and 3G are the two new areas that have been added, one for digital graphic representation and one for geospatial reference data, which are called for by the contents standards for digital geospatial metadata by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. These are the two that we basically want to reduce to a statement saying to include it, but we’ll discuss that more when we get to the individual proposals.

JA: I’ve already made these comments to Betsy [Mangan], but I’ll say them again. Generally, in AACR2, more and more commonly it is necessary to apply more than one chapter. I do not think it is appropriate, at the individual rule level, to state that. So I would, even if 3E and 3H are only references, I would not do it. First of all, it implies that you are co-opting them into, and that this is becoming a 355 field, and it’s not. What you need to do is to apply the rules for area 3 in the appropriate chapter, and I don’t think that should be said in a specific rule. It is said in a very general rule, 0.25 I believe.

AS: I thought I also heard Jean [Hirons] report that in Chapter 12, they were going to do a similar sort of thing for the computer printout, for area 3, refer back to-

EM: I think one of the reasons that we wanted to put this in here is because we wanted the file characteristics for electronic resources to precede our more specific cartographic electronic information. Now maybe that isn’t necessarily a good idea …

JA: I’m not sure this does that.

AS: There’s an example farther on which …

EM: Right. It’s possible that we could do it by example. So we could simply strike 3E and 3H and move 3F and 3G up to 3E and 3F.

JA: If we do that, is it still appropriate to rename the area? Is the “other” referring to 3E and 3H, or to 3F and 3G?

EM: 3E and 3H.

JA: So we could leave it as “MATHEMATICAL DATA AREA” if we did that?

EM & ML: Yes.

AS: I like seeing it here.

EG: If I recall correctly, with the 0.24 task force, in general the issue of multiple special material statements when a bibliographic item has characteristics of more than one material type, the sequence of these specifications is not provided for in the rules at all, and it’s a general issue that needs clarification.

JA: The only instruction is that the seriality goes last. It’s in 0.25. There’s no specification for other Area 3 data.

EG: So this is not a situation that is unique to cartographic materials.

JA: One of the reasons I would be reluctant to put this is in a specific rule, is that this would be the tip of the iceberg for other types of materials, other chapters, where the same thing could happen.

EG: Well, it’s one of the deficiencies of the rules, that the 0.24 task force was attempting to identify, that when you’ve got materials that have characteristics of more than one material type, that the rules don’t give you guidance as to how to cope.

BT: Well we do, but not in specific order of priority.

EG: Well, that’s one of …

AS: In this particular case, the order in which you input them in MARC works out to the order in which they want them, but I don’t know that that would be the case in other chapters.

DK: Are we accepting the proposal, with John’s suggestion that we strike 3E and 3H?

ML: Obviously I’m a very prejudiced party in this, but it seems to me that it’s more clear to have them here, for exactly the reason that Ed [Glazier] brought up.

JA: Could you explain how the rule governs the order?

EM: Only by the order in which they are stated. A couple rules later on, when we get into the 3F and 3G area, at the beginning of that we say that if there are multiple ones, then we specify the order in which they go in.

Larsgaard moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Kelley seconds the motion. Beacom asks for clarification that it is the rule revision as written that the committee is voting on. Other members confirm that it is. Vote is 6-0 to accept, with Hixson and Jones abstaining.


EM: 3.3A3 is new rule, to indicate that this area should be repeated for two non-related scales. Basically, it’s just saying that the area is repeatable. This is a change from AACR, and will affect other rules in the proposal package. Some time ago, the indicator value in MARC was removed for two unrelated scales being in the same scale statement, but the rules never were changed to reflect the way the information is in fact presented in records, and this is an attempt to simply say that if you have multiple scales, you give them in separate scale statements.

AS: I guess I’m a little confused. We are saying that that the mathematical data area is repeatable, right?

EM: Right.

AS: Out of context, without looking at what else exists above that …

JA: All the proposed rule says is that the area is repeatable, and leaves it to the examples to explain when you would repeat it. I’m not sure that …

EM: Well, there are other rules following that explain when to repeat it.

JA: OK, thank you.

BECS: If there are other rules following that explain when to repeat it, why do we need the examples here, as opposed to in those other rules?

AS: I’m thinking maybe it should be under 3.3B1, somewhere under statement of scale …

EM: We could certainly move the examples to 3.3B1, or an area appropriate for multiple statements.

BECS: I make that observation because the .3A area throughout the code is pretty much example-free.

AS: There are also a few typos in the examples.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision with a revision in wording so that it simply includes the first caption, and eliminates all the examples below it. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous. [Recording secretary’s note: this proposed and approved new rule was subsequently merged with proposed new rule 3.3A4; see below.]


EM: 3.3A4 is the new rule specifying the order when you have multiple mathematical and other material-specific details, the order in which they should be included, which again basically follows the chapter order, and if you don’t want the example here, that’s fine as well, although I don’t where this particular example might be used elsewhere to show the multiple uses of Area 3. We could possibly look for a place.

JA: I would just note that you could easily combine 3.A3 and 3.A4.

BECS: I would note the same thing.

JA: Maybe give them in separate Area 3s, in the following order.

BECS: It might be useful to actually not do that […]

EM: Well, would you even need the statement 3.3A3 if you simply said “if more than one material specific detail area is required …,” I mean that if you have the statement 3.3A4, doesn’t that imply 3.3A3?

BECS, others: Yes, I think it does.

MB: If you feel it’s necessary to make it explicit, you could combine 3.3A3 and 3.3A4.

EM: You mean make 3.3A3 the first sentence, and 3.3A4 the second sentence?

MB, BECS, others: Yes.

EM: And no examples?

MB: Well you moved those other examples …

AS: What you’re showing in the first example is repeating the scale statement, rather than two different kinds of statements.

EM: But this last example we could probably move to the place where we’re talking about scale for electronic resources as an example of multiple Area 3s.

MB: It seems reasonable to me that you could leave this example here, because you are explicitly talking about times when you have more than one material specific detail, not just when you have an electronic resource. But there aren’t often examples in the .3 area. It doesn’t mean you can’t have an example, if it makes sense, so I’d leave the example here in case …

BECS: Actually, this is a case where it would be nice to have AACR2 handy, to see if an instruction that an area is repeatable ever occurs in the rules, and I don’t think it does, so we are basically free to proceed as we wish.

[Attig checks AACR2, and confirms that no such instruction occurs anywhere in the text of Chapters 1-12.]

BECS: If we move the first examples, as you proposed, do we know where we would be moving them to? I think it might be useful to explicitly reformulate the combination […]

AS: Maybe we should skip over 3.3, and deal with that online. Or any other rules that might […] examples, because we won’t be able to vote on the rules until we have the examples.

EM: Well, there are some rules further on, where we specifically state to give the information in separate scale statements, and I think we can look at what the examples are there, and possibly add one or more of these to that area, or we may feel that the examples that are there are already sufficient, and these are examples that we could possibly throw away.

JA: Can I go back to the repeatability issue? 0.25 says repeat the area when necessary … the general case is already stated … the order is the important thing …

EM: Can we just withdraw 3.3A3?

SK: I think we already agreed to keeping it.

EM: The examples don’t add anything that isn’t stated elsewhere. I don’t know that they need to be moved. I’d be happy to just remove the examples.

AS: Are there other examples like this?

EM: Of multiple scale statements, yes.

JA: Multiple Area 3s?

EM: No, this is probably the only example, but I thought that this one was to be retained here, I thought the first three examples would be struck, and this one would be kept.

AS: The idea behind moving them was that there weren’t other examples later on to show their repeatability.

EM & ML: But there are.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed new rule, retain the one example under the proposed rule, and merge the proposed rule with the proposed new rule 3.3A3. Schiff seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is unanimous.


EM: The revisions in this rule are to clarify some misstatements particularly concerning the computation or calculation of scale when, in fact, it is not a computation, but an estimate; and also to add the use of “scale not given,” which is something that has been used in this country and in Canada for as long as these rules have existed.

“We, in general, do not attempt to compare a map that does not have a scale or any indication of scale that does not mean just a statement of scale. We can determine the scale on a map from various methods, including, if latitude and longitude are given, we can determine scale – if it’s a township range area, we can determine scale from the piece itself, and we do do that. However, if there is no indication of scale on the item, we in general, in this country, and I know this is true in Canada as well, do not make attempts to do a comparison with a map of known scale to determine the scale of this map. I do know that in some institutions, particularly academic institutions, they may do this for material that is particularly appropriate for their geographic area.

“We have retained the statement to determine scale by comparison, but we have made this an option. We’re saying that ‘scale not given’ is what is to be used if there is no scale on the item. Canada would prefer that the rule to do a comparison be retained and that using ‘scale not given’ be an option, but the United States felt it should be the first instruction given, since that is primarily what is being done.

BECS: I have a question about the change of the word “indeterminable” to “not given.” That doesn’t seem to me to follow logically. I mean you’ve just been given an instruction that says “if the scale statement isn’t given, try to determine one,” and then you’re given an instruction that says “if you can’t determine one, then put in a statement that says it’s not given.” Well, in fact, you already knew that – that’s why you’re trying to determine it.

AS: So that’s what you’re putting in the bib record.

EM: That you are going beyond the item itself to attempt to determine the scale. In the past, we’ve been using “scale indeterminable” when that, in fact, is a misstatement. The scale on most maps can be determined by comparison, but we don’t have the time or money to do that work, so we have been using “scale not given” because the scale could, in fact, be determined. We just are not making the effort to determine it.

JA: And in the previous rules, it isn’t that the scale is not given, it’s that it’s that it’s not given in the form of a representative fraction …

EM: It is not given in any form on the map from which we can determine the scale. There are no …

JA: In the previous paragraph, I’m saying. It’s not that it’s not given, it’s that you have to use a different form, and determine the scale.

EM: In the new proposed rule, the third paragraph from the end is where the errors were in the wording, that you do not “compute” a scale by using a bar graph, because that’s an estimate, that’s an eyeball value. You always use “ca.” in front of it, and therefore it’s not a computation. So there the language is because we are trying to correct what we’re actually doing. If there is nothing on the map from which you can determine a scale, whether it’s an estimate or a computation, then we’re saying to use the language “scale not given,” rather than “scale indeterminable.”

BECS: So what you’re saying is that you’re going to get away from the practice of simply not trying to determine it.

EM: No. We always determine it if we can do it from a piece in hand. And the instructions up to the last two instructions tell you how to determine it, what you use. If you have a scale statement, and how you record that. If you have a representative fraction, how to record that. If you have a scale statement such as “1 inch = 1 mile,” that’s a mathematical computation that we do. If you have a bar scale or coordinates on the item, then we use what is called a natural scale indicator, which is a tool used in cataloging which allows us to measure the distance on a bar scale, or the distance between one degree of latitude that allows you determine what the scale of that map is. If there is nothing on the map that gives us any assistance in determining the scale, then we stop, but we make every effort from the item itself to determine the scale.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Beacom seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is unanimous.


EM: 3.3B2 is a change only in the examples. I realize that there are typos, that the commas are missing in the scale statements – that’s the difference between our manual, which follows ISO, and AACR2, which does not.

“There is some question, even amongst our community, whether this change is correct or not. According to the appendix on abbreviations, you are not to use abbreviations in quoted notes, and, at least at the Library of Congress, we have taken that literally, that this is not a quoted note because it’s not in the notes area, it’s part of mathematical data, and so we have traditionally abbreviated ‘inch.’

“Others, particularly those who work in other chapters, feel that, because this is quoted, it should be considered a quoted note, and we should not be using abbreviations. I honestly don’t know which is correct.

“So, if we shouldn’t be using abbreviations, then I wish to withdraw this, but we aren’t really sure whether we should be or not in this case.

BECS, others: If it’s a quoted note, then you don’t abbreviate it.

EM: OK, then we withdraw this proposal.

JA: The instruction in the appendix does say “quoted notes.”

MB: The interpretation was that it is not a note.

EM: Before AACR2, this information actually was in a note, and then it was moved up to Area 3, and so we didn’t feel that it was any longer a note.

AS: Do we need to possibly change that instruction so that it’s clearer to everyone?

EM: I don’t want to get into that from us.

JA: That’s not Chapter 3.

BECS: Don’t mess with it.

(The committee agrees.)

Proposed rule revision is withdrawn by MAGERT.


EM: 3.3B4 is the first instance where we have given instruction that, if you have two scales for a multi-part item, you give both, and in a separate scale statement. Now, obviously, since we converted the example that was in the rules to change it to having the items in two scale statements, if a more complex example were requested, we could certainly move the other examples to this location.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Kelley seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: Again this is a change that reflects practice. In AACR2, we have a little bit of confusion in that when the rule tells us if we have three or more scales, we are two use “scales vary.” There is also a rule telling us that if the scale changes on a single item, we use the phrase “scale varies.” We thought this was very confusing both to catalogers and to users because they are so closely the same, that we have been using “scales differ,” rather than “scales vary” and we want to change the rules to reflect that.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Kelley seconds the motion.

BECS: One general observation that Betsy’s explanation about this rule has reminded me of is that, since I am not a map cataloger, it would be useful to have some of this justification-type language from you all when the time comes to forward this the JSC. Including “we’ve been doing this for 19 years now,” etc.

Mangan indicates that MAGERT will provide that. Vote to accept is unanimous.


EM: 3.3B6 is basically the same situation. It’s just for cartographic materials with more than two scales.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Kelley seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: 3.3B7 is to modify the rule for when to use “not drawn to scale.” Just that we have changed “if the item is not drawn to scale” to “if the item is not drawn to a consistent scale.”

JA: Is there a possibility that this could be confused with the “scale varies” case.

EM: No, because this is one scale when you only have one item …

JA: No. “scale varies,” not “scales vary.”

EM: Oh, I’m sorry.

JA: It’s a different kind of variation, and that’s going to be clear to people?

EM: Most of the things for which “not drawn to scale” is appropriate are for views which tend to be perspective and the scale changes, and that’s why we added “not drawn to consistent scale.”

JA: Whereas “scale varies” is for a …

EM: “Scale varies” usually means that the scale varies from foreground to background.

JA: And “not drawn to scale” means something different?

EM: It means something else. It means that there is no consistent scale. It isn’t drawn to scale. Things are way out of proportion, one to another, which most catalogers of this type of material don’t have a problem recognizing. The buildings are bigger than they should be on this map because they’re wider than the streets, or they’re three times bigger than the streets.

MB: You would use something like “not drawn to scale” for the kind of maps that we see showing the locations of hotels in conference cities.

EM: Exactly.

MB: And that’s clear to the catalogers?

EM: Yes. We haven’t had trouble on this, other than we want to make sure that it’s clear that it’s a consistent scale.

SH: I think I would trust that for someone with a map cataloging background, that this would be the language that would resonate with them.

JA: That isn’t the audience for the rules in Chapter 3.

BECS: I’ve got to tell you that the JSC is going to think “this hasn’t been a problem, so what’s the problem?” I mean this is a pretty fine point here.

JA: I was suggesting that maybe it was clearer without the addition.

ML: This was based in some discussions in map cataloging when we first saw the phrase “not drawn to scale.” By definition, every map is drawn to a scale of some kind. The scale may vary from the center to the outside. There was disagreement that every map is drawn to scale, and [… inaudible].

MB: So the addition of the word “consistent” is to clarify for the cataloger when to use this phrase as opposed to some other phrase.

EM: Yes.

BECS: But didn’t I understand you to just say that catalogers recognize when something isn’t drawn to scale?

EM: In general I’d say yes. Map catalogers do.

AS: The map may often tell you, too.

EM: Yes, the map may say “not drawn to scale,” but more often it does not.

ML: I think John’s point is a good one, that AACR2 is intended for general catalogers, not for map cataloging aficionados.

AS: I note that there is an example in the current printed text under the current rule. Are you proposing that that example be deleted? Because the example is not in your revision proposal. Or did you want to change the text of the rule and retain the example as well?

EM: Yes, we want to change the rule and leave the example.

Kelley moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Hayes seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is unanimous.


EM: This is a revision of the rule concerning vertical scale, to allow for the inclusion of that information when one has a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional item, and generally vertical scale is, in fact, given on the piece, but currently the rules do not instruct us to include that.

AS: Again I point out that there are examples in the rule in the text that are not in your proposal.

EM: Yes, I’m sorry.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Hixson seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is unanimous.


EM: 3.3B9 is a new rule, for electronic resources, to give the statement “scale not applicable” in general for electronic resources, particularly for Raster images, when the scale of the item, when you look at it on your monitor, is dependent on the size of your monitor, or if you have the ability to zoom in on an image, the size will vary while you’re zooming, so it’s not really applicable.

“The option was added by the Canadians. They feel that for an electronic resource that is created from a paper cartographic item, the scale of the source item should be included in this field, so we added ‘input scale’ as an option.

AS: I like the first part of the rule, but not necessarily the second part. I find “input scale” very confusing because the person creating the digital map didn’t input anything to make that map, and I think that kind of information is not really a description of the resource you’re describing itself, it’s about the source material, and should probably go into a note – it’s reproduction information.

EM: I completely agree with you, on a personal note, Adam.

[ML indicates that she agrees also.]

JA: Maybe this is something we could leave for the Canadian response.

AS: Maybe we need to have an instruction to give details about the scale of the source material in a note.

ML: I agree with Adam, but the Canadians really want this, and I’m representing them.

Schiff moves that CC:DA strike the optional section of the proposed new rule, and accept the proposed new rule without the option. Beacom seconds the motion.

BECS: Just a minor observation: you’ll want to put a comma after “electronic resources.”

Vote to accept the proposed new rule, with the deletion of the optional provision is 7-1 (Larsgaard opposed).


EM: 3.3C1 is simply a correction to the example to capitalize the first word in the name of the projection [i.e. the word “conic”]. Because it is the name of a projection, it is a proper name, and therefore the first word should be capitalized.

JA: If it’s a proper name, you capitalize every word in the name.

BECS: Isn’t it similar to “vertical exaggeration,” the phrase?

JA: You’re saying because it’s the first word in the name, not because it’s the first word in the area, right?

EM: Right.

JA: Well, the rule for capitalizing a proper name is that you capitalize each word. I question whether this is a proper name.

AS: How can we get a ruling on this?

BECS: By sending forward the rule revision proposal.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision.

AS: Do we want to accept it without knowing whether it is correct?

SK: Can’t we accept the proposal, but with the proviso “with the correct capitalization?”

AS: If it’s not correct, then nothing needs to be changed, and we’re just wasting the time of the committee.

BECS: We’ll look like idiots if we send this one.

EM: Let’s withdraw this one, and the capitalization changes in the next one [3.3C2].

Proposed rule revision is withdrawn by MAGERT.


EM: This is one where the [MAGERT] Cataloging and Classification Committee yesterday wished to modify the last addition to the proposed revision to read “Ellipsoids may be given in a note (see 3.7B8)” rather than “Notes on ellipsoids may be given (see 3.7B8),” which is more consistent with the text used in AACR.

JA: Another thing in this rule is that you’re changing the order of the examples.

EM: No, I’m sorry, that was inadvertent. It’s mainly that ellipsoids don’t directly relate to the projection, whereas as meridians and parallels do, so we want to move it out of this area so that all statements about ellipsoids are moved to the notes area.

JA: I would also suggest the wording “information about ellipsoids …” rather than “notes on ellipsoids …”

ML: So then the last sentence of 3.3C2 is “information about ellipsoids may be given in a note?”

EM: Yes, and “(see 3.7B8).”

[Schottlaender confirms that final wording decided on was “information about ellipsoids may be given in a note (see 3.7B8)”.]

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: 3.3D1 is to change a misstatement in the current rule that says we are recording latitude and longitude, when in fact we are recording longitude and latitude, so that’s simply a reversal of the words. Also, to specify that when recording this information, that the slash is neither preceded nor followed by a space, as is used in the previous statement concerning the diagonal slash, or the basic revision to the existing rule.

“When a bounding box, which is all that we’ve ever given, which is the four extensions of the area in a square or a rectangle, for electronic resources, we quite often need to have a much more precise recording of the geographic area covered by that resource. This is mainly for vector files, not Raster images. In this case, again following the FGDC document, we are in fact asking for the optional addition of what is called a G-polygon ring, which doesn’t mean anything to anybody, but it is basically recording every time a line changes a direction, you have a point, and recording the coordinate of that point for each change in the polygon shape until you get back to the beginning, which you then repeat, so that it is a closed polygon. There are also instances where you may have a portion that would be covered by that polygon, which is excluded from the data set. The best example of this that I know of is, in Virginia, we have a very unusual administrative structure in that we have cities and we have counties, but cities are not part of counties, they are separate entities. We have a situation where we have a Fairfax County, and a Fairfax City, which is geographically contained within Fairfax County. If you had a data set covering Fairfax County, you would want to include a G-polygon ring indicating Fairfax County, but you would want to include an exclusionary ring saying that your data set did not cover Fairfax City. This is so that you would have the exclusionary ring given. This is not a real common situation, but it does in fact occur in geospatial data sets, and it is called for in the metadata standard for geospatial data sets.

“Thirdly, in most cases, the degrees are given in decimal degrees, rather than in sexagesimal format-the degrees, minutes, and seconds. We are indicating how decimal degrees should be recorded, since the normal convention for recording them is using a plus sign for things that are in the Eastern and Northern Hemispheres, and the minus sign for the Western and Southern Hemispheres. Obviously, using a minus sign with our double dashes would be very confusing, and so we have added the letter hemisphere indication following the decimal degrees. This is partly to distinguish it when you first see it, that it’s different because the letter is following the degrees, and second, that while there isn’t a lot of use of the letters indicating hemisphere with decimal degrees, this is the way that I have seen it on the reporting of locations of hurricanes, so it is being used for the general public with decimal degrees with the hemispheres following the decimal degrees.

JA: This is the first of many instances where I ask you how much of this needs to be in the rules? First of all, it seems to me that some of this is allowed, but not specifically provided for. In other words, there’s nothing in the rules that says you can’t do it. Maybe that’s all you need. Perhaps adding an example, for example, for the decimal degrees, maybe the addition of that example following the first paragraph would take care of that. I’m not trying to answer these questions, I’m simply suggesting to you that maybe there are alternatives.

EM: But what is here is contrary to the rules. It tells you in the rules to use the sexagesimal system.

JA: That’s the kind of thing I was asking.

AS: And also it tells you to give the four-square bounding box …

EM: Right, so we did feel that, unfortunately, this amount of detail was necessary. Now, the exclusionary could possibly be omitted, and only carried in the manual, but I’m not sure how much less confusion that would create. Again, all of this not something that the cataloger is going to generally have to construct – it’s going to come with the metadata of the resource that you’re cataloging.

AS: This whole area is optional …

EM, others: Not all of it.

BECS and AS: Yes, all of the current 3.3D is optional in the current code.

(Now the rest of the committee agrees that 3.3D is indeed optional.)

BS: Which means that, you probably do not need to precede a lot of what you added with the word “optionally.”

EM: But you already have “optionally” in the current 3.3D1. I think leaving the options out would be terribly confusing to the community using this rule. Because, first of all, none of us leaves out the coordinates when we have them on the piece. It may be considered optional, but it isn’t to our community. We hope that someday someone will develop the searching mechanism so that we can actually use this information. It is also extremely valuable to geographic information systems, in fact it is basically mandatory to be able to use the information in geographic information systems, and so while this may be an optional addition in the rules, is not considered an optional addition by the cataloging community of cartographic materials.

BECS: I was only suggesting that you would not need to actually introduce the optional addition with the phrase “optional addition.” I wasn’t suggesting that you would want to leave out the information. Although, I do take John [Attig]’s general point that from the perspective, clearly articulated in Toronto, that we are trying to work towards a code that is not so case-law-specific. I mean this is getting pretty esoteric.

AS: But at the same time, I think this is a rule that cartographic materials catalogers need.

BECS: Yes, they do.

EG: But, again, although it may be contradictory to a rule […] if it were retained only in the cartographic manual, it wouldn’t be the first time that one of the specialist manuals had provisions for that specific community that were contradictory to AACR2, and yet we could leave it out of AACR2.

ML: I’m not comfortable with that.

JA: And I think traditionally, the JSC is not terribly comfortable with that either. I think if we can do it, at least to remove the contradictions, if not to get all of the instructions in, at least to make sure that the rules allow what the manual is prescribing.

BECS: Right, that’s what the JSC is uncomfortable with, is the contradictions. If you [the committee] approve this, I think you and I, Betsy, might want to wordsmith it a little bit. I think there are some stylistic things we might want to take a look at.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision, with the proviso that Schottlaender and Mangan will fine-tune the wording of the proposal. Larsgaard seconds the motion. Vote to accept is 7-0 (Jones abstaining).


EM: This is a fairly minor change. The instruction under the GMDs is that we are not to use “charts” for celestial charts. We put forward this proposal to change “celestial charts” to “celestial maps,” and in fact, just through this review process, have discovered other occasions where that needs to be done, so I need to go through and review the rules more carefully to make sure that we have in fact made all of those changes if you all agree with this change.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision, with the proviso that MAGERT will go through the rules to find other instances of “celestial charts” in AACR2 and propose that they be changed, also. Beacom seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is unanimous.


EM: 3.3E basically says give the file characteristics for the item as instructed in 9.3.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed new rule. Kelley seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: 3.3F is one of the two new rules that goes into a great deal of detail on the digital graphic representation – basically whether it’s Raster or Vector – and then recording details relevant to the format. After working on this, I now think that this should be changed to a general rule, saying that this information should be included, but not include any of the details of how that’s done. We’ll rely on a cataloging interpretive manual for that.

AS: You would say explicitly in AACR2 that the cataloger should rely on an interpretive manual?

EM and ML: No, no.

EM: We would make a statement saying something like “when the information is readily available, give information on the digital graphic representation.”

JA: And maybe a couple of examples. The reason I suggest that is because I’m not sure that that many people will know “information on the digital graphic representation” means. And just so you have some clue as to whether or not you care about including that information.

AS: You could say “some of the things that might be included are: …”

EM: I will certainly try to do that and send an e-mail to all of you.

Proposed new rules are withdrawn by MAGERT.


EM: This is on the opposite side of the paper that 3.3E is on. Again, 3.3H is “Numeric and other data related to serials”; 3.3H1 is “Give the numeric and/or alphabetic, chronological, or other designation information for the item as instructed in 12.3.

Larsgaard moves that CC:DA accept the proposed new rule. Kelley seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: This is to make some changes to the SMDs: to change “relief model” to “model” – we have other types of models that we catalog, besides relief models; to change “map section” to “section.” Most cartographic materials catalogers think that “map section” implies a section of a map, which it does not; it implies a cross-section, or geological section, both of which we catalog, so we’d like to drop the word “map.”

“The other is a slight rewording of the next-to-last paragraph of the rule, doing away with the word ‘parts,’ to say ‘sheets or volumes,’ since those are what we deal with generally.

“Oh, I’m sorry, and one more not-minor thing we want is to add one more SMD for our digital stuff. I apologize that it’s not in alphabetical order. ‘Geospatial database’, ‘geospatial data files’, ‘geospatial files’ – something we need. We are submitting ‘geospatial database’ for the occasion when we do in fact have a electronic resource that is a database.

JA: I guess I’m going to take up the last point first. First of all, this is the physical description area. I’m not sure that you go to Chapter 3 to find out what to put in this area for an electronic resource. You made the point that this chapter is really not about a physical type, although it includes information about physical types. Traditionally, area 5, and this will be particularly true once you get to Chapter 9, which I think is where you need to go, we have traditionally been very careful to limit it [area 5] to types that are concretely physical, tangible. It is also true that you would not, whether it is electronic or not, you would only do it for direct-access electronic resources, not for remote-access resources, since those have no Area 5 at all.

“I guess your response to this would be to ask me ‘well, what do you use for these things?’ and I’m not sure I have an answer to that, so I sympathize with the need, but I just don’t think this is the way to do it.

AS: The way we do it now would be to say something like “1 computer optical disk,” and then we’d have a note probably, a 516 or something that says “geospatial data” or something to that effect.

ML: But the problem with that is that it flies in the face of what Chapter 3 does, which is that is deals with cartographic material, and it doesn’t matter what physical form it is in, you still start with Chapter 3.

JA: But when you get to Area 5, you don’t necessarily stay in Chapter 3.

ML: Yes, and that’s another point where map catalogers tend to disagree with what’s going on with ISBD (ER). Obviously, map catalogers are not in the majority here, but to a map cataloger, it seems obvious that a colored map that has been scanned and is available in digital form, is still a colored map, and still deserves a 300 subfield a and subfield b, and still deserves “1 map : col.,” because it still is a colored map even in its digital form, and this whole matter seems to come about because Chapter 3 is, again, one of the few chapters where it is focused on intellectual content, and physical form is a secondary matter. But yes, this is a problem.

EM: In the rules for SMDs – I’m recalling them off the top of my head, so I hope this is correct – the list in Chapter 3 tells us that if the appropriate SMD is not listed, you go to the other chapters, but it also says that if you can’t find an appropriate one in the other chapters, then you create one. So perhaps this is our “out.” We don’t suggest a new one, we simply, within our community, decide what we want to use for our vector data sets, which is what this is talking about, and maybe that’s what it should be, or something along those lines, that that’s the terminology we’re going to use, because it isn’t an SMD anywhere, and there isn’t an appropriate SMD anywhere.

MB: I think that is very appropriate.

ML: And it gets even more complicated. Geospatial data sets can be composed of both Raster and vector data. It can be scanned-in […] so it gets a little complicated.

MB: But it sounds like the technique just mentioned will get at that better than trying to add “geospatial database” here.

AS: Especially if you consider that, like you said, some are not databases, some are just files.

JA: I have one more point about one of the other SMDs. If you delete “relief” from “relief model” here, “model” is also used in Chapter 10. Will that be a problem?

EM: It’s a model.

JA: So it’s the same, and that’s all it is implying here, that it is a model of something. And it is cartographic by context?

EM: By content.

ML: By context and by content.

Kelley moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Hayes seconds the motion.

BECS: One observation, regarding the proposed changed from “an” to “the” at the tail end of the proposal. Throughout the text of the rules, the reference to an item, cartographic or otherwise, is always non-specific. It’s always “a cartographic item,” etc. Why did you suddenly change it to “the” all of a sudden?

EM: I don’t know. That’s the way the change was submitted to me by the committee that worked on this, but I have no problem with going back to “an.”

Vote to accept is unanimous.


EM: This is to correct an example based on the rule that you just approved. It’s to change the wording in the example from “map sections” to “sections.”

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision. Hayes seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: This is a new rule, and it was pointed out that the second example should read – well, it should be deleted at this point because we don’t what we’re going to use.

AS: Actually, there’s precedent for including SMDs that are not listed, so you could leave this in.

EM: I’d feel better taking this out at this point, until we talk to the community about what we want to use.

“This is a new rule. Again for tangible electronic resources, that we want to be able to say both what is contained, and what is the carrier. An optional addition would be to give the size of the files. Because our files are so big, we want to be able to give the size in megabytes or gigabytes, instead of bytes. We do have files that are in the gigabyte range, one file, one map. And then the rest of it reads as the rule in Chapter 9 currently reads.

AS: The question I have is, what if you can’t count, what if you have … [inaudible]

EM: Yes, “1 atlas.” That’s what we do for paper. It’s “1 atlas” and then we give the number of pages. And this would be “1 atlas” and then the total of physical carriers.

AS: It doesn’t say in this rule to give the extent of the cartographic content first, followed by the number of carriers. It just says to give the number of carriers. From this rule, where do you get the ‘3 maps’ part of “3 maps on 1 computer disk?” [the first example listed under the new rule]

BECS: Only by inference from the previous rule.

AS: Is that OK?

BECS: No, it is not OK.

JA: This whole thing, however, is probably not OK. First of all, historically, this was something that we tried for electronic materials. Generally, in ALA’s guidelines for microcomputer software, I believe, we proposed “5 programs on 10 computer disks,” and JSC did not like the idea tremendously, did not accept it.

“The other thing that occurs to me is that most of this information is already provided for in Area 3 of Chapter 9. Both the resource type, and the extent of the resource, all of that information you can get into the record, but not into Area 5, by applying that rule. And I believe that the list of resource types does include cartographic, and if it doesn’t include the right ones, it could.

AS: Can you repeat it? Can you have one that says “3 maps : color …” etc. and another that says … [inaudible].

JA: No. That implies that you have two things… [inaudible].

EM: But it does parallel what we are doing now, where we have “5 maps on 10 sheets.” Where we give the cartographic content and also give the physical carrier, which in this case is a paper sheet.

ML: Yes, this is put forward in the spirit of 3.5B2.

BECS: It’s only spiritually related to it, however, to the extent that it has to do with cartographic things appearing on physical carriers. Whereas 3.5B2 is specific to circumstances involving more than one cartographic thing, you have examples here of only one cartographic item appearing on one or more physical carriers. Is that the object?

MB: But 3.5B1 says in general, give the extent of the cartographic item, and then 3.5B2 says if there are more than one map or etc., then specify the number of maps, etc. In other words, it seems that what you are trying to do is to imply this, and … [inaudible] … direct access … [inaudible].

EM: [inaudible]

MB: You’re doing that by writing a new rule, rather than by changing 3.5B1 or 3.5B2.

AS: I didn’t have a problem with the content of the rule, but I did not think that the language it was written in told you that you could arrive at “3 maps on 1 computer disk.” I only thought that the “1 computer disk” … If you apply the rule as written here, I think you would just end up with “1 computer disk.”

JA: So there are essentially two questions. Is the concept of the rule correct, and then there’s … [inaudible].

MB: I think what we said on the latter question … [inaudible].

BECS: You could try to revise it so that it does more closely emulate 3.5B2. The rule is not articulated well.

EM: Perhaps we should withdraw this rule at this time and rewrite it and bring it back to Annual?

(The committee indicates that it agrees that that is a good idea.)

MWise: If I may make a suggestion, you might want to change the wording of 3.5B2 at the end of the sentence to say “and the number of physical carriers” and then just add an example to that rule.

Proposed new rule is withdrawn by MAGERT.


EM: 3.5C1 is a revision of the rule to specifically include additional information on the other physical details, which are primarily that you don’t just include the number of maps, but also other illustrative matter. The layout of the maps is particularly for the case of both sides, and this is not just a piece of paper that has maps on both sides, but in fact the same map is continued on the back or the verso of the sheet of paper, and has impact on the way the thing is measured. The other additions are “medium” and “reproduction method,” both of which have associated rules.

“The ‘both sides’ is the primary one, because it impacts measurement.

AS: Might this not be better handled by another example that … [inaudible].

EM: I would think so.

JA: This is the one thing you’re adding to this list that doesn’t have a rule that corresponds to it.

EM: Right.

AS: And I wonder is it only maps that have layout? Are there other cartographic materials that would have layout issues?

ML: It could occur with remote-sensing images, and possibly with some of the other types.

AS: Maybe you should change “layout (e.g. both sides) for maps” to just “layout,” or I don’t know what other people think about whether the ‘(e.g. both sides)’ is necessary, or would it be useful to have an example showing that, if that’s the particular one that’s common. Because I think it’s possible that the generalist might not even realize what you mean by “both sides.”

LJ: Something occurred to me about this rule. You know, we don’t get into this kind of detail for art objects, and there’s a separate manual for graphic materials that covers this kind of thing. Because we could write this into the rules, you know “3 whatever it is, art objects on …” and then name the physical medium, we could get into a lot of detail. I’m just worried that this might set a bad precedent.

JA: The reason it’s necessary here is that the rule is written in terms of a closed list in a determined order. If we could get that out of the rule, then we wouldn’t have to add things to the list, but that opens the thing wide open, which we may want to avoid.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the rule revision proposal, but with the change to eliminate the text after the word “layout,” and with either one or several examples showing these additional types of issues. Larsgaard seconds the motion.

MWatson: Just before we move off of this, in the list we have “reproduction method” but then in the upcoming 3.5C5 we have “production method.” So should the list say “production method” instead of “reproduction method”?

EM: It’s actually both. There’s been probably about 20 years’ discussion on the difference between “production” and “reproduction” in the cartographic community, and I’m sure it’s not limited to the cartographic community, because everything is produced from a master and all of that. I can certainly change it to “production method” in the list.

(The committee urges her to do so; EM says she will make the change to the list in 3.5C1.)

BECS: Also, I might suggest, given John’s observation that what’s really at stake in 3.5C1 is the admonition that these things be laid out in the order set out here, that rather than adding the phrase “and other illustrative matter” to that first instruction, you might be better advised to make it a second instruction. As currently articulated, it’s not clear to me at least whether that “other illustrative matter” applies only to atlases or not. I infer it does, but …

EM: Yes, it does.

AS: But would “ill.” come in front of “maps” or after? In other words, if you have illustrations as well as maps, would “ill.” come before “maps”?

EM: It would come after.

AS: So even though the specification in Chapter 2 is that …

EM: If you are giving the number of maps, which is extremely rare, that you would give the number of maps in an atlas.

AS: All three examples here [in 3.5C2 of the current AACR2] show it!

EM: Well, in practice, it’s very rare that someone counts the number of maps in atlas and gives that in a physical description. It’s usually just “1 atlas.” The rare case would be where the whole thing is maps, and they are numbered, but if the maps are not numbered, I don’t know of anyone who sits and counts the maps in an atlas.

BECS: But if you did, in the context of this instruction here-I’m looking at some of these other examples – it would look something like, if you look at the last example in 3.5C2, “1 atlas (207 p.) : ca. 190 maps” …

AS: The atlas rules are also partly based on the printed monographs chapter, and in the order of illustrations in that chapter, “ill.” comes before “maps.”

JA: I think the first part of that sentence is the problem that we need to get on the table. Since cartographic materials fully covers atlases, we probably need to get some things out of Chapter 2, but that’s not on the table at this point.

EM: Can we modify it by simply saying “illustrative matter” “number of maps in an atlas” “layout” “colour” … Drop “and other” and move “illustrative matter”? I think the reason we put this on one line is so that you would follow the appropriate order based on the terms you are using. That the number of maps and other illustrative matter comes first. Now the order that that comes in is not necessarily “maps” and then “ill.” That’s why we did this in one line. It’s one statement that would be in whatever order it’s supposed to be in, based on Chapter 1, but we’ve included both the number of maps and the other illustrative matter in one phrase.

Vote to accept the proposed rule revision, with the three friendly amendments suggested by Schiff, Watson, and Schiff, is unanimous.

3.5C4 and 3.5C5

EM: 3.5C4 and 3.5C5 are removals. We want to move the current 3.5C4 and 3.5C5 down and add these two rules. Under “Medium,” there’s a mistake in the second example. It should be “54 ms. maps : col., pencil and ink on mylar.”

BECS: Is there anywhere else where the term “ms. maps” is used?

EM: Yes. There’s an example in 3.5D1 where it is used.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed new rules. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.


EM: This is to delete the first example in the current rule [“Title from container”], which is in error because the container is part of the chief source of information, and to add the language that allows the cataloger to make a note when the title is taken from the container or the panel.

Committee suggests that the rule revision proposal be revised to read:


3.7B3. Source of title proper. Make notes on the source of the title proper if it is other that the chief source of information, or when it is considered important.

      Title from container

      Title from separate wrapper

      Title from: A list of maps of America / P.L. Phillips. P. 502

      Panel title

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed rule revision as amended. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote is unanimous.

675. Agenda item 16. Report from the floor, Announcement of next meeting, and Adjournment: Chair

Watson asked if he could make a statement about the MAGERT proposals in general, and the Chair said that he could.

Watson said he felt that this set of proposals lacked the kind of justification, rationale, and impact statements that CC:DA has come to expect in rule revision proposals over the years. He said that the committee had received the documents in the middle of December, and that the committee’s deliberations about the rule revision proposals here at this meeting were made unnecessarily complicated and lengthy partly because some of those justification, rationale, and impact statements were not present in this package. These kinds of statements are especially necessary, he said, in a situation like this one, in which committee members are struggling to understand the rules in a chapter that is not very familiar to many of us.

The Chair thanked Watson for his comments.

The Chair announced that the next meetings of the committee would be on Saturday, July 8, and Monday, July 10.

Larsgaard moved that the meeting be adjourned. Hayes seconded the motion. The vote to adjourn was unanimous, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:02.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Chopey, Intern
Kristin Lindlan, Intern