ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services


Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Minutes of the meeting held at the
2001 Midwinter Meeting in Chicago, IL
July 8 and 10, 2000

Members present:
Daniel Kinney, Chair
Matthew Beacom
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
Martha Yee, 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
Gabriele I. Kupitz, ALCTS/CCS/CCM
Sheryl Nichin-Keith, ALCTS/CMDS
Lowell Ashley, ALCTS/MRC
Ann Sandberg-Fox, ALCTS/NRMC
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Carolynne Myall, ALCTS/SS
Robert L. Maxwell, ALA/ACRL
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
Anne Champagne, ARLIS/NA
Laurel Jizba, ARSC
Gertrude Koh, CLA
Robert McDonald, MedLA
Matthew Wise, MusLA
Joan Schuitema, 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:
    AACR = Anglo-American Cataloging Rules
    AACR2 = Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1998 rev.
    ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
    BL = British Library
    CC:DA = Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
    CCC = Canadian Committee of Cataloguing
    CCS = ALCTS/Cataloging and Classification Section
    CDS = LC, Cataloging Distribution Service
    CPSO = LC, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
    CSSC = ALCTS/Serials Section, Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
    FRBR = IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
    IFLA = International Federation of Library Associations
    IRRT = ALA/International Relations Round Table
    ISBD(CM) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Cartographic Materials
    ISBD(ER) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources
    ISBD(M) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications
    ISBD(NBM) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Non-Book Materials
    ISBD(S) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Serials
    ISSN = Internaitonal Standard Serials Number
    JSC = Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
    LC = Library of Congress
    LCSH = Library of Congress Subject Headings
    LITA = Library and Information Technology Association
    MAGERT = ALA/Map and Geography Round Table
    MARBI = ALCTS/LITA/RUSA Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee
    NLC = National Library of Canada
    NRMC = ALCTS/Networked Resources and Metadata Committee
    PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
    RUSA = Reference and User Services Association
    SAC = ALCTS/CCS/Subject Analysis Committee
    VRA = Visual Resources Association


Saturday, 8 July 2000, 2:00 to 5:30 p.m.

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

Committee Chair Daniel Kinney called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Sheraton Ballroom X. He distributed a roster to Committee members for corrections and passed an attendance sheet to the audience.

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

    [Related document: CC:DA/Roster/2000 June]

Committee members introduced themselves.

678. Agenda item 3. Adoption of agenda: Chair

A motion to adopt the agenda was made and seconded. CC:DA adopted the agenda.

679. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2000 Midwinter Meeting, San Antonio, TX, January 15 and 17, 2000: Chair

Kinney reported that corrections had been received from Mary Larsgaard, Adam Schiff, John Attig and Elizabeth Mangan.

A motion to adopt the minutes as corrected was made and seconded. The Committee adopted the minutes as amended.

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

Kinney reported that CC:DA has one active task force, VRA, down from 7 at the last annual conference. He made corrections to the agenda: the Metadata Task Force had finished its work and would not be meeting on Sunday; a meeting room had been scheduled for the Sheraton on Sunday in case a task force was formed at Midwinter but that did not happen.

At Midwinter Philadelphia 1999, James Agenbroad sent forward a rule proposal and CC:DA had asked CCS Asian and African Materials Committee to review it. Kinney routed its report and the Agenbroad alternative proposal, to be discussed on Monday. CC:DA’s choice would be to accept the AAM recommendations, i.e., to table the proposals, or vote to establish a task force.

Kinney said CC:DA needed to make a decision on whether to form a group to test records for expressions, as recommended by the Task Force on Recommendation 2. Its recommendation was to cooperate with LC on this project, with members from OCLC, RLIN and the international community, but added it might be more of a JSC initiative than CC:DA’s. Schottlaender said the JSC had endorsed this idea in March and had charged him to develop the terms of reference for an inter-constituency working group.

Kinney said the last mailing had included Tom Yee’s response on 21.1B1. LC declined make changes to it and gave a detailed explanation. Kinney thanked Yee and LC for taking time to consider CC:DA’s request and respond.

The successful June 26, 1998 CC:DA/CCS preconference “What in the World … Cataloging on an International Scale” had a registration of 72 (projected 85) and a summary program of 150 in attendance, with a net gain of 19% ($1925). The papers had been slated for the ALCTS paper series, but would be published instead in the next issue of LRTS as a special issue. He thanked Karen Muller for her efforts.

Kinney said CC:DA needed to consider two NISO standards and suggested comments be sent to Paul Weiss on the latest version of Z39.56 (serial item contribution identifier). He asked CC:DA members whether they wanted to comment as a group on Z39.85: Dublin Core Metadata set and Kelley suggested CC:DA comment formally. Kinney said the standard would be out for ballot July 1-August 15, 2000.

Larsgaard made a motion for CC:DA to form a new task force to study and comment on NISO draft standard Z39.85 Dublin Core. It was seconded and members voted in favor.

At the Program Committee meeting that morning, a map cataloging pre-conference was proposed by Lucinda Hall for next year, but the Program Committee stated a preference for a program at the next annual meeting and suggested that CC:DA be the sponsor. Kinney asked for a straw poll to determine whether that was a good idea. Larsgaard said the workshop was a good idea, but that there was not enough time to prepare for a pre-conference. She volunteered to chair if a CC:DA member were needed.

Sherry Kelley made a motion that a program planning task force be set up and Matthew Beacom seconded the motion. The Committee voted in favor.

Schottlaender said that if an ALCTS program (CC:DA-sponsored) were being planned, a CC:DA member is not required to chair as long as Hall is an ACLTS member and she is. Kinney said the Program Commiteee was expecting Hall to go ahead on a pre-conference, depending on a full proposal being submitted by Midwinter.

Kelley withdrew her motion for a program planning task force.

Kinney said he would tell the Program Committee that CC:DA is willing to sponsor a program for next year. Schottlaender asked about the wisdom of both a program and a pre-conference. Larsgaard said that she and Mangan were in support of Hall doing a program for ALA San Francisco, but they wanted to talk to her about a pre-conference because they questioned whether Atlanta was the best venue. The new edition of Cartographic materials (with much new material on geo-spatial metadata) would be out in 2001 if everything went perfectly and therefore a pre-conference in 2002 would be preferable. Schiff said the pre-conference was discussed at CCS Executive as a workshop for generalist catalogers who sometimes catalog cartographic materials and Kelley added that CCS executive supports continuing education in the form of a persistent map cataloging tutorial, both a pre-conference and a road show.

Attig suggested that someone should also be thinking about programming for new rule changes. He added it might be too late, since Chapter 9 would be out next year.

681. Agenda item 6. Report on “Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality” : Hirons

Jean Hirons gave an update on the rule revision process and further harmonization. The rule revision proposals were submitted to JSC in February and were made available for constituents in March with an August 12 deadline for comments to the JSC. The JSC would be meeting mid-September in London. The harmonization meeting of experts representing JSC, AACR, ISBD(S) and ISSN has been re-scheduled for November.

According to Hirons, one of the most important aspects being pursued is improvement in the rules for title changes. Additional suggestions for MINOR changes were approved at the ISBD(S) meeting in January and are not in the current package: 1) words added or dropped anywhere in the title that represent the type of resource, e.g., magazine, report, journal; and: 2) words added, dropped or changed from a list. Catalogers at the NASIG meeting had some concerns about the second proposal. Among the goals of the harmonization meeting is agreement on what constitutes a title change among the different standards, so that a new record is made at the same time and record sharing is possible. Regarding title transcription, Hirons said she had sent a further proposal to Ann Huthwaite to remove the exception for acronyms and initialisms in AACR 12.1B2, i.e., when the title consists of full form or acronym, the full form should always be used as the title proper. The basis of the description remains a major issue. JSC rejected the original proposal of description based on the latest issue, preferring to retain the earliest issue. However, ISBD(S) supports description from the latest issue. It was also discussed at MARBI meeting today. This topic would be considered at the harmonization meeting and would have a major impact on the document as now written.

Hirons reported on other major issues, including development of an international standard serials title (ISST) to replace the uniform and key titles and serve as a benchmark for serial titles. The benchmark proposal still has a lot of issues to be resolved and won’t be implemented any time soon. At a small meeting in Ottawa recently, the group working on ISST said that the benefits of latest entry should also be reconsidered. Hirons added that revision would be an ongoing process.

Hirons clarified some issues in the existing proposals. The rules for all integrating resources were put in Chapter 12, even though some are finite and some are continuing, in order to have them in one place. The intent to issue indefinitely or for a finite period of time would not result in any difference in the way they were cataloged. It doesn’t matter if ongoing or not. If we eventually have a code ’i’ for the bibliographic level it would be even clearer, as they could be called integrating without needing to determine whether they were finite or continuing. It would be redundant to repeat these rules in Chapter 2. There is confusion over what an integrating resource is based on the statement of intent. This has been something catalogers have had to do all along in determining what is a monograph or serial. More education on and writing on the concept of integrating resource will be needed. Hirons added that there seemed to be overwhelming approval for the concept in the library community.

The concept of the chief source of information in Chapter 12 was also questioned because Chapter 9 takes a broad approach to selection of the chief source, but Chapter 12 is more specific. Hirons said such specificity is necessary because the selection of the title is critical to harmonization of records, title change determination, and identification of the resource. Preferred sources were still included:

  • For printed serials, prefer the title page or title page substitutes (as is currently done)
  • For loose-leafs, prefer the latest title page
  • For remote serials, prefer a source associated with issues or articles because that is the title that the articles will probably be indexed under, while the home page may be changed
  • For direct access serials, prefer the label rather than an internal source because that is the source check-in staff see.

Attig said the title change area represents a major philosophical difference between chapters 9 and 12 and is something that needs to be dealt with. He also wanted to play devil’s advocate because the charge to the group had been to add rules for integrating resources to Chapter 12 and Hirons had taken the opportunity to introduce many other rule changes for serials. Attig questioned whether it had resulted in reading US practice into the rules. Hirons replied that this had been the first major revision of Chapter 12 and that the chapter had not dealt with change originally, with the assumption being made that a cataloger wouldn’t look at the serial again after it was originally cataloged. Also, the original cataloger might not have had the first issue in hand. Accommodating electronic resources had been one goal, but there were two others: (1) including seriality aspects throughout the code, and (2) harmonization with other codes. The revised Chapter 12 incorporated a lot of what CONSER is doing and text from the LCRIs, but Hirons thought it was important for international harmonization and use of the rules and to facilitate record exchange.

Schottlaender said the CONSER AACR Task Force had responded to the spirit and letter of the JSC charge and a broader approach to Chapter 12 was preferable to other approaches that have been used for other chapters. It makes the JSC’s work easier, even though it doesn’t guarantee wholesale endorsement. He added that the rule revisions had been in JSC hands more than 3 months. Internal procedures of the JSC state that any documents not received at least 30 days before a meeting do not need to be considered at that meeting. Schottlaender expressed the need for a fast turn around from CC:DA in order to get comments to him by August 7 so he can get them to the JSC by August 12. He said this was a good time for clarification from Hirons and/or Judy Kuhagen. Hirons said that Judy Kuhagen had written the part on multiparts and she was not prepared to discuss them since Kuhagen was not present.

Larsgaard said CC:DA’s response could be e-mails to Schottlaender or formation of a task force. She preferred the latter, with comments to Schottlaender by August 7. Kinney suggested that CC:DA vote to form a task force, which could be reconstituted as much as possible from the earlier one.

In answer to a question from Hirons, Joan Schuitema said she had not received comments from CONSER or BIBCO on the rule revision proposals. Hirons said she had received generally positive comments after presenting the proposals to CONSER and BIBCO in May and after speaking to 100+ serials catalogers at NASIG, although there were concerns about some of the smaller points. CCC had primarily commented on terminology. Schottlaender added that there had been a lot of input from many sources during three or more years of work. Schiff asked whether CC:DA would have another opportunity to review any JSC decisions and comment and Schottlaender replied there was a strong likelihood of that.

Laurel Jizba commented that there had been a long history of discussions with catalogers on chief source for Chapter 9, in ISBD(ER) discussions and during workshops focused on electronic resources. There was a strong consensus that the rationales in the current proposals for Chapter 9 have validity amongst generalist and monographically-oriented catalogers. She added that she understood the need to emphasize seriality on a broad level, but there are other views. However, there is no official group like CONSER to represent the monographic cataloging community and she was concerned that comments gathered now would be from the serials community. She wanted other input for resolution on harmonization between chapters 9 and 12.

Hirons said she wasn’t sure that they had to be the same. Monographs and serials have never been treated the same. A cataloger goes to Chapter 9 for electronic resources, but then goes to Chapter 12 if a title is a serial or continuing resource. There, the cataloger may use a different chief source. She added that comments have been received from many catalogers in many countries, including from non-serial catalogers.

Schottlaender added that “harmonize” may be the most overused and misunderstood word in the American language. He added that the [CC:DA/Attig 2000/2] document was useful in looking at areas of overlap between Chapters 9 and 12 and hoped the task force would consider these documents in tandem.

Schiff made a motion to form a task force to review [4JSC/Chair 68/Chair follow- up/2] to examine the proposed changes for inconsistencies between Chapters 9 and 12 and the rules in general and to provide a report to CC:DA the first week in August, with the task force being reconstituted from the previous seriality one as much as possible. Larsgaard seconded. CC:DA voted 7-0 in favor.

Attig asked Schottlaender whether he had received the additional proposals Hirons had sent to Huthwaite and he replied in the negative. Hirons said she had sent them in an unnumbered document and that they had also been sent to Marg Stewart.

Hirons added that some topics needed further discussion (e.g., basis of the description, multiple 260 fields, a stable title for links). Differences between serials and integrating resources are problematic. She wanted to know how to discuss in November with enough understanding of CC:DA views and those of the North American community. Schottlaender questioned what she would do if didn’t have adequate input before November. Hirons replied that she had discussed these ideas informally with CONSER, BIBCO, NASIG, and the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging. Schottlaender replied that there needed to be a formal document to represent U.S. viewpoint.

Hirons said that the JSC had suggested moving the harmonization meeting to a time after the JSC meeting was held and that’s why it was to be held in November. The original idea had been for the harmonization meeting to be held in May and results sent to JSC. At this point, she wasn’t sure how it would work, but even without the harmonization issues she thought Chapter 12 should go forward. Schottlaender replied that the Chapter 12 revision was a fundamental revision to the code, which is a moving target, and that that was part of the problem. Schuitema said that every cataloging constituency is a part of CC:DA and these seriality changes aren’t the only ones that may need to be done quickly. We need to find a faster way than each person going back to annual meetings of constituencies and we can’t wait for consensus for this issue or other issues of this magnitude.

Beacom said he understood that Hirons had been talking about issues that CC:DA would need to address afterwards, after the existing package of rule revisions had been decided upon. Hirons replied that the JSC would look at the package and make decisions, and the ISSN directors would have met and discussed harmonization issues, including preliminary decisions on description from latest or earliest issue. She questioned how harmonization fit into getting Chapter 12 published. Some issues may need more thought and discussion, but a sense of how the community thought now would be helpful and she would appreciate it if the task force would give these ideas some thought now and provide input to her.

As a result of her work on the 0.24 Task Force, Jizba said the focus on transcription in Chapter 12 needed more discussion. Hirons replied that one of goals of the CONSER Task Force on AACR Review had been to move away from transcription to identification for serials.

Kinney thanked Hirons for talking to CC:DA about Chapter 12 rule revisions.

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

Schottlaender said that in late March or early April he had sent [CC:DA/JSC Rep./BECS/2000/3] to CC:DA and said he would not go over everything that transpired at the San Diego meeting.

Status of rule revision proposals:

  • “Work” in music uniform titles (25.35, etc.) [3JSC/ALA/11, etc.]
    --> Approved as amended.
  • Works that report the collective activity of a conference, etc. 21.1B2(d)) [4JSC/ALA/28]
    --> Approved as amended.
  • Entry under corporate body (21.1B1) [4JSC/ALA/29]
    --> Withdrawn.
  • Rule 0.24 [4JSC/ALA/30]
    --> Recommendation 1. Approved as amended and a first iteration of textual revision to 0.24 was approved.
    --> Recommendation 2. Specific recommendation was rejected. The general one was endorsed and resulted in JSC decision to constitute Inter-constituency Working Group on Format Variations.
    --> Recommendation 3. Concept of new introductory chapter was approved and LA/BL charged with drafting it.
  • Cartographic materials (Chapter 3, etc.) [4JSC/ALA/31]
    --> Pending.
  • Members of royal houses entered under surname, etc. (22.5F1) [4JSC/BL/2/BL follow-up]
    --> Withdrawn.
  • Revision of 1.4C3 (Place of publications, distribution, etc.) [4JSC/CCC/2]
    --> Withdrawn.
  • Definition of “Main entry” in AACR glossary [4JSC/CCC/3]
    --> Withdrawn.
  • Subordinate conference headings (24.7, etc.) [4JSC/CCC/4]
    --> Approved.
  • Definition of “monographic series” (Appendix D) [4JSC/LC/46, etc.]
    --> Withdrawn.

Schottlaender suggested, that unless there were questions from his report, that CC:DA spend its time discussing active and new documents, and said that he was glad that [4JSC/Chair/68] would have a task force to deal with it. Kelley asked Schottlaender to report on the status of the 1999 rule revision packet and the code prototype rearranged by ISBD area. He said the rule revisions had been submitted to ALA in May, but he knew nothing more. Tillett added that at the JSC meeting in March Mary Ghikas had said they would be out at any moment. Kelley reminded CC:DA that the ALA representative had said there would be a 30 day turn-around time and said that CCS Executive had asked for an explanation.

Schottlaender said that the JSC realized that the code prototype was an alpha prototype, i.e., a “more or less clerical reorganization” with little intellectual editing, and that was what had been done. They wanted to see if a reorganization of the code could be a simple cut-and paste task and it proved to be even more complicated than expected. He said that Cataloger’s Desktop can be used to reorganize AACR2 virtually and could be used to move more general rules into Chapter 1 via the Folio Views platform. The JSC discussed whether it would be worth going to beta prototype. The alpha prototype should be on the new JSC website, but it was not there yet. Attig added that he had not included it on the website because it did not have approval yet, according to Huthwaite.

Topics with active JSC documents:

ER harmonization

    [4JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4]
    [4JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4/ALA response]
    [4JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4/LC response]

Schottlaender said that he thought there were five issues needing discussion from the ER harmonization documents.

  • 4.1 in the LC response:
    Schottlaender said that in 4.1 LC described its reasons for eliminating Area 3 from Chapter 9 and revising rule 0.25; or, making Area 3 optional.

    Attig said that the group that had put together [4JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4] had discussed this. They thought they had reached agreement to support the LC recommendation, with some additional suggestions for wording for the actual rule changes, but other alternatives emerged later in the discussion. As a result, they agreed that there were a lot of alternatives to be discussed and would propose spending more time than a couple weeks in order to provide a narrower choice of short-term solutions.

    Schottlaender said there were three options for an interim solution (i.e., retain 9.3 as revised by the JSC; retain 9.3, but make it optional; eliminate 9.3, but add language to other related rules) in the document, but that the group hadn’t given an opinion on which of these interim solutions was preferable. Larsgaard said there had been a great deal of discussion and that the fallback position was to retain area 3, but make it optional. Attig agreed but was not sure there was a clear consensus even though they had been close to agreeing with the LC position to eliminate area 3 with some revisions at one point. He also said that some of them had a hard time separating the decision on area 3 from the idea of opening area 5 to remote resources. Some of the solutions for area 3 involved area 5.

    Schiff said that the original point of this exercise was to harmonize ISBD and AACR as much as possible. That would mean keeping area 3 and the least change would be to make it optional, though he had no idea where the ISBD community was going on this. Schottlaender responded that harmonization was not a “clerical operation” and that, while it is desirable for AACR2 to be harmonized with other international standards, those exercises should be carried out knowing that the environment changes and what was correct three years ago may no longer be so and that harmonization is a two-way street. He thought that so far the AACR2 community had been acting as if it bears the burden for harmonization and that is true only to some extent. He thought they should ask the other communities whether they’ve considered certain issues and not much of that has been done so far. Kelley expressed agreement with Schottlaender’s analysis of harmonization. She said she was in favor of [4JSC/ALA/27/follow-up/4/LC response]. Catalogers have difficulties figuring out what is meant and the redundancies that occur and therefore she supported the LC response and could consider the compromise position of making it optional.

    Beacom agreed that the harmonization issue was a point well taken. The harmonization task force had never thought of it as a mechanical process, but it was difficult to remove themselves from the idea that the different standards needed to be in sync, i.e., they had been “hugging the shore,” and perhaps not moving out as far as they might have. He also expressed support for the LC proposal to eliminate 9.3 and add language to other related rules. In his experience with cataloging electronic resources, including using cataloging copy, the statement about computer program and data does not make sense for what he’s cataloging. Catalogers are not adding the 256 field because “it’s not data, it’s a serial or monograph that just has some computer file characteristics,” and so one doesn’t have to apply that rule. Catalogers are also making intelligible 516 notes. That is more or less the third option in [CC:DA/Attig/2000/1] and what the community is already doing.

    Jizba added that what Attig had summarized should be understood as the results of a month-long discussion that had not been finished. She reiterated they had arrived at five options:

    1. Eliminate Area 3 from Chapter 9 and add provisions to other rules to show how information regarding the type and extent of the resources should be included in the description.
    2. Redefine Area 3 in Chapter 9 to identify whether the resource is made available by direct access or by remote access.
    3. Eliminate Area 3 from Chapter 9 and use the terms designating type of resources as SMDs in Area 5.
    4. Eliminate Area 3 from Chapter 9 and use summary notes to identify the type and extent of the resource.
    5. Retain Area 3 in Chapter 9 but with the designation as an optional area.

    She reiterated that they had come up with ideas not considered by LC or the ISBD group. She therefore suggested an interim solution until a long-term solution could be determined and suggested having a CC:DA taskforce to further discuss the possibilities.

    Schottlaender said that two voting members had agreed with the LC position and asked what the rest of the members of the group thought. Jizba replied that Lynne Howarth had been part of the discussions and had sent an e-mail pointing out that once catalogers move away from closely following the ISBD(ER) stipulation, one can use other parts of the record and that’s what the group would like to consider further. She said that at least four members of the group want to continue the discussion. Larsgaard said she supported the LC position as a fallback, retain but keep optional. Wayne Jones said he thought it needed a task force, but would support the position to retain Area 3, but make it optional. Schiff said that he was leaning towards eliminating Area 3, but an interim solution was preferable at this time. A discussion paper on the broader issues from a task force would be helpful. He and Larsgaard agreed with the approach to retain Area 3, but make optional.

    Beacom made a motion to retain rule 9.3, but add as optional area, and Larsgaard seconded the motion. Vote: 7-0 in favor.

    Schiff made a motion that CC:DA appoint a task force to write a discussion paper on Areas 3 and 5 with potential solutions for describing the type of electronic resource and where it should go in the description.

    Jizba added that the discussion should not be limited to areas 3 and 5, since other areas of the description were also appropriate, but Beacom said he thought it should be limited to something. Schottlaender suggested that the same group that worked on the Attig paper could draft a charge for the task force. Jizba volunteered to have a “specific and broad” charge by Monday’s meeting.

    Schiff withdrew his motion.

    [Note: See Agenda item 7b for completion of this discussion.]

  • 5.1 in the LC response:
    Schottlaender said that this proposal for a new rule 9.4B2 suggests that all remote electronic resources be considered published. The original task force had recommended it, the JSC had declined it, but LC had put it back on the table.

    Schiff said that when CC:DA had considered the entire package before it was sent to JSC they had supported it and he thought they should continue to do so, unless people have now changed their minds. Kelley noted that they say it be added as an option to existing rule 9.4B1. No, Schottlaender replied, that was only if the JSC didn’t approve it. He added that this was a revision to the text in [4JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/3], but he didn’t know how substantive it was. Beacom said it was better expressed.

    Schiff made a motion to support LC’s proposal for 9.4B2 and Kelley seconded.

    Ed Glazier asked if this were the only category of electronic resources that was considered unpublished previously. The result would be that all electronic resources would be considered published. What was not considered? Schiff replied manuscripts and direct access computer files.

    Attig asked whether the motion were sufficient or whether Schottlaender wanted additional reasons backing it up, or was just a vote necessary. Schottlaender said CC:DA was supportive of it to begin with and this is just a reiteration of ALA’s position.

    Schiff thought people recognized that private documents on the web were not necessarily “published” but when everyone can get at a specific resource, he questioned making this distinction. Glazier wondered whether the designation of published or unpublished belonged in general rules for published and unpublished materials and not in this specific rule. Schottlaender said that was one of the points in the Delsey analysis, but in the absence of such a major revision he assumed LC wanted it in the rules now. Beacom agreed that so did CC:DA.

  • 6.1 in the LC response:
    Schottlaender said that 6.1 was the proposed revision to rule 9.5B1. Attig said that it seemed to him this was part of discussion of Area 3 and, given the position taken on Area 3, CC:DA would have to oppose this addition. Schottlaender agreed.

    Schiff said that he had brought up at the last meeting that CC:DA had accidently omitted the SMD for “computer tape cartridge” from 9.5B1 and it did not seem to have been put back in yet.

    Schottlaender asked whether CC:DA agreed with Attig’s assessment or was the Area 3 discussion necessary. Larsgaard said that as long as it’s optional at this point then CC:DA could discuss further later. Schottlaender said that in the LC response it says that the addition of the second optional statement is predicated on Area 3 being deleted. Attig clarified that he was talking about item 2 in the LC response. Item 1 deals with some other issues that have to be considered separately.

    Schiff made a motion to not support adding this optional addition to 9.5B1 until the JSC takes the position that Area 3 is eliminated completely.

    Schottlaender said that, apropos of Attig’s earlier point, CC:DA thought that item 1 on page 13 was endorsed by the JSC and that only item 2 was taken back for constituency report.

    The motion was seconded by Jones.

    Schiff reminded CC:DA that it had been agreed at the last meeting that “DVD” be changed to “DVD-ROM” in the first optional statement and that this was not reflected in the document. Jizba said that DVD-ROM could actually be used in Chapter 7, which is why they had agreed on DVD. Mangan said she thought it was LC’s intention to drop “-ROM,” because LC didn’t think it was the common usage. Schottlaender said the JSC had had the same discussion. Schiff said that it had come back from JSC as “DVD” and CC:DA had reiterated support for “-ROM.”

    Larsgaard said that she supported the LC position that DVD is the common term.

    Schottlaender said that there were two possibilities, i.e., to re-discuss or to send to the JSC again and have it come back again. Kinney clarified that the motion was to NOT support LC position in 6.1 in the second option.

    CC:DA voted to NOT support the LC response: 4 in favor, 3 opposed.

  • 6.4 in the LC response:
    Schottlaender said this is the proposal that Area 5 be extended to remote access resources. He assumed that, in light of the decision on 4.1 above, the committee would want to set aside and look at them together. CC:DA agreed.

  • 7.7 in the LC response:
    Schottlaender said this was LC’s proposal to revise rule 9.7B8, which was predicated on the elimination of Area 3. He assumed CC:DA would want it set aside pending discussion of Area 3.

    Attig said that, so that it wouldn’t be lost, in the deleted paragraph a change from “file” to “resource” should be made with the rule retained. Schottlaender replied that LA/BL was undertaking a complete review of the use of “file” to make sure they were changed to “resource.”

  • “Disk”/“Optical disc” issue:
    Schottlaender reminded CC:DA that they had initiated this. He added that the JSC was now considering definitions proposed in [4JSC/ALA/27/ALA follow-up/4/ALA response]. CC:DA needed to discuss whether footnote 4 in rule 9.5B1 needed to remain if CC:DA’s definitions were accepted. Kelley and Schiff supported retention of footnote 4.

    Schiff added there were places where JSC had changed wording to “computerized device” where CC:DA had used the word “computer.” He asked if that were LC or the JSC that had done this. Schottlaender asked him to send these to him and Schiff agreed to do so.

British Library proposals

  • Titles of nobility or terms of honour (22.1C)

      [4JSC/BL/1/Rev/LA response]
      [4JSC/BL/1/Rev/LC response]

    Schottlaender reported that there was a CCC response that he hadn’t received on [4JSC/Bl/1/Rev.] and he would ask Stewart for copies of documents in the packet he had not received. [4JSC/BL/1/Rev.] is a refinement of [4JSC/BL/1], which is supported by LA. The revised LC response is more substantive in that LC believes that 22.1C should be further revised to cover names covered by 22.12A as well and not just names covered by 22.6. He added that all of the BL proposals needed to be considered in tandem. In this revision, the BL had been responsive to comments it had received. They had added a reference from the revised 22.1C to 22.6. BL had also proposed a further addition to 22.1C to provide for retention of essential elements of titles and included an additional example. Schottlaender said that he didn’t understand why Otto “Furst” von Bismarck was a title that couldn’t be separated from the name to which it is attached. He asked whether CC:DA agreed that [4JSC/BL/1/Rev.] had gone far enough or agreed with LC that it hadn’t done so, because it didn’t cover all possible types of names.

    Schottlaender said that [4JSC/BL/3] was related to [4JSC/BL/1] and is the proposal in which BL agreed with ALA that 22.12B should be removed and but went further by removing 22.12A and revising 22.16. [4JSC/BL/3/Rev.] supported removal only of 22.12B and partial revision of 22.19B1 and 1.1.F7.d), the distinction being made between terms of honour and titles. LC’s position was “yes” to terms of honour, but “no” to titles. He added that in [4JSC/BL/1/Rev.] the addition of “if an apparent addition to a name including a surname is an intrinsic part of the name” bothered him because he has problems with terms such as “apparent” and “intrinsic” in the code and he said he didn’t think there was a lot of precedent for it.

    Schiff said that “as determined from reference sources” means that it’s not apparent at all. Attig agreed that he had a hard time getting around this also and said that it would be nice to have the whole thing laid out to see how they interrelate. Kelley added she was trying to understand what the proposed text would look like with LC’s response and asked if it were available, because she couldn’t be sure what she was evaluating.

    Tillett said [4JSC/BL/3/Rev/LC response] described the whole picture and context and added she was sorry CC:DA didn’t have CCC response, since the CCC response agreed with LC and added another example. Schottlaender asked if the Canadians further revised 22.1C, as Tillett had suggested. The LC response itself doesn’t say how it should be further revised.

    Schiff said that it sounded as if LC were saying that all terms of rank for nobles should be included. Tillett replied that the British are only dealing with UK, but the non-UK should also be considered according to LC. Schiff asked why it was okay to eliminate terms of honour, but not terms of nobility. Tillett replied that an honorary title is temporary and the other is hereditary, i.e., one’s rank and status in the country in which one lives. It’s a fine distinction, but one ingrained in the British way of life. That’s why these rules were in here to begin with. The American edition of the rules has been trying to discard them, but the broader perspective relates to catalogers looking at a piece and not knowing what’s what because they don’t know hierarchy in various countries. LC response said that the British were going too far and wanted to put some of it back in. Catalogers won’t know to go to the reference tools to look them all up to verify what’s going on, so let’s leave as is. Kelley said she supported that.

    Schottlaender said that was one possibility and thought that politically LC had done the right thing. It was now up to BL, if there was sufficient support for the LC position. He added he could conceive of further revision, i.e., “for persons commonly know by a title of nobility, see 22.6 and 22.12A,” but he preferred to wait for the BL response, since they’re the experts on the British titles of nobility.

    Kelley made a motion that CC:DA support [4JSC/BL/1/Rev/LC response] and it was seconded.

    Glazier asked whether “Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady” were the only British terms of honour. Do non-British catalogers know the difference between British terms of honour and titles of nobility when they see them? It bothered him that without a finite list catalogers were going to have to make a distinction that they can’t make. Schiff said that terms of honour are listed in 22.12B1, but we’re taking that out so the rule will only be about nobility. Tillett said that would be discussed in [4JSC/BL/3].

  • Titles of nobility and terms of honour (22.12)

      [4JSC/BL/3/Rev/LA response]
      [4JSC/BL/3/Rev/LC response]

    Schottlaender said that in [4JSC/BL/3/Rev.] BL revised 22.12 in response to comments received in first instance. ALA suggested removing 22.12 and associated footnotes instead. BL did that and also agreed with the LC recommendation to revise 22.19B1 and to add explicitly in 22.19B1 that the addition of the title comes after the name heading. In 1.1F7.d), BL proposed deleting the sub-rule and examples. They’re proposing the first example be moved to the fourth example in 1.1F7.b). LC response was to agree with deletion of 22.12B only, to disagree with deletion of 22.12A and its replacement of 22.16.B, which is in [4JSC/BL/4]. LC noted that while 22.6 covers nobles who should retain their terms of rank, 22.12 covers additional nobles who should also retain their terms of rank. LC therefore prefers to retain existing 22.6 and 22.12A and permit all nobles to retain their terms of rank in their headings when appropriate. LC agrees with the proposal to add “term of honour” to the e.g. statement in 22.19B1 and the new final sentence and additional example. In 1.1F7d), LC agrees with the proposal to remove British terms of honour (Sir, Dame, Lord or Lady), but not to remove titles of nobility. LC doesn’t want catalogers to spend time determining whether to omit or include title, but let them include if appears in chief source. CCC response goes further and says it would be preferable to retain current text of AACR for 1.1F7. Cataloger then doesn’t have to decide if it is a title of nobility.

    Beacom asked if CCC made any other distinction in relation to LC proposal? Schottlaender replied in the negative and read the CCC response.

    Schottlaender outlined three or four choices: accept [4JSC/BL/3/Rev.] as issued; accept LC response; accept CCC response; or come up with own response. Schiff said that he didn’t agree with CCC response because it doesn’t make sense to transcribe the term of honour if it’s not considered important. We dropped “Doctor,” why not “Sir”? An alternative would be to revise 1.1F7, take out terms of honour and add an example showing that you don’t transcribe “Sir.”

    Schottlaender replied that was in agreement with LC, except that LC not only recommends deleting word “honour” from first sentence in 1.1F7, but also deleting the phrase “British term of honour (Sir, Dame, Lord or Lady)” from 1.1F7.d). CC:DA agreed to omission of this data and the relevant examples.

    Schiff asked whether there was confusion about what the term “honour” meant. Could it be added to the glossary with the four examples of British terms of honour or perhaps added in a footnote? Schottlaender replied that a footnote was preferable to a glossary term, since it’s presumably an understood phrase.

    Schottlaender said he would need input for example that would be added. Schiff replied that we could take the example out of 1.1F7.d) and move it below the “Otherwise” phrase:

      … / by Richard Acland
        (Source of information reads: Sir Richard Acland)

    Glazier asked whether there were terms of honour in other countries that would be relevant here. Schottlaender replied in the affirmative. Glazier asked what good was a list that says only “Sir, Lord, Dame and Lady”? Schiff said rule 22 refers specifically to British terms of honour, but other countries do have terms of honour. Someone questioned removal of the word “honour” from the beginning of the rule since we would include a term of honour if it occurred under b) or c). Schiff thought b) would be applicable. He suggested adding an example in b) where there was a Lady with no first name and a gentleman below with a first name, showing that in the one case it was added.

    Larsgaard agreed with the suggestion to put the terms of honour in a footnote so that U.S. catalogers would know what they are. She also supported the British view, even though it is inconsistent with only British terms of honour being removed here. She added that when someone is cataloging anything from another country terms of honor would be included.

    Attig asked what was the suggestion on the table, that we accept the LC response? Schiff said he thought CC:DA disagreed with LC, but added that he had a third idea. In the first sentence in 1.1F7, he wouldn’t make a change, but would leave the word “honour” in. He didn’t know if committee agreed but CC:DA could add an example in b) to show how to include term if necessary for identification. Under d), he would take out the second clause about British term of honour and take out second example and move it down to “Otherwise” clause. He added that perhaps somewhere we could add a footnote saying that these are British terms of honour and have the four listed, but he wasn’t sure of the best place.

    Kelley asked Schiff whether he was taking as the base text p. 26, AACR2, and that 1.1F7 remains as is. Schiff replied in the affirmative. He agreed that it authorized one to include other terms of honour for other people than the British because it says to include them. It’s a little unclear, because the exception says to include if they’re British.

    Larsgaard said she had a question for the JSC: “Are the British concerned that only the British terms of honour are inconsistent?” Schottlaender said the British were not concerned. Schiff said that it could say “non-British,” but it might be easier to have examples that only have British terms of honour. Schottlaender said that CC:DA agreed with CCC proposal, but disagreed with it to the extent that in d) should delete British term of honour, etc., and add a few examples. Attig said that, for the sake of completeness, we’re also accepting LC recommendations on 22.12 and 22.19B1. Schottlaender said it would be useful to have someone write up what we’ve just discussed and Schiff agreed to do that, adding that just responding to the British proposal would be the easiest.

  • Additions to names entered under given name, etc. (22.16)

      [4JSC/BL/4/BL follow-up]
      [4JSC/BL/4/BL follow-up/LC response]

    Schottlaender reported that [4JSC/BL/4/BL follow-up] is a reiteration of the position taken in the original [4JSC/BL/4] document. CC:DA suggested in its response that the additional proposed example should be in English, but BL does not believe the title of nobility in that example can be satisfactorily translated. What’s more substantive in Schottlaender’s opinion was the statement in the middle of the third paragraph [4JSC/BL/4/BL follow-up] in which it says that in general it’s better not to translate additions to names. Therefore, BL continues to propose 22.16B1 wording as in [4JSC/BL/4] and renumbering of following sub-rules. LC and CCC do not support this and CC:DA didn’t support in first instance. It also seemed odd to Schottlaender that it’s better not to translate additions to names, but BL did not go on suggest that the parenthetical in 22.16A1 be deleted, which would be consonant with that philosophy. Schottlaender asked if CC:DA wanted to restate its non-support.

    Kelley said that she was looking at his April summary, where it says CC:DA supported it. Schottlaender said the committee did support it, but not in the form they were suggesting. CC:DA thought the title was translatable and 22.16 says to translate if it is translatable. CC:DA should decide whether to leave everything as is and delete parenthetical in 22.16A or not. CCC and LC have both said not to do that.

    The Committee expressed support for LC position.

  • Names of persons, See references (26.2A)

      [4JSC/BL/5/BL follow-up]
      [4JSC/BL/5/BL follow-up/Aus response]
      [4JSC/BL/5/BL follow-up/CCC response]
      [4JSC/BL/5/BL follow-up/LA response]
      [4JSC/BL/5/BL follow-up/LC response]

    Schottlaender reported that in [4JSC/BL/5] has had substantial additional examples proposed, mostly by LC. ACOC, CCC, LA, and LC support. He added that [4JSC/BL/5] had already been approved by all constituencies, but in approving the need for more examples became apparent and [4JSC/BL/5/BL follow-up] is a compilation of those examples.

    CC:DA expressed support for the proposal.

  • Terms of address of married women (22.15B1)

      [4JSC/BL/6/BL follow-up]
      [4JSC/BL/6/BL follow-up/Aus response]
      [4JSC/BL/6/BL follow-up/CCC response]
      [4JSC/BL/6/BL follow-up/LA response]
      [4JSC/BL/6/BL follow-up/LC response]

    Schottlaender said that the CC:DA originally supported [4JSC/BL/6], but BL had agreed to add CCC-proposed “husbands” to proposed additional sentence, revising two examples. Everyone else agreed to the change.

New JSC Documents

  • Publisher statement repeating data from title, etc., Area (1.4D4)

      [4JSC/LA/1/LC response]

    Schottlaender reported the proposal was to delete rule 1.4D4 because it represents a specific exception to the more general rule in 1.4D2 that is unnecessary and is restrictive and redundant. LC supports it, as does CCC, having noted that there are examples that also need revision. LC’s response pointed out other places that would need revision in Chapter 2, 12, 21, etc.

    Schiff made a motion that CC:DA support LA proposal. Kelley seconded and CC:DA voted in favor 7-0.

  • Abbreviations (Appendix B.5)


    Schottlaender said that this proposal would allow catalogers to abbreviate not only words, but also abbreviations. He reported that LC had provided an explanation of how this reached them on page 1. The bottom line, the revision to B.5A would allow catalogers to abbreviate not only words, but also abbreviations, e.g., “vol. 9” to be abbreviated as “v. 9, ” which the code currently does not allow. As a result, there are many added entries because publishers are always changing their minds about how to abbreviate something. In the original PCC proposal, PCC concerned itself only with “vol.” abbreviations, but LC proposal goes further than that to generalize it to all abbreviations.

    Schuitema said that CCC had commented that if the rule became that broad, it would also mean changing abbreviations for states in publisher statements. She didn’t think that was the intention and, as a result, she thought it should be limited to the original idea, i.e., volume numberings in series. The PCC has no interest in changing how states and countries are abbreviated in the 260 field.

    Schottlaender read the proposed additions to the LC proposal for B.5A:

      “Subject to the limitations specified in footnotes to B.9, abbreviate words, or substitute one form of abbreviation with the prescribed abbreviation, elsewhere in the catalogue entry”
      “Subject to the limitations specified in footnotes to B.9, use the abbreviations prescribed in B.9-B.15 elsewhere in the catalogue entry.”

    Schiff said it would still affect transcription in the place of publication, e.g., if “CA” was in imprint it could be changed to “Calif.” He asked if CC:DA really wanted people to be able to do that.

    Schuitema asked if that would be bad and whether retrieval or description would be affected. She continued that we’re not telling them they have to do that, but if that enables us to change “vol.” to “v.,” etc., in the series tracing so that we no longer have to make 830’s to make them trace differently, then she’s in favor of “Calif.” being the standard abbreviation. Hixson agreed that this is not important.

    Schiff asked if this meant that a library could choose NOT to do this, e.g., could still put “vol.” in the series tracing and then provide the added entry because they transcribe. Schottlaender replied that would no longer be acceptable practice, because the appendix would say to abbreviate abbreviations.

    Schiff said he agreed with the intent of it, but that it would be getting away from transcription and introducing another element. This is a fundamental principle that the JSC needs to take into account and decide if that is really the way we should go.

    Schottlaender said that, given the substantive nature of the CCC response, it might be a good idea to get a copy of it to CC:DA so the two documents could be looked at next to each other. He suggested it be tabled for the time being so that he could get copies to the Committee.

682.1. Agenda item 7a. Draft ALA response to 4JSC/BL/3/Rev. (July 10, pursuant to agenda item 7 on July 8): Schiff

Schiff reminded the committee that during JSC representative Brian Schottlaender’s report at Saturday’s meeting, the committee had discussed what it wanted ALA’s response to [4JSC/BL/3/Rev] to be, and that Schiff had agreed to draft a response on behalf of CC:DA. He said he believed he had summarized everything that the committee had decided, but that he had made some changes in what he thought the rule at 1.1F7 should be.

Schiff summarized CC:DA’s discussion on Saturday:

  1. The committee had agreed with the BL proposal to delete rule 22.12B.
  2. The committee had agreed with LC in 4JSC/BL/3/Rev/LC response that 22.6 and 22.12A should be retained in order to include titles of nobility and terms of rank in headings when appropriate.
  3. The committee had agreed with LC that “term of honour” should be added to the “e.g.” statement in 22.19B1, but not “title of nobility.” We agreed with LC’s proposed final sentence in 22.19B1, and with the example to be added.
  4. The committee had disagreed with both LC and the BL on the text of 1.1F7. Schiff said when he looked at the rule again, he decided that ALA could agree with the BL that the example “Baroness Orczy” is covered by 1.1F7b in that it is just a title followed by a surname. He said he thought we could agree that that can be moved from section d of the rule. He said he also discovered that rule 2.1F1 includes an example with the text “by the Baroness Orczy,” so he thought it might be nice to “harmonize” those two in AACR2. He said the committee had also agreed with LC’s reasoning in 1.1F7d that titles of nobility should be retained, but terms of honour should not. Schiff said he had decided that what the committee really needed to do was to come up with a different example in 1.1F7d, so he had found one in Chapter 22 (22.6) that he thought would be a good one: “by Anne Finch, Countess of Winchilsea.”

Schiff said that what he had done in his draft of the ALA response was to add, after “honour” in the text of the first sentence of rule 1.1F7, the parenthetical “e.g. Sir, Dame, Lord, Lady.” This does not limit it to British terms of honor, it just gives examples from British terms of honor. Schiff pointed out that section a of 1.1F7 stays the same in the draft ALA response, section b adds the example “… / by the Baroness Orczy,” section c stays the same, and section d changes the example to “… / by Anne Finch, Countess of Winchilsea.”

Larsgaard moves that CC:DA accept the draft response as written by Schiff, and forward it to the JSC as [JSC/BL/3/Rev/ALA response]. Beacom seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is 7-0.

683. Agenda item 8. Report of the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett

Barbara Tillett provided copies of the Library of Congress report to CC:DA and reported on the highlights. The Library’s exhibit booth is no. 2017, which is set up for demonstrations and lots of information. A commemorative stamp and coin honoring the Library’s bicentennial will also be featured at the LC booth and available for sale (as well as free commemorative stamp and coin posters).

The Library of Congress completed implementation of the Integrated Library System (LC ILS) on October 1, 1999 on time and on budget. She added they would be moving to acceptance test and would hopefully be finished next week. Some improvements would be added to the system, e.g., geo-spatial search capability and additional tracking for item information needed for audit trail for deleting item records. LC would be adding release 2000 in November, after preparation and testing. They’re adding home-grown capabilities developed by David Williamson using MARC record “validator” software borrowed from Gary Strawn (Northwestern). It has eliminated 50% of this kind of errors and LC is hoping to expand that capability even further. LC is working with Endeavor to implement Voyager release 2000; they’re looking for some big enhancements for acquisitions, but also the capability to display CJK and Hebrew vernacular characters in the OPAC. They will continue to use OCLC and RLIN for vernacular characters in the meantime.

They are also doing planning and testing for loading the databases for the Congressional Research Service and the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped by the end of this year.

Full MARC 21 authority records will be available on the web at the end of 2000. The Library will be loading pinyin information in September, with Oct. 1 start date for pinyin transliteration of Chinese. Tillett said there was more information on page 4 of handout and many programs during this conference related to the pinyin conversion.

On page 3, there are FAQ’s (frequently asked questions) with details of what LC is doing related to ILS, pinyin loads, etc. Address for ILS home page:

Tillett announced that Ichiko Morita, formerly head of the Japan Documentation Center, became chief of the Social Sciences Cataloging Division on April 2 and the new Rare Book Team Leader, Special Materials Cataloging Division (SMCD), would be Elizabeth Robinson, principal rare book cataloger at the Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif., who would begin at the Library at the end of July. Joe Bartl was promoted to the position of Team Leader for one of the Music and Sound Recordings teams in SMCD.

Tillett reported that LC implemented the 1998 revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules , 2nd edition, on March 17, 2000. LC had also discontinued distribution of “in-process” (preliminary cataloging, encoding level 5) records for books through the MARC Distribution Services (MDS) at the end of April 2000 and hoped this was not affecting anyone adversely.

In 1996, the first indicator value 2 (Multiple surname) in X00 fields in MARC 21 was made obsolete and LC is doing a lot of cleanup related to that. All new name authority and bibliographic records should reflect the new indicator practice and existing bibliographic records are changed when encountered in regular work. As of June 26, 2000, OCLC had corrected over 100,000 name authority records and these corrections will continue at a rate of about 9,000 per week until all of the estimated 227,000 name authority records with the obsolete indicator have been changed.

Some changes to the MARC Language Code List have been implemented. Tillett pointed out that “Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic)” [scc] and “Serbo-Croatian (Roman)” [scr] have been replaced by “Bosnian” [bos], “Croatian” [scr], and “Serbian” [scc].

“Sound disc cartridge” is now a specific material designation and the text in LCRI 6.5B1 has been revised to introduce the specific material designation “sound disc cartridge.” The text added to this RI is labeled “LC practice.”

At ALA Midwinter, the ALCTS CCS Heads of Cataloging Discussion Group raised the need to address remotely accessed electronic reproductions of works previously published in printed form. As a result of that discussion, OCLC asked LC to revise RI 1.11A to encompass explicitly digitized manifestations of works previously published in printed form. After receiving many excellent comments from the cataloging community, the RI has been revised and will be printed in the next LCRI update.

Arrearage reduction efforts have resulted in major headway being made on 78 rpm’s and 45s, as well as a lot of work on CD workflow 2000. LC has taken a cooperatively created approach and they think it will speed up the cataloging of CDs each year. Also, a copy of a file of bibliographic records for sound recordings long held by LC has been created by OCLC, with 34,338 records providing improved access to the MBRS collections, and should be available soon.

Music and Sound Recordings has instituted a new workflow, which should soon increase availability of bibliographic records for music manuscripts and certain rare items in LC’s collections. Staff has focused on processing 2000 discs in the LP arrearages, 1648 copyright cassettes, and 1168 reel-to-reel tapes of the National Public Radio collection. Over 7600 titles of computer files are waiting for completed cataloging. The team has been utilizing production level cataloging, collection level cataloging, copy cataloging, etc., to get those moved forward.

The BEOnline+ Project for Remote Access Electronic Resources has been expanded beyond business to all areas and the project team has decided to participate in the OCLC CORC Project and has been making contributions there. Questions about BEOnline+ or LC CORC may be directed to Allene Hayes.

Tillett reported that Archival Moving Image Materials: A Cataloging Manual, 2nd Edition (AMIM2), would be published late this summer and may be ordered now from the Library of Congress Cataloging Distribution Service. She thanked the MRC members for their valuable review of the AMIM draft revision. The AMIM Revision Committee was able to modify the revision in several ways based upon consideration of MRC comments. Some of the non-standard use of parallel titles was fixed up and several options that contradicted rules have been removed. Highlights of changes included expanded rules for television programs; expanded rules for structuring cataloger-supplied titles; expanded lists of terms related to physical description; simplified rules for cataloging versions; new guidance on choice of access points, such as personal name added entries and uniform titles; new rules for collection-level cataloging; examples with MARC 21 content designation; expanded glossary and index; and a loose-leaf binder to accommodate updates and local rule interpretations. Free updates will be available on the CPSO website and will be published in LC’s Cataloging Service Bulletin. AMIM 2 is available on Cataloger’s Desktop.

Work has continued on the revision of Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2. In January, E. Mangan presented a set of rule revision proposals to MAGERT and CC:DA would discuss them on Monday. She mentioned that Ms. Mangan would be retiring in early August after 31 years at LC.

Tillett reported that Network Development and MARC Standards Office (NDMSO) is collaborating with OCLC on mapping Dublin Core elements to MARC elements, for use by the CORC system for showing either Dublin Core or MARC views and for conversion of records.

Tillett asked if there were any questions. Kelley asked whether there was a schedule for completion of the LC classification electronic versions yet, the Smithsonian being interested in the G schedule. Tillett asked if Bruce Johnson was still present, but he was not. She said she thought they had just got it. Mangan said that G would be printed without the tables, but that all would go into Classification+. They solved the problem to print correctly and Mangan suggested asking for more information at the LC booth.

Kinney thanked Tillett. He also said he needed to get back two signup sheets, one for Dublin core and one for map program next year. He announced that if there were no other business now, CC:DA would meet next on Monday at 8:00 a.m. in this room.

Larsgaard moved to adjourn. Motion was seconded. CC:DA voted in favor. Meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Lindlan, Intern


Monday, 10 July 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Sheraton, Ballroom X

684. Agenda item 9. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair

CC:DA Chair Daniel Kinney called the meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Kinney circulated an attendance sheet, and again circulated sign-up sheets that he had circulated at Saturday’s meeting for volunteers for the map cataloging program, and for the CC:DA Task Force on the review of ANSI/NISO Draft Standard Z39.85, The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. Kinney said he was also circulating, at JSC representative Brian Schottlaender’s request, a sign-up sheet for volunteers who would be willing to work on the JSC’s inter-constituency experiment on the cataloging of expression-based records [Working Group on Format Variation].

John Attig asked if he could make some comments about his discussion paper on revisions to Chapter 9 of AACR2 [CC:DA/Attig/2000/1] at this point in the meeting. Kinney said that he could.

Attig explained that there was one item in his document that was not directly connected with the other proposals that the JSC had seen. He said that one of the first things that the Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD (ER) and AACR had considered was what to do with resource identifiers, which at that time meant URLs, but which will soon also include URNs. What came out in the report of the task force and the proposal to the JSC was the addition of two examples to the rule on mode of access notes, which included URLs. The JSC approved the addition of the examples, but deleted the URLs from the examples. He said that some members of the task force wondered what the JSC had meant to accomplish by that decision, and that they thought that this point was important enough to pursue further.

Attig said that he and his group wanted to stress in the paper that resource identifiers are a vitally important part of a bibliographic description, and that they are necessary for obtaining access to a networked resource. For that reason, he said, Chapter 9 should say something to indicate that they should be included in a bibliographic description.

The group could not reach a consensus on how to accomplish this in the rules, so four different options are mentioned in the discussion paper. These are: mentioning resource identifiers in a mode of access note, as the task force had originally proposed; adding language to 9.8 which would indicate that resource identifiers should be treated as standard numbers (with appropriate examples); calling resource identifiers something other than standard numbers and adding a new area for them (Area 9); or, including them in the note for “numbers borne by an item.”

Attig concluded by saying that his group’s concern about this matter was based on the fact that the broad umbrella of “uniform resource identifiers” is a formal standard promulgated by the Internet Engineering Task Force, an authorized standards-making body, that the umbrella covers both URLs and URNs, and that we are reaching the point where the implementation of the URN is foreseeable.

Kinney asked Attig if he wanted the committee to choose one of his group’s options to endorse. Attig said that if the committee had a preference for one of the options, that would be fine, or if the committee wished to eliminate some of the options, that would also be fine, or the committee could decide that this matter is not sufficiently important to endorse any of the proposals.

Attig asked LC representative Barbara Tillett if she could comment on how the JSC’s reaction to the original proposal from the Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD (ER) and AACR should be interpreted. Tillett said that CC:DA should not read anything into that, and the committee’s proposal should just go forward with whatever the committee thinks is best.

Matthew Beacom said that it would be useful to hear from some committee members about what they thought about Attig’s group’s proposals, and which of the four options they thought was best. Beacom said that he himself supported option 2 (standard number), and that he would like to see that one go forward as a rule revision proposal from CC:DA.

Wayne Jones said that when he looked at the four options, he did not see any that was completely satisfactory. He said he found it hard to think of a URL or a URN as a number borne by an item, that a new Area 9 seemed like too dramatic a solution to this problem at this point, and that, at least for now, he had a hard time justifying calling URLs standard numbers, though he might change his thinking on that if URNs were to supplant URLs as the type of information we are recording here. Jones said that if he were forced to make a choice between the four, he would opt for putting the information in a mode of access note. He noted that most libraries are now considering resource identifiers as none of the above, but rather as holdings data.

Kristin Lindlan said that she liked the idea of making resource identifiers browsable. She said that she wasn’t sure that users would need that option, but she thought catalogers might. Lindlan said that she thought of resource identifiers as something like a SuDocs number or a CODEN, and it seemed like all of these types of numbers are carried in the 0xx fields of a MARC record. She said she realized that that was not an AACR issue, but that she didn’t like the idea of putting these numbers in a note because doing so made them less searchable.

Carolynne Myall commented that as a union catalog user, she was very aware that most libraries are now considering these numbers holdings data, and that at this point many of these numbers are very variable. She said that, since there is movement now toward making these numbers more standard and fixed, she thought that perhaps the committee might be better able to make a useful recommendation about how to handle resource identifiers in a bibliographic record if the committee were to wait a while before making a recommendation.

Mary Larsgaard pointed out that many libraries now make their catalogs accessible on the Web, and said that she thought many library users would appreciate having the ability to click on a hypertext link from within the bibliographic record, and would find such an option very useful.

Myall said that she entirely agreed with the idea of providing hypertext-link access to a resource in a Web-based catalog, and said that the point she had wanted to make was that she had a problem with considering resource identifiers bibliographic data as opposed to holdings data, and that a problem that often arises in the union catalog that her institution works in is that two different institutions do not always use the same URL to access a particular resource, which is why they have found it better to consider these numbers holdings data, rather than include them in the bibliographic portion of the record.

Laurel Jizba said that when the group was discussing this issue online, they were discussing it as notes about holdings, rather than actual holdings, and that they discussed changing the name of Area 8 to accommodate the inclusion of these, which might appease people who did not like the idea of including resource identifiers under the term “standard numbers.”

Attig said that it seemed that the committee now had two questions to consider. The first was whether AACR2 should address this issue at all, and, if so, how? Maybe we need to answer the first question before we address the second, Attig said.

Lindlan said that, in a lot of respects, these numbers are like the data in the 850 field in serial records, or perhaps they are somewhere between the 850, an ISSN, and a CODEN.

Adam Schiff said that he remembered from the days when he was SLA representative to CC:DA that there still are libraries without online catalogs and still working in a card catalog environment, and that these libraries may very well want to catalog electronic resources. He said that for the sake of these libraries, he thought it was important that resource identifiers be included somewhere in the bibliographic portion of the record.

Matthew Beacom said that although the argument for considering URLs holdings data was a very powerful one, it is a fact that catalogers are now including URLs in notes fields, and MARBI has approved several fields and subfields in the notes area for this purpose, but catalogers still have no guidance from AACR2 on how to handle or not handle URLs in a bibliographic record.

Kinney said that he was going to have to curtail this discussion at this point, unless someone wanted to make a motion to take some kind of action on Attig’s report. No motion was made, and Kinney said that this discussion could be continued on the CC:DA electronic discussion list after the meeting. Kinney then introduced Mary Larsgaard to deliver the report on the Metadata Preconference.

685. Agenda item 10. Report on the Metadata Preconference: Larsgaard

Metadata Preconference Chair Mary Larsgaard reported that the ALCTS preconference “Metadata: Libraries and the Web--Retooling AACR and MARC21 for Cataloging in the Twenty-first Century” had been held on July 6 and 7 in the Grand Ballroom of the Palmer House Hilton. She said that as of July 5, there had been 361 registrants in ALCTS staff person Yvonne McLean’s records, plus about 29 faculty.

As registration proceeded on the morning of July 6, it turned out that a lot of people who had registered and paid in advance had somehow not been included on McLean’s list, so a lot of extra chairs had to set up in the back of the room at the last moment.

Larsgaard said that she estimated the total number of attendees to be about 420, and that McLean has the final exact number. Ebsco, ISI, NetLibrary, and OCLC very generously sponsored food events during the preconference: one continental breakfast, coffee breaks, one luncheon, and an evening reception. The sponsors were thanked very much for their contributions, and they will be receiving certificates. The reception on Thursday evening in the Red Lacquer Room was an especially nice occasion for speaking with conference speakers and attendees.

While it will be a while before the attendee evaluation sheets have been compiled, Larsgaard’s feeling was that most attendees had had a very favorable impression of the preconference.

Larsgaard said that several people had spoken to her about possible follow-ups to the preconference. One of those suggestions, which she received from Karen Muller about a year and a half ago, was that one-day regional institutes be held around the country. These would obviously be very differently constituted from the 2-day preconference. They would probably be 1-day events with perhaps 2-4 faculty, and might be focused on specific areas of metadata, like structural and administrative metadata, for instance. We would also hope that the content of the institutes would change as the field itself changes, Larsgaard said.

Work remaining to be done by the Preconference Task Force is mainly work on the publication of the papers presented at the preconference. Wayne Jones is in charge of this project. Speakers who chose not to submit a written paper were, with their agreement, recorded. These recordings will be transcribed, and by July 24 they will be sent to task force members who are serving as editors. The editors will turn these transcriptions into papers. Jones will send all of these papers as a package to Brad Eden, who is editor of the ALCTS Papers series. Eden will send the completed manuscript to ALA Publications by November 15. Midwinter 2001 is the goal date for the hard copy of this publication to be available. Larsgaard commented that that schedule sounded rather ambitious to her, and said that it is possible that the spring of 2001 is when we will actually see the publication. She noted that there was a good reason for moving the publication of this work along as quickly as possibly, which is that metadata is such a rapidly developing field.

CC:DA Chair Daniel Kinney said that he wanted to congratulate Larsgaard and her co-chair Sally Tseng and the rest of the task force on doing such a great job planning and executing the preconference. He noted that an ALA preconference is usually a fully developed proposal two years before the event, but that Larsgaard and Tseng had managed to put together a very successful two-day preconference on much shorter notice.

Kinney introduced Adam Schiff, who suggested that before going onto agenda item 11, the committee might want to first consider the draft ALA response to 4JSC/BL/3/Rev. that he had agreed to write for the committee after Saturday’s meeting. [See Agenda item 682.1 above]

686. Agenda item 11. Rule revision proposals for electronic resources: Schiff

Schiff said that he had put together this set of proposals after reviewing the set of revisions to Chapter 9 that CC:DA had proposed, and finding that there were a few areas in other parts of the code that hadn’t been considered that perhaps should have been. Schiff said that there were three parts to the proposal, and suggested that the committee look at each part separately.

The first part deals with 1.4F8, which is concerned with multipart items, but which gives a cataloger no guidance on recording dates of publication for continuing resources. In particular, it doesn’t say what to do with inferred, probable, and approximate dates. The issue comes up when cataloging integrating resources on the Web, when a cataloger has to decide whether or where to put brackets in recording dates for these kinds of resources. One of the issues in this proposal-the brackets issue-was resolved at the last JSC meeting, where it was decided that brackets would be used on both sides to enclose an inferred, probable, or approximate date, so this particular rule revision proposal will have to be amended so that the part of proposed rule 1.4F8 which says “Precede inferred, probable, and approximate earliest or earlier dates by a left square bracket” will instead say “Enclose inferred, probable, and approximate earliest or earlier dates in square brackets.” As it stands now, Schiff said, until the cataloger gets to Chapter 12, there is no guidance on what to do with these kinds of dates, and this is the fundamental rule in Chapter 1 that should cover it.

Attig said that he didn’t have the proposed rule revisions for Chapter 12 in front of him, but he was sure that they included a proposed revision to rule 1.4F7 regarding the recording of beginning and ending dates. He said that he was not sure whether that would conflict with Schiff’s proposal or not, but that he wanted to point out that that was also “in play” at the moment.

Schiff said that the rule revision he was proposing would be going to the JSC as an ALA proposal, while the proposed revision that Attig was referring to was given to the JSC as a chair report. If there were a conflict between the two sets of proposals, Schiff said, it would be up to the JSC to resolve the conflict, but we don’t need to resolve it here.

Larsgaard said that, given that Chapter 1 is the chapter that one refers to for “everything else,” she would find it very useful to have this proposed rule in Chapter 1. Whether it is also in Chapter 12 or not is another matter, but Chapter 1 is the chapter that is supposed to give the cataloger general rules for everything-serial or monographic.

Ed Glazier said that he had two questions, one about Schiff’s proposed rule, and one about what is already in the rules. He asked whether it wasn’t premature yet to add to this proposed rule the “continuing resource” phrase, pointing out that that phrase has not been added to the rules yet.

Schiff responded that he had thought of that, too, but had decided that since the JSC would be considering both this proposal and the proposed Chapter 12 revisions at the same meeting in October, it made sense to use the phrase here.

Glazier also pointed out that the proposed rule retains the “and four spaces” after “hyphen,” and since the four spaces is no longer appropriate, Schiff’s rule revision proposal might as well take that out.

Schiff said he agreed, and would amend his proposal accordingly.

Elizabeth Mangan said that she also had taken issue with the phrase “or a continuing resource” in the proposed rule revision, and suggested that a better way to deal with this would be to change the phrase “In describing a multipart item that is not yet complete …” to “In describing a resource that is not yet complete …,” which would generalize the rule in the way that Schiff wanted without introducing a phrase that might be problematic.

Schiff said that he thought that was a very good suggestion. So if the proposal is accepted, Schiff said, the second paragraph would now read:

“In describing a resource that is not yet complete, give the earliest or earlier date only, and follow it with a hyphen. Enclose inferred, probable, or approximate earliest or earlier dates in square brackets.”

The second example would now read:


Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the rule revision proposal in its amended form. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is 7-0.

Schiff said that his next proposed revision was to rule 1.7B16, which covers details of other formats in which the content of an item has been issued. His proposal was to add one example:

    “Issued also electronically via World Wide Web.”

This would cover cases where a library is taking a one-record approach to describing both a tangible item and its electronic manifestation, and also cases where a library just wishes to note that another electronic manifestation exists without actually cataloging that electronic manifestation on the same record.

Beacom said that he wondered whether this was an example of what Schottlaender would call “example creep,” i.e., the addition of an example where one is not really necessary to illuminate the rule.

Sherry Kelley said that she agreed with Beacom’s point, and that this was an unnecessary example. She suggested that the committee move on to the next proposal.

No motion is made to act on this proposal.

Schiff said that his next proposal was dealing with accompanying material covered by rule 2.7B11. He said his proposal was to add two more examples below the two existing examples in the current rule, and that these examples are meant to address two kinds of accompanying materials (diskettes and CD-ROMs) that many libraries are receiving with books now.

Mangan said that she liked these two examples, and that many catalogers would appreciate this kind of guidance on how to word notes for these kinds of materials.

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the proposed revision of 2.7B11. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is 4-1, with Beacom opposed and Kelley abstaining.

The next proposal, Schiff said, is to revise the example below 2.7B16, the rule in Chapter 2 for notes about other formats. There is currently one example under the rule, which reads:

    “Issued also as computer file.”

Schiff noted that the current example would need revision, but that changing the example to read “Issued also as electronic resource” would not be especially helpful to catalogers. Instead, he said, he was proposing that the existing example be deleted, and that the following three examples be added:

    “Issued also on CD-ROM”
    “Issued also electronically via World Wide Web in PDF format”
    “Available also in electronic form on Web site: Protected areas information.”

Larsgaard suggested that instead of one example for a direct-access resource, and two for remote-access resources, there should perhaps be just one example for each type.

Beacom said that these were examples that really do contribute to illuminating the rule, but that he agreed with Larsgaard’s suggestion that there be just two examples instead of three.

Jones said that he also liked the idea of one example for a direct-access resource, and one for a remote-access resource, and said that he wondered if it was all right to say “PDF format,” since the “f” in PDF already stands for “format.”

Jizba said that it was all right because PDF is a proper acronym.

Beacom moves that CC:DA accept the proposed revision, with the third example stricken. Larsgaard seconds the motion.

Ann Sandberg-Fox asked if it was really necessary to include the “electronically” in “Issued also electronically via World Wide Web in PDF format.”

Larsgaard said that it was necessary, or at least safer, to include “electronically” since not every library user will know that “via World Wide Web” means “electronically.”

Vote to accept the rule revision proposal as amended (i.e., with the third example stricken) is 6-0, with Kelley abstaining.

687. Agenda item 12. Report from the Task Force on ISBD(M): Jizba

Chair Daniel Kinney introduced Laurel Jizba, chair of the CC:DA Task Force on the Review of ISBD (M), and noted that the action CC:DA would have to take on the task force’s final report would be to either accept the report, in which case it would be forwarded to John Byrum as CC:DA’s response to the international review of ISBD (M), or to not accept the report.

Jizba began by stating that the charge to this task force was to undertake a detailed review of the changes to the 1987 revised edition of the ISBD (M) proposed by the ISBD Review Group. She read from the task force’s Final Report the statement from the task force’s charge: “Particular attention should be given to areas, if any, in which AACR2R is not in conformance with the proposed changes to the ISBD (M) and areas, if any, in which the proposed changes are not in conformance with the provisions of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records.”

Jizba also noted that Kinney had sent a message to Task Force Chair Jizba indicating “It would probably be helpful to note where the ISBD (M) and AACR2R are not in conformance.”

Jizba said that for nine of the elements in question, the task force had agreed with the optionality decision. For three elements, they either had not agreed and had recommended that the element in question remain mandatory, or alternatively, had recommended that an additional footnote be added if the element was to remain optional.

She said that it had immediately become apparent to the task force members that “optionality” was a term that needed exploration and definition. She said that members had expressed differing views on the meaning of “optionality.” One of the ways optionality can be viewed is to look at ISBD (M) optionality in relation to other existing standards and the interrelated philosophies regarding optionality that underlie those texts (e.g., Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. Rev. (AACR2R), Core Level Record for Books). One discussion theme was that certain elements are necessarily mandatory in the ISDB (M) — or not — because similar elements exist or do not exist as part of the basic record described in the FRBR. In relationship to AACR2R it was noted in discussion early on that there frequently is not a one-to-one correspondence in the ISBD (M) rules and AACR2R, because of the overlapping instructions in Chapter l with those found in Chapter 2.

Jizba went on to say that another way optionality can be interpreted is in relationship to whether an option is actually described in the ISBD (M) text or in a footnote to the ISBD (M) text. There are patterns for both usages, the question being whether one location carries more or less weight than another location.

Third, Jizba said, optionality could be seen from different viewpoints in relation to the concept of mandatory. Thus, whether an element is optional contributes to both overt and covert interpretations of the concept of mandatory for that element. Although “optional” does not equal “do not add” to the bibliographic record in a literal sense, in practice, “optional” often does end up meaning “do not add” because libraries will make blanket policies about whether or not to follow “optional” rules rather than allowing their catalogers the discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not optional elements are to be included in the description.

Jizba reported that the nine elements that the task force had agreed to make optional were:

    1.3 Parallel title
    1.5 Statements of responsibility-first subsequent statement
    2.5 Statements of responsibility following an additional edition statement
    5.2 Illustration statement
    6.2 Parallel titles of series or sub-series
    6.4 Statements of responsibility relating to the series or sub-series
    7.1.2 Notes on the nature, scope, literary form
    7.2 Notes on the edition area and the bibliographic history of the publication
    8.3 Terms of availability

She noted that the task force had suggested a revision in the wording of the footnote to “7.1.2. Notes on the nature, scope, literary form, purpose or language of the publication.” The task force had recommended that the phrase “on the form” be inserted, so that the note would read: “A note on the form is necessary only if the form of expression cannot be inferred from other elements of the description and a note on language only if the linguistic content of the expression is significant and where the language of the content cannot be inferred from other elements of the description.”

Jizba went on to say that there were three places where the task force was not in agreement with the ISBD Review Group:

  • 1.4 Other title information. A majority of task force members, Jizba said, believed that if this is to remain optional, that an additional footnote must be added; otherwise it should remain mandatory. If it is going to remain optional, the task force’s recommendation was to make a new footnote, which would become the new footnote (2), as follows. (The existing footnotes would subsequently need to be renumbered).

    Suggested REVISED text:

      1.4 Other title information (optional) (2)

      (2). Other title information should be included in the basic record to the extent that they are essential to the accurate identification of the item or is considered important to the user of the catalogue.

    Jizba noted that this new footnote the task force was recommending was in parallel construction to the other footnotes that the ISBD Review Group had developed.

  • 2.3 Statements of responsibility relating to the edition. A majority of the task force members, Jizba said, did not agree; this should remain mandatory, they thought. Making this element optional is not compatible with the FRBR basic record specifications, Jizba noted, and said, since it is not optional in the FRBR, why make it optional here? Also, there may be times that this an important element in identifying a manifestation, such as when catalogers need to show usage for names of revisers, etc., that will be used as access points on the record, when heading usage is required for finding a particular manifestation.

  • 5.3 Dimensions. A majority of task force members, Jizba said, did not agree; this should remain mandatory, they thought. This element is not compatible with the FRBR basic record specifications. The task force had decided that, since it is not optional in the FRBR, why make it optional here? Secondly, in cataloging for special collections, the dimensions element given in a record is often the only clue that it is a special edition of some sort. Thirdly, practically speaking, size can be a key clue in distinguishing between particular manifestations of a work. At times, size is the only distinguishing factor, and a significant one for patrons (miniature editions, for example). Further, it is not always possible to predict when size is a key factor distinguishing manifestations, so it would be difficult to add a footnote giving the circumstances under which dimensions would be considered “basic”. The task force’s fourth comment, Jizba said, was that there is a recurring pattern for using dimension has both as an identifying tool and as a finding mechanism for physical printed items in a physical world.

Finally, Jizba said, the task force wanted to state that it is not recommending any formal rule change recommendations to AACR2, but was leaving that to CC:DA.

However, she said, the task force wanted to note that monographic rules in AACR2R do not map easily to the ISBD (M) because of the interlinking of the global rules of instruction for all classes of materials in Chapter 1 with each chapter, including Chapter 2. In other words, because AACR2R ’s Chapter 2, Books, pamphlets and printed sheets and its Chapter l, General rules for description are (a) inexorably linked to each other and therefore to instruction on other classes of materials in Chapters 3-11, and (b) because some of the elements in Chapter 2 only partially correspond to the ISBD (M), it is difficult to consider that AACR2R Chapter 2 is, in terms of optionality, a comparable document to the ISBD (M). Further, several of us would not like to see options applied to print materials that are not also considered for application to all of the other classes of materials.

More specifically, areas of Chapter 2 that more or less correspond with the ISBD (M) include: parallel title, other title information, statements of responsibility, statements of responsibility relating to the edition, statements of responsibility relating to a named revision of an edition, illustrative matter, dimensions, [notes on] nature, scope or artistic form, [notes on] edition and history, and terms of availability. Within AACR2R, only “terms of availability” is already optional with the ISBD (M) and therefore compatible with the ISBD (M). Regarding notes in AACR2R, most are already optional or already left to cataloguer’s judgement. We highlight the fact that there are no corresponding elements in Chapters 1 or 2 on subsequent statements of responsibility; in Chapter 2 on series parallel titles; or in Chapters 1 or 2 on statements of responsibility relating to the series or subseries. Moreover, of those elements within Chapter 2 that do at least partially correspond, many of the elements provide much briefer instruction than does the ISBD (M) and many of those brief instructions are specifically linked to Chapter 1 instructions.

Furthermore, AACR2R rule 1.0D Levels of detail in description establishes three different minimum levels of detail on which to base a description, depending upon the purpose of the catalogue(s) in question. This offers a kind of optionality that is not and cannot be expressed in the ISBD (M). In addition, AACR2R is often used in conjunction with other standards (e.g., LCRIs, etc.) that further modify practical application of AACR2R with respect to optionality. There was some sentiment among task force members that if AACR2R was to be modified regarding optionality, that it might be done with regard to Chapter 1, however there was no consensus on that point. One example of how this might potentially work is that certain elements might be removed from the second level of description of 1.0D2. Only one element had caught the eye of a member of this task force for that purpose, and that was the element of illustrative matter. But again, Jizba reiterated, the task force was not recommending any changes to AACR2R in this report.

Given the above discussion, Jizba said, the task force felt that it was nearly impossible, and so perhaps not appropriate, to consider systematically harmonizing, in terms of optionality, the ISBD (M) with AACR2R, since their underlying structures differ with respect to optionality.

Jizba concluded by thanking the members of the task force: John Attig, Larry Heiman, Carol Hixson, Sherry Kelley, and Shirley Lincicum, and noted that each had contributed a great deal to the task force’s discussions, which had had to be completed in a very short 6-week time frame.

John Attig said that he wanted to add an addendum to Jizba’s report. He said that after the task force’s Final Report had been distributed, he had received a comment from Martha Yee. The comment was with regard to subsequent statements of responsibility. Yee had noted that, though the recommendation to make this optional was consistent with the FRBR basic record, it is sometimes a subsequent statement of responsibility that identifies a new expression or even a new work. Attig said that he thought this should be included in the report as a comment, and that perhaps even a suggestion should be made that a footnote be added to this rule, saying that the recording of a subsequent statement of responsibility is necessary in certain cases.

Jizba asked Attig whether he was proposing that an appendix be added to the report, or was he proposing that the body of the text of the report be edited?

Kinney said that if the committee wanted to add Yee’s comment to the Final Report as an addendum, it could do so, but that in any case he needed to get the report to Byrum within a week or so.

Carol Hixson commented that she was not necessarily opposed to adding that addendum, but that she wanted to make the point that “optional” provisions are just that (optional), and that catalogers could always choose to include a statement that is optional when the situation warrants it.

Kelley said that she agreed with Hixson, and added that there is always the notion of cataloger’s judgment inherent in all of the rules, and a cataloger will presumably add an statement that is optional in the rules when the statement is necessary for distinguishing one expression or work from another.

Martha Yee said that she wanted to mention the example she had sent to Attig along with her comments. The example was “The Guermantes way / by Marcel Proust,” and if the subsequent statement of responsibility in this case, “translated by C.K. Scott Moncrieff,” were left out of the record, that would be tantamount to leaving out the edition statement. Yee said she did not think that anyone was ready to make the edition statement optional and left up to cataloger’s judgment. She pointed out that making subsequent statements of responsibility optional would make it perfectly legal in ISBD (M), and perhaps someday in AACR, to transcribe this title as simply “The Guermantes way / by Marcel Proust.”

Kinney suggested that CC:DA first decide whether to accept the task force report or not, and then decide whether to include Yee’s addendum or not.

Larsgaard moves that CC:DA accept the task force’s Final Report as written. Beacom seconds the motion.

Ed Glazier pointed out that in the proposed footnote at the top of page 4, “other title information” is taken as plural in the first clause, and singular in the second.

Kinney said that he could make that correction before forwarding the report.

Joan Schuitema pointed out three instances in the appendix where the information about whether an element would be included in a core record was inaccurate. She pointed out that parallel titles, statements of responsibility relating to the edition, and statements of responsibility following an additional edition statement all would be included in a core record, whereas the appendix says that they would not be included. She said that she also had a problem with the statement in the appendix in “Element 10: Notes on nature, scope, form, purpose, language,” which says that these notes would not be included in a core record. She pointed out that, while these kinds of notes might not be required in a core record, they would certainly be added when they are deemed important.

Attig said that since only the recommendation part of the report, and not the discussion of AACR2 and other standards, would be forwarded to Byrum, these changes could be made by committee members in their own copies of the report, but need not be made to the report that Kinney would be forwarding to Byrum.

Schuitema said she realized that that was the case, but she wanted to make sure that this appendix does not end up somewhere else without these inaccuracies being corrected.

No further discussion; vote to accept the report and forward it to Byrum is 7-0.

Kinney asked if CC:DA now wanted to consider adding Yee’s comments as an addendum to the report.

Matthew Wise said that he wanted to report that the Music Library Association had done its own review of the ISBD (M), and it also had concluded that second and subsequent statements of responsibility should not be made optional. The MLA had come to the same conclusion that this task force had, i.e., that a footnote should be added saying to add these statements when they are necessary to differentiate between editions.

Beacom moves that CC:DA attach an addendum with Wise’s suggestion to the report that will be sent to Byrum. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to accept is 7-0.

Kinney asked Attig to work with Yee to produce that addendum.

Tillett said she wanted to comment to Yee and Wise that their suggestions had also been addressed by LC, which had made such a statement in the report of their review of the ISBD (M), as well.

Glenn Patton said that as a member of the ISBD Review Group, he wanted to add his thanks to CC:DA for undertaking this review, and for doing such a thorough job on such short notice.

688. Agenda item 13. Rule revision proposal on use of full stops with metric unit symbols : John Hostage

Kinney introduced John Hostage.

Hostage said that his proposal was a fairly straightforward one, but one which affected a lot of examples in the rules. The proposal, he said, is basically to eliminate periods after metric unit symbols, such as “cm” or “mm,” because according to international standards, in the metric system they are not actually abbreviations, but rather symbols, which would not take a period. He said that eliminating the periods following these symbols would bring AACR2 more into line with international standards.

Attig noted, in the interest of historical background, that this issue had come up before in CC:DA discussions. He said he was not sure whether the JSC had ever discussed it officially or not.

Tillett commented that these symbols had been considered abbreviations at least since Cutter’s 1908 rules, and that there was at least 100 years of precedent behind considering them abbreviations.

Hostage suggested that this might be due to an historical Anglo-American bias in the rules, or to a lack of understanding on the part of Anglo-American rules-writers of how metric system symbols should be expressed.

Tillett said that among the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules group, the United States was the only country not using the metric system.

Hostage said that that had not been the case throughout the history of Anglo-American cataloging codes.

William Benemann said that he wanted to remind the committee that during Saturday’s discussion about titles of nobility, there were statements made about the desirability of not having the code be too “America-centric,” and to be more international in approach, and said that this proposal might be in line with those sentiments.

Larsgaard said that perhaps the real question here is to what extent the code follows ISO standards no matter what. She said that Mangan had just pointed out to her that the question involves much more than “mm” and “cm.” In Chapter 3, Area 3, for scale, there is a comma (1:24,000). In standard international usage, outside of the U.S., you take out the comma. So if we are going to follow ISO punctuation throughout AACR, we will need to carefully examine the entire code. Larsgaard said that she was not opposed to doing so, but that it would be a major task if we decided to do it.

Lindlan added that ISO transliteration is also different from what we are using.

Jones said that he wanted to express his support for this proposal. He said that he did not think that having not done so for the past 100 years was a good reason not to consider changing our practice now. Jones said that, at the least, we ought to consider putting a note in AACR2 specifying what our practice is in this regard if we decide that we want to continue to consider these abbreviations, rather than symbols.

Jones moves that CC:DA accept the proposal and forward it to the JSC. Beacom seconds the motion.

Larsgaard suggested that, since this proposal would involve such an extensive overhaul of the code, it might be more advisable at this point to set up a task force to study the issue and then make recommendations.

Attig pointed out that this kind of revision, involving this many pages of AACR2, would be very expensive.

Kelley said that she was very much in sympathy with the spirit of the proposal, but that she also thought that such a massive undertaking might merit appointing a task force to study the issue.

Vote to accept Hostage’s proposal and forward it to the JSC is 3-4, with Schiff, Beacom, and Jones in favor, and Kelley, Larsgaard, Hixson, and Lincicum opposed.

Larsgaard moves that CC:DA create a task force to study the implications of making AACR2 compliant with ISO standards for abbreviation and symbolization. Beacom seconds the motion.

Myall said that she supported going forward with this kind of overhaul, because she was still hopeful that the JSC would consider reorganizing the code by ISBD area, so this was one more thing that could be considered in a major overhaul of the rules. She said she felt that, like reorganizing the code by ISBD area, the difficulty of this undertaking suggested its value.

Vote to set up a task force to study the issue is 7-0.

689. Agenda item 14. Report from the Task Force on VRA Core Categories: Champagne

Kinney introduced Anne Champagne to deliver the Task Force on VRA Core Categories report on behalf of Task Force Chair Sherry Kelley.

Champagne began by saying that the task force had met briefly on Friday. She said that the task force had been largely inactive during the past year because it had been waiting for version 3.0 of the VRA Core Categories to be released. She said that it had been released on June 1, 2000.

The task force has committed to completing the following assignments by the end of the summer, Champagne reported:

    Robin Wendler will look at the structural differences between the Core and library data structures. She will especially look at hierarchy, the concept of “work,” basic functionality, and data dictionaries;

    Kelley will study how the Core could be integrated with other metadata, particularly in such a project as the Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC) sponsored by OCLC;

    Sherman Clarke will analyze the Core category-by-category for similarities to AACR2 and MARC21; and

    Champagne will look at the Core relative to the FRBR and the Delsey report.

690. Agenda item 15. Report from the MARBI representative: Watson

Watson referred the committee to the document CC:DA/MARBI Rep/2000/2, which he had distributed before the meeting.

Discussion Paper No. 119: Seriality and MARC21

Watson reported that Jean Hirons had spoken at the MARBI meeting, and said that this discussion paper continues discussions from Discussion Paper No. 114, as the group moves toward some kind of consensus about what kinds of changes are going to be needed to MARC21 to accommodate new rules around the seriality issue.

Watson said that, as of this conference, there is now a high degree of consensus about what the seriality issues are going to mean for MRC21, and urged committee members who were interested to look at Discussion Paper No. 119. He said that an actual proposal based on one of the points in the paper might come forward as soon as the next midwinter meeting, depending on how things go this fall.

The main item here, Watson said, is the approval of a new bibliographic level code in leader byte 07, “i” for integrating resources. Whereas there was a lack of conviction at the midwinter meeting about whether that was the way to go, there was strong agreement this time around. Watson said that he thought the breakthrough on that issue was to go ahead with that new leader byte in conjunction with a serials 008. Then the serials 008 will probably have to be renamed, and will probably be used with all integrating resources, whether they be finite or continuing. There was some discussion about other things that would need to be changed in the “seriality 008,” and then there was an interesting discussion about multiple 260s to record the earliest, latest, as well as intervening publishers. That was a little bit more problematic and may come forward as a separate proposal requiring separate approval.

Proposal No. 2000-01R: Definition of subfield $z (Numbering Scheme) in Fields 853-855 (Captions and Patterns) of the Holdings Format

Watson said that this was a revision of a proposal that had been discussed at the Midwinter meeting. This was finally approved, Watson said, and there will be a 6-byte code in subfield $z that will allow you to record exactly how the numbering scheme is expressed, whether it be alphabetic or numeric, upper- or lower-case, mixed-case, no-case, no matter what kind of script or what kind of numeral is used. It was amended to provide coding for symbolic numbering, which is numbering that might be asterisks, etc.

Attig added that it was noted in the discussion of this that the cataloging rules in some areas do not support exact transcription of numbering, and that therefore this proposal for coding goes beyond what is required by the cataloging rules, and that there might need to be some consideration given to that by CC:DA.

Proposal 2000-09: Changes to Fields 052 and 058 in the Community Information Format

Watson reported that this proposal, which had been a fairly straightforward proposal to further align the Community Information Format with the Bibliographic Format, had been approved.

Proposal 2000-07: Definition of Subfield $y (Link Text) in Field 856 in All Formats

Watson reported that this proposal had been approved, and noted that libraries have been using a number of different methods to display text in place of the URL in the 856 subfield $u. So, in an effort to provide some standardization for vendors and the creators of bibliographic records, 856 $y was approved as the place where you would record text to be displayed in place of URL.

Watson also reminded the committee that MARBI has also approved the addition of URLs to other fields, and said that what will probably happen is that another proposal will come back at the next midwinter meeting, and that will be addressing some of those other fields where subfields for URLs have been designated, but where no subfield has been explicitly identified as the place to record link text to display in place of those URLs.

Proposal No. 2000-08: Definition of Additional Subfields in Field 754 (Added Entry-Taxonomic Identification) in the Bibliographic Format

Watson said that there might be only one institution in the United States that is actually using the 754 for this purpose, but it had been an interesting discussion nevertheless.

The idea here, Watson explained, is that instead of using one subfield and repeating it, in a sort of an undifferentiated way for all the various levels within a particular taxonomy, that basically all of the remaining subfields in the 754 could be defined to represent all of the various levels in the hierarchy. That proved to be a rather complicated and problematic venture, Watson reported, so what is going to happen is that this proposal is going to come back to MARBI again, this time exploring the possibility of using the faceted approach that is used in the 654 field for this purpose.

Watson said that he concluded his report, and asked if there were any questions. There were none.

682.2. Agenda item 7b. Task Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources : Jizba

At this point in the meeting, Kinney read the charge that Jizba had written for a possible CC:DA task force to examine AACR2 with regard to specific characteristics of electronic resources:

The Task Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources is charged with examining and if necessary, proposing changes to the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules for expressing specific characteristics for electronic resources, including rules for type and extent of resource (Area 3), physical description (Area 5), and related notes (Area 7). Particular attention shall be paid to remote resources. The Task Force shall consider areas 3, 5, and 7 of Chapter 9, the roles of these areas in other chapters of AACR, and other areas of description if necessary. The Task Force shall consult with the broader cataloging community to

  1. learn what is needed to identify and describe specific characteristics of electronic resources
  2. ascertain how areas 3, 5, and 7 are being applied and used by catalogers of electronic resources
  3. examine and test alternatives to current practices

An interim report shall be presented to CC:DA at the 2001 Midwinter Meeting in Washington, D.C. The final report of the Task Force shall be presented at the 2001 Annual Conference in San Francisco and shall be sent to the Chair of CC:DA no later than June 1, 2001.

Larsgaard moves that CC:DA establish such a task force. Beacom seconds the motion. Vote to approve is 7-0.

691. Agenda item 16. Report from the Task Force on an Appendix of Major/Minor Changes : Lindlan

Task Force Chair Kristin Lindlan said she would begin by making a few general comments, and would then go through the Appendix item by item. She asked other Task Force members present to participate in the discussion as she went along. Lindlan thanked all of the task force members for their work, and said that the task force was grateful for the work of earlier CC:DA task forces and other groups (see Report, p. 1, para. 2).

The purpose of the Appendix, Lindlan said, is to provide catalogers with guidance on when to create a new record for a resource, and conversely, when to handle changes with notes in the existing record. She said that, for the most part, the task force had documented existing practice.

The task force’s initial discussion focused on expression-level records and manifestation-level records. After some discussion, the task force agreed that it would draft its guidelines within the context of the existing cataloging code, which is based on manifestation-level records. Lindlan said that the task force supports the idea of a future experiment comparing manifestation-level and expression-level cataloging for the purpose of adding further guidelines to the Appendix.

Lindlan said the task force had included in its report (p. 2) abbreviated FRBR definitions for the terms “manifestation,” “expression,” and “work,” and borrowed definitions for “finite resource,” “continuing resource,” “integrating resource,” and “serial” from Jean Hirons’ report, “Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality.” She said that there had been discussion about whether to use the term “finite resource” or “monograph” in the Appendix, and that the task force had decided to use “finite resource.”

The report includes a section on reproductions, Lindlan reported, and the task force has identified some issues to be addressed by a future version of the Appendix on Major/Minor Changes.

Lindlan said that the task force had decided that differences between elements of the description for the parts of a multipart item or between the parts of multipart issues would not constitute major changes, and that the Appendix’s basic guidelines would include the instruction “in any case of doubt, consider a change to be minor.” She said that the latter instruction followed the recommendation of the Hirons Seriality report, and represented a change from the current code, which instructs catalogers to consider a change to be major in case of doubt.

John Attig said he wanted to congratulate the task force on having completed its task, and said that he had two general comments on the Appendix, though he recognized that it might not be possible to rework the Appendix to address his concerns.

The first comment, he said, was that “phrasing this in terms of changes implies that there is an order in which we do it, and what we’re really talking about is differences. There are two things you’re comparing and they are different. It’s a different way of looking at it, and I think there are some cases where it isn’t really a change.”

Attig said that his second comment was that there are a couple of places within the Appendix that address changes in the cataloger’s description of an item, rather than true changes in the underlying facts of the item in hand. He cited the instructions in E.3.1C General material designation (p. 5) as an example where the phrasing in the Appendix suggests that a change in the description of an item, without changes to the item itself, could cause a new record to be created.

Schiff asked for clarification of the sentence “Do not consider differences only between elements of the description for the parts of a multipart item or between the parts of multipart issues of a serial as major changes” in item number 3 under E.2 BASIC GUIDELINES (p. 4). He said that it was not clear to him how the phrase “or between the parts of multipart issues of a serial” in the second part of the instruction related to serials in which the title changes, but the numbering continues the numbering of the former title.

Mangan said that she thought the guideline had been included as an extension of the discussion about multipart monographs, during which it had been concluded that changes within the parts of a multipart monograph would not be considered major, and that perhaps the guideline had been included to cover that category if it exists in the serial world.

Lindlan said that she would go back and look at the task force’s discussions to see what had been intended by that phrase, and would reword the guideline as necessary to make it clearer.

Schiff said that he thought there might be a problem with the instructions for Finite resource under E.3.1B Title proper (p. 4). He pointed out that while the first sentence of these instructions says “Generally consider any change in title proper a MAJOR change,” the section directly above instructs the cataloger not to consider such a change major in multipart items. He said that a user of the Appendix reading this instruction would have to remember that a different instruction for multipart items had been given above, which might be a problem. He also suggested that this might be problematic in the case where a user of the Appendix goes directly to the rule, without having read the basic guidelines.

Lindlan said that the task force had considered this problem, and had decided that they did not want to repeat the general instruction for multipart items in each section of the Appendix, but she said that perhaps they could reconsider that decision.

Lindlan said that in the instructions for serials in E.3.1B Title proper (p. 4-5), the task force had differed with the recommendations in the Hirons’ Seriality report in item b), where the task force added the word “substantially” before “different subject matter,” and in item f), where they added the condition “the only change is that words that link the title to the chronologic or numeric designation are added, changed, or dropped.” The task force had also added two guidelines that were not in the Seriality report for when to consider a change in title proper minor, Lindlan reported. Both of these reflect existing practice, she said.

Glazier said that he agreed with Attig’s point that what the Appendix was presenting as one situation was actually two separate situations: one in which the cataloger is faced with two different manifestations of a finite resource, and the other in which the cataloger is faced with two different pieces of the same continuing resource. So, one case is ’changes within the resource,’ and the other is ’differences between two different manifestations.’ He suggested that the Appendix as currently worded might be confusing to catalogers who do not understand this concept.

Schiff asked Glazier if he was suggesting that there be a separate section of the Appendix solely for finite resources, with guidelines on when to make a new record for a new manifestation of a given finite resource, and then another section addressing changes in continuing resources?

Glazier said that he was not sure whether that was the way to address the problem, but that he wanted to make sure the committee recognized that there was a problem. He said that the title of the Appendix, “Major/Minor Changes,” implied that it only applied to cases where there were changes within the run of a continuing resource, since finite resources do not normally ’change’ but rather appear later as different manifestations, editions, etc.

Schiff pointed out that there was also the third case, in which you have an integrating resource that has been replaced by a later version.

Lindlan said that perhaps the task force could add another guideline to address this confusion.

Tillett commented that another problem we might run into later on if we draft this appendix in terms of these three categories (finite resource, integrating resource, and serial) is that there are also integrating resources that are finite, so perhaps we should be stepping back and rethinking the structure of the Appendix, and considering perhaps rewriting it in terms of four categories of resources: single-part monographs, multipart items, integrating resources, and serials.

Tillett also suggested that perhaps the Appendix could be simplified by making it focus only on major changes, rather than attempting to describe all of the possible changes that could be considered minor.

Tillett noted that the Task Force’s Appendix was full of wonderful basic principles that could be pulled from here and added to the introduction of the code, which is where the JSC is planning to put some of these statements eventually. Then it could perhaps be reiterated here in the Appendix.

Task force member Mary Woodley commented from the floor that the task force had been concerned that just having the instruction in the basic guidelines “when in doubt, consider a change to be minor” would be too vague for a lot of catalogers, and that a lot of catalogers would want examples of what kinds of changes could be considered minor.

Lindlan said that the Task Force had also been concerned about catalogers who do not have access to all of the LC documentation.

Hixson said that she agreed with Woodley’s comment from the floor that catalogers would find the elucidation of what changes to consider minor very helpful.

Attig said that comments here at this meeting were beginning to make it seem that what CC:DA was prepared to present to the JSC was only an interim report on the work that had been done so far on an Appendix of Major/Minor Changes, and asked Tillett to comment on how she thought the JSC would react to the suggestion that further work needs to done on this.

Tillett replied that she thought that would be fine, but that it would be very helpful for the members of the JSC to have some sort of a document that they could share with their constituents to show them the direction that CC:DA is headed in with this.

Kinney pointed out that the impetus for this task force’s charge was a request from the JSC to draft this kind of appendix. He said that the JSC had asked for this in the same spirit as they had asked for the report on 0.24, that is, just as a means of getting the process started. Kinney said the question before CC:DA now was whether or not to try to meet ALA Representative to the JSC Brian Schottlaender’s deadline of August 7 for submitting something to the JSC to consider at their next meeting.

Tillett said that she would strongly encourage the Committee to do so.

Attig said that what CC:DA would be prepared to submit to the JSC would most likely be this document, along with some indication of what further work might be done on it. Would that be all right?

Tillett said that it would.

Hixson said that she would not want to ask the Task Force to completely revamp this document without first hearing comments from the JSC on the work that had been done so far.

Larsgaard said that she agreed with Hixson, and pointed out that the task force clearly had written this document as an information document, and had even stated in the introduction that they would not be able to produce a complete draft appendix without first hearing the results of several issues on the table at the next meeting of the JSC, and at the harmonization meetings, etc. She suggested that the committee consider the document a discussion paper.

Glazier said that he agreed, and that the report should be forwarded to the JSC, perhaps along with an excerpt of the minutes from this meeting.

Schiff said that he agreed, but that the committee should nevertheless complete its review of the rest of the document at this meeting.

The committee agreed that this was a good idea.

E.3.1C General material designation
Schiff said that he agreed with Attig’s comment that perhaps this area should be rephrased to apply to the underlying characteristics of the item in hand, rather than to the catalog description of the item.

Lindlan said that the task force would rephrase or remove the area, and pointed out that the task force had debated whether to even include this area, and had finally decided to leave it just to refer catalogers who might look here to E.3.5B.

Patton pointed out the further problem that there are two lists of GMDs in AACR2, and that there are GMDs in existing records that have been superseded by GMDs with new wordings that in fact represent the same carrier.

E.3.1E Other title information
Schiff noted that the instruction under Finite resource was to consider a change in other title information a major change only in the presence of an indication of a change in content, and pointed out that there are many instances when a subtitle changes, and that in itself is enough indication for most catalogers to judge that a new edition was in hand. Do we want to change our current practice with regard to this?

Schiff also pointed out that the instruction to consider a change in content should be understood as a necessary step in each of the sections of the Appendix, so perhaps a more general rule at the beginning of the instructions should cover this.

E.3.1F Statements of responsibility
Attig noted that that a change in the statement of responsibility for a finite resource was to be considered a major change, and asked if that included a change in the order of names in the statement of responsibility.

Lindlan noted Attig’s comment.

Larsgaard pointed out that if the definition of “integrating resource” is approved as is, some items that are now considered finite resources in certain areas, such as map series in cartographic materials, will become integrating resources. In map series, she said, a change in statement of responsibility should be considered major (not minor as the Appendix instructs for an integrating resource).

Schiff asked Larsgaard to comment on why a map series would constitute an integrating resource, not a multipart finite resource.

Larsgaard explained that map series are issued in sheets that are integrated into the series as they are received.

Mangan said that the thinking of the task force in constructing these rules was that no one rule would be taken in isolation. So while a rule for one area might say to consider a change to be minor, there may be changes elsewhere that will require the cataloger to create a new record.

Schiff said that a statement like Mangan had just made needed to be added above, in the basic guidelines.

Lindlan said that she would add such a statement.

Larsgaard commented that there was still a problem in E.3.1F because a change in the statement of responsibility in a map series, from, for example “by the Army Map Service” to “by the Defense Mapping Agency” should be considered a major change.

Attig said that in item a) under finite resource, the statement following the comma in “Numbered edition statements, provided there is also other wording indicating a change in content (e.g., corrected, enlarged, with a new introduction, etc.)” was a departure from current practice. (Current practice would have the cataloger consider a new, sequentially higher, numbered edition statement to constitute a major change, regardless of whether it included words like corrected, enlarged, with a new introduction, etc., or not.)

Attig said he was pointing this out not to argue against the practice prescribed in the Appendix, but rather to point out that if the task force was intending to codify existing practice, they were not doing so in this case.

Hixson said that whether the current rules reflect the practice prescribed by item a) here or not, she concurred with the instruction in item a), and would like to see it go forward.

Beacom said that he usually considered the presence of the phrase “second edition” on an item to be a clear indication that the content had changed in some way, regardless of whether words like revised, enlarged, with a new introduction, etc. were present or not, and that he would want to continue creating a new record for such an item. He suggested that item a) be removed from this section of the Appendix.

Hixson said that her experience cataloging Romance-language publications would lead her to disagree with Beacom’s opinion on the meaning of “second edition.”

Beacom said that the difference in meanings of “edition” in different languages was a perfect example of the problem with trying to create a list such as this one. That is, that we are trying to make a mechanical process out of one that is inherently a very intellectual process.

Jizba said that the task force was well aware of the problem of the different meanings of “edition” in different languages when they created this list, and that the problem, perhaps, was that they had not succeeded in wording this instruction the way they had intended.

Kelley said that it was clear that the result of this discussion was that item a) would have to be reworded, and suggested that the committee move on to the next point.

Attig said that one final statement he wanted to make on this point was that there was a lot of virtue in having an instruction in the cataloging code that instructs the cataloger to determine whether a statement is a printing statement or an edition statement, and then proceeding from there.

Hixson said that the problem with that approach is that it assumes that any cataloger who picks up a book from any part of the world will implicitly understand publication patterns in that part of the world.

Wise said that he was obligated to say at this point that he had received by e-mail a number of passionate statements from music catalogers in opposition to the instruction under Finite resources (applicable only for the following classes of materials) that a difference in musical presentation statement be considered a minor change.

Wise went on to say that he thought the music catalogers who had responded to this instruction had fallen into the trap that Mangan pointed out of looking at this provision in isolation, and that they were not aware of all of the other instructions in the Appendix.

Wise said that certainly if a musical presentation statement changed from “Vocal score” to “Full score,” that should constitute a major change, but that if such a change were to occur, it would also be reflected in the physical description or the edition statement. He said that he and some other Music Library Association members had held an ad hoc meeting on Saturday night to talk about this, and they had concluded that the only change in musical presentation statement that might occur without changes elsewhere would be a change in the language of the statement, e.g., from “Study score” to “Studium-Partitur,” and that such a change could be considered minor if it occurred without other changes.

In conclusion, Wise said, the Music Library Association supported this section of the Appendix, but thought that there needed to be more education about how to apply the Appendix.

Schiff noted that the guidelines under E.3.4F Date of publication, distribution, etc. were phrased in terms of differences in publication date, and asked if differences in inferred dates would also qualify for these provisions.

Lindlan said that they would.

Schiff also noted that his institution had a policy whereby they create new records for newly received sets of encyclopedias where the only change is a change in the copyright date (because these usually don’t include edition statements, and it is impracticable to compare all of the articles in an encyclopedia against an earlier set). He said he didn’t know whether other institutions had a similar policy, but that the rules for date of copyright here did not make it clear whether a change in copyright date constituted a major or minor change.

Yee pointed out that AACR2, in its definition of “edition” for nonbook materials, says that a mere change in distributor should not be considered a change of edition. She said that if the Appendix is meant to reflect what the current rules say, it might be wise to at least mention that. Yee went on to say that, judging from the records in OCLC, the current provision in the glossary regarding a change in distributors of a videocassette was not being widely followed, and that it might be a healthy change to stop creating a new record for the same videocassette every time there is a change of distributor.

Attig asked why, under E.3.5C Other physical details, the provision for cartographic materials regarding scale was placed here.

Mangan responded that this was a cut-and-paste error, and that instead of “any change in scale,” the phrase should be “any change in other physical details.”

With regard to E.3.5B Extent of item, Schiff noted that in integrating resources, there are sometimes changes in the extent of item that are not captured in the extent of item statement. For example, a loose-leaf publication may have a lot of pages added to it that substantially change the content of the publication, but the extent statement (1 v.) does not change.

Mangan said that this is the kind of change that would have to be discovered elsewhere in order for a new record to be created.

Schiff also pointed out that, in E.3.5C Other physical details, while good examples of changes in some material types were provided, others (e.g., “black & white vs. color in a microform original) were not, and that more complete guidance might be desirable here on what kinds of changes in the other physical details of various materials should be considered major changes.

No comments from the committee.

Attig asked why the guidelines end after area 6. Why are there no guidelines for areas 7 and 8?

Mangan said that there was no area 7 in the Appendix because the point of the Appendix was to describe changes that might occur in an item, not in the catalog record for an item, and a note was not something that occurred in or on the item itself.

With regard to area 8, Attig suggested that for completeness, something should be said about how to treat a change in standard number.

Lindlan said that this section had been added by the task force just to show how this topic might be treated in an Appendix on Major/Minor Changes, and also to put into writing the practice that is now being followed by catalogers of reproductions.

Schiff pointed out that the list of candidates for cataloging as reproductions included “tape dubs,” but that there were various other kinds of dubs, so perhaps a broader term than “tape dubs” might be called for here.

Beacom said that he read the instruction in E.4.b.1 that the cataloger consider the absence or presence of a reproduction note to mean the absence or presence of a reproduction note in the catalog record for an item. Was this indeed the intent here? Or was the task force referring to the absence or presence of such a note on the item itself?

Woodley said that this section of the Appendix was adapted from OCLC’s guidelines on when to create a new record, and she believed that OCLC was referring to the absence or presence of a reproduction note in the catalog record.

Cynthia Whitacre confirmed that OCLC was indeed referring to reproduction notes in the catalog record in this section of their documentation.

Beacom said that, in that case, he disagreed with the inclusion of this provision in the Appendix. He said that he agreed with Attig’s earlier point that the Appendix should address underlying changes in the characteristics of the item being cataloged, and not changes from the way the item was described in an earlier catalog record for it.

Lindlan said that she agreed with Beacom’s point, and would strike this section from the Appendix.

Attig asked whether, in the Serial paragraph, the task force might want to consider changing the phrase “among issues or volumes” to “among issues or parts,” since “volume” tends to be construed more narrowly than “part.”

Lindlan noted the comment.

Schiff pointed out that in E.5.3.1, item c) under Serial could be eliminated if the phrase “or such that a corporate body used as a qualifier in the uniform title main entry” were added to item a).

Attig said that his problem with this whole section was that it was hard to imagine a case where changes like the ones described here would not have been captured by one of the guidelines in the descriptive section.

Beacom said that he thought this section on access points was once again referring to cataloger-supplied facts about an item, rather than inherent characteristics of the item, and said that he would like to see this section eliminated, or rewritten in terms that focus on the characteristics of the item itself.

Kinney asked the committee to decide at this point how to proceed with the task force’s report.

Beacom moves that CC:DA forward the report to the JSC by the August 7 deadline, along with notes of the Committee’s discussion of it. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; motion is approved by a vote of 7-0.

692. Agenda item 17. Rule change proposals for cartographic materians: Mangan

Mangan said that she had two comments on the package that was discussed and forwarded to the JSC following Midwinter. One was an omission, which committee members might want to note: in the proposed change for 3.3C2, two words which are to be stricken from the new rule, “for example,” were inadvertently left out of the proposed rule.

Mangan said that the other was a little more problematic, and she was not sure how to handle it. After she had put together the second package of proposals, she said, which was the package that the committee would be looking at today, she had decided that MAGERT did not really want to do what they were proposing to do in rule 3.3D2, which was to change the use of “chart” to try to incorporate the word “map.” Instead, they decided to create a glossary definition. Mangan said that her way of undoing this rule was to ask the other countries to simply say in their responses to the JSC that they did not agree with this rule, and to get it withdrawn that way. She said that Schottlaender had told her that MAGERT could withdraw the proposal, and she was not sure whether she could just withdraw it, or …

Tillett indicated that, yes, Mangan could just withdraw the proposal herself at this point. Mangan said that she would do so. Mangan said she would now move on to the package of proposals on today’s meeting’s agenda.

  • 3.0A1
    Mangan said that this rule revision proposal was dealing with changes in the notes area and the glossary. The changes are fairly minor, she said.

    Mangan said that when she looked at the language in the glossary, she noticed that it was also the language in the scope note, and therefore the error in the use of the word “navigational” was there as well, so she was proposing that the word “nautical” be substituted, since all charts are used for navigation, not just nautical charts.

  • 3.7B2
    Mangan said that this proposal had occurred her to her when she was going through the rules, and noticed this awkward-sounding note. So she was just attempting here to reword the note into a form that a cataloger would actually use.

      English, eExcept for title and “La mer du Nord” the map is in English

  • 3.7B8
    Mangan said that this proposal reflected the changes that were approved in the first package to change the term “Scales vary” to “Scales differ.” This note uses this language.

  • 3.7B10
    Mangan said that this proposal was based on MAGERT’s request in the first package to add two new rules dealing with the other physical details area.

    MAGERT was asking that some of the examples that are in the notes area be included in the other physical details area. Therefore, they were modifying the rule to say that if you have used a generic term such as photocopy, you can expand on the generic name for the process in the notes area. Also, they are proposing that two examples be stricken, Mangan said.

  • 3.7B12
    Mangan said that this was an example where the term “map” is used for the thing one is cataloging, as well as for the maps that are within the thing one is cataloging.

    While this note is possible, Mangan said, if you were cataloging an atlas, you would say that only some maps contain something, but usually that would not be a series designation that only some maps in an atlas contained a series designation. It’s more likely to be maps in a map set or a map series, and in that case map catalogers call those “sheets.”

  • Glossary
    Mangan said that in the glossary, MAGERT was modifying the definition of “Cartographic material” to say “nautical” instead of navigational; adding a definition for “Chart (Cartography),” with a see also reference to “Map”; and adding a see also reference from “Map” to “Chart (Cartography).”

    Schiff said that Mangan should remove the comma following “navigation” in the proposed definition for “Chart (Cartography).”

Beacom pointed out typographical errors in the spelling of “description” in bold face in rule 3.7B10 in both the current rule and proposed rule.

Tillett commented that the example that Mangan had reworded in 3.7B2 would sound better if she worded it “In English, ... .”

    In English, eExcept for title and “La mer du Nord” the map is in English

Schiff moves that CC:DA accept the package of rule revision proposals with the amendments that have been discussed. Larsgaard seconds the motion. No discussion; vote to approve is 7-0.

693. Agenda item 18. Report of the Task Force on Metadata: Larsgaard

Larsgaard reported that the final report of the Task Force on Metadata had been due to the Chair on June 1. Larsgaard said that though she had gotten the draft report to Kinney on May 31, she had not gotten the final report to him until June 16. She said she wished to thank Attig for getting the report up on the ALCTS Web site so promptly.

Larsgaard said that she had given a report on the task force’s work to the ALCTS Networked Resources and Metadata Committee on Sunday morning. She said that the NRMC had discussed the task force’s recent work, and also its recommendations for future work, and it looked like the NMRC would be concentrating on a few of the items that the task force had recommended in its final report as deserving further attention.

Specifically, Larsgaard said, the committee was interested in the idea of a seamless interface over many different sorts of databases; work on the conceptual map to understand exactly what information we are talking about; and, the non-standard (at least from our point of view) metadata schemas and how to deal with these. Again, this last point links back into the seamless interface.

Larsgaard said that the NRMC would also be taking on what she calls the maintenance work — “maintenance” because it is continual — of informing the JSC and MARBI of changes that need to be made to AACR2 and MARC21 in order to make cataloging of Web resources not just possible, but also logical and efficient. Larsgaard said that she had also given a report on this at the MARBI meeting on Saturday.

Larsgaard reported that the Task Force on Metadata had been formed in the summer of 1998, continuing the work of a previous CC:DA task force on metadata [Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules], chaired by Sherry Kelley, and had had its last meeting at Midwinter 2000.

Larsgaard said that she would summarize the task force’s five charges and its responses to the charges.

The first charge, she said, was to analyze resource description needs of libraries. The group had done this, Larsgaard said, by defining the existing principles of the purpose of the catalog, defining users and their expectations, and looking at the context in which information resources are described.

The second charge was to build a conceptual map of the resource description terrain landscape. The conceptual map is currently maintained by Diane Hillmann at Cornell. Larsgaard said that she had suggested to the NRMC that they speak to Hillmann and ask her if she would be willing to continue to maintain this.

Attig noted that he was also Webmaster for NRMC, and said that since Diane Hillmann would be away from her work site for a while, and was expecting to have server problems, he would be gathering the conceptual map and all other documents of interest to NRMC on the Web in a place where they would be accessible to NRMC members.

The third charge, Larsgaard continued, was to devise a definition of metadata and investigate the interoperability of newly emerging metadata schemas. The group did indeed formulate definitions for “metadata”, “interoperability,” and for the phrase “metadata scheme.” There were presentations on the relationship between XML, RDF, and MARC21 at the 1999 Annual Conference, and on Dublin Core at 2000 Annual. Larsgaard noted that the presentation at 1999 Annual by Eric Miller of OCLC and Diane Hillmann of Cornell was so helpful that it became one of the papers at this year’s metadata preconference.

In reference to formulating a definition for metadata, Larsgaard said that she wanted to note that she had read in the JSC’s minutes that the JSC had rejected the idea of putting a definition of metadata in the AACR2 glossary on the grounds that it was a generally understood term. Larsgaard said that she had suggested to the NRMC that, since there seems to be such a lack of understanding-or at least such difference of opinion-within the library community on the meaning of metadata, it would be beneficial for the NRMC to take another try at this. Larsgaard noted that at one of the coffee breaks at the metadata preconference, one of the participants had intimated to her that he or she, and several other people that that person had been speaking to during the coffee break, did not know what metadata means.

Larsgaard said she had also pointed out to the NRMC that JSC had recently changed its previous stand on not having two spellings for disc/disk (the two have now been accepted); this means it is worth NRMC’s time to look into getting a definition for metadata into AACR’s glossary.

Tillett said that she wanted to make a clarification in regard to Larsgaard’s characterization of the JSC’s reasoning in its decision on “metadata” as a glossary term in the AACR. Tillett said that the JSC’s position on glossary terms is that when there is a standard dictionary definition that is used in common practice, the JSC does not attempt to copy that definition into the glossary of AACR2. She said that, in this case, the JSC felt that the standard dictionaries that are being used in electronic information fields do have a standard definition for metadata that covers it already. She went on to say that if the NRMC comes up with a definition that is different, and one that specifically addresses metadata from a cataloging perspective, that definition would certainly be considered by the JSC for inclusion in the AACR2 glossary.

Larsgaard said that the task force’s fourth charge was to recommend ways in which libraries may best incorporate the use of metadata schemas into the current library methods of resource description and resource discovery. The task force listed and defined possible prototypes. A study of major prototypes, which was very speedily and very well done by Steven Miller and Mary Woodley was given at 2000 Midwinter.

The fifth charge was to recommend, as needed, rule revision to enable interoperability of AACR2 with metadata schemas. Larsgaard said she wanted to reiterate here that at the time the Metadata Task Force was formed, there were no active CC:DA task forces working on metadata issues, but that during the time that the Task Force on Metadata was working, several task forces were formed by CC:DA to work on issues related to cataloging digital data, and several members of the Metadata Task Force were active on these other task forces.

Larsgaard reported in closing that the Task Force on Metadata has now handed over the baton to the ALCTS Networked Resources and Metadata Committee (NRMC).

Beacom asked Larsgaard to elaborate on what she meant when she said that the task force has “handed over the baton” to the NRMC.

Larsgaard said that at the end of the summary of the task force’s work in her final report, Larsgaard had stated that the Metadata Task Force was handing over its unfinished work to the NRMC, and pointed out that library efforts to deal with metadata are ongoing, and that we in ALCTS are not even in partial control of the matter. She said she had pointed out that this was an area that was going to require continued discussion, research, and action for some time to come, and since there was an ALCTS standing committee that deals with metadata, it made sense to hand over the Metadata Task Force’s unfinished work to the standing committee, particularly those areas that Larsgaard had identified in her report as unfinished work.

These areas, Larsgaard said, are: to analyze resource description needs in terms of future needs; to develop the conceptual map, including developing models for accessing and using metadata based on this map; to propose a definition of the word “metadata” for the glossary of AACR2R; to consider changes to AACR2R and MARC21 that are required in order to catalog digital data correctly and quickly; to continue to work with implementing seamless data interfaces; and, to work on the matter of how library cataloging relates to the larger world of metadata and metadata schemas.

Larsgaard said she was very pleased to report that the NRMC agreed with the task force on most points, and was willing to take up the unfinished work of the task force.

Ann Sandberg-Fox [Chair of ALCTS/NRMC] said that she wanted to thank Larsgaard for her report on Saturday to the NRMC. She said that she had passed around sign-up sheets at that meeting for task forces to address three of the Metadata Task Force’s charges, and that NRMC members seemed very enthusiastic about taking on the work.

694. Agenda item 19. Report from the OCLC Representative: Patton

Patton said that he had started with a long list of things he wanted to report to CC:DA on, but had decided that there was one thing that was much more important than the others, and that was the recent implementation of OCLC’s CORC as a production database.

Patton said that part of the effort of moving the CORC service into production involved synchronizing the separate CORC database with OCLC’s primary bibliographic database, WorldCat. One of the results of that is that records created in CORC as Dublin Core records have now been integrated with the bibliographic records in WorldCat that were created with cataloging standards. That was accomplished, Patton said, with a Dublin-Core-to-MARC21 crosswalk that was developed collaboratively with the Library of Congress. Patton said it was probably too soon to tell how users of WorldCat would react to that.

An attendee asked from the floor whether there was an encoding level in the MARC records in WorldCat for these records created in Dublin Core in CORC that identified them as such.

Patton responded that these records were encoded with encoding level “3,” and that each contained an 042 field with the value “dc.”

Mangan asked Patton how OCLC was distinguishing these level-3 records from other level-3 records that are created in MARC21.

Patton replied that this was being done only with the “dc” value in the 042 field.

695. Agenda item 20. Report on Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early-Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM): Maxwell

    [Related document: ftp://165.134/145.3/vatican/]

Robert Maxwell, liaison to CC:DA from ALA/ACRL, said that he was presenting a request from the ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section’s Bibliographic Standards Committee.

Maxwell explained that the Bibliographic Standards Committee is the co-author, along with the Library of Congress, of Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books, which are the rules for cataloging rare books, and an extension of AACR2R rules 2.12-2.18. He noted that the rules 2.12-2.18 in AACR2 are almost universally not used.

Maxwell reported that the Bibliographic Standards Committee had recently completed a set of rules for cataloging ancient, medieval, Renaissance, and early-modern manuscripts, with Gregory Pass as the main author. These types of manuscripts, Maxwell reported, are books, but they are not printed. On the other hand, they are manuscripts, but not necessarily archival manuscripts in the traditional sense. Therefore, there has long been a need for standardized cataloging rules for these.

Maxwell reported that in 1996, a group called Electronic Access to Medieval Manuscripts was formed to enhance access, through electronic means, to catalog records for these manuscripts. These rules were initiated at that time.

Maxwell said that the ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section’s Bibliographic Standards Committee would now like to request that CC:DA perform a review of the rules. Maxwell said that the Bibliographic Standards Committee wanted the rules to conform to AACR2 as much as possible, both in the rules parallel to AACR2 rules, and in the expansions. Maxwell said he had already given CC:DA Chair Kinney a list of non-CC:DA members who would be qualified to evaluate the rules, and that he was now asking for CC:DA’s review.

Attig asked for a clarification of which version of Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early-Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM) the Bibliographic Standards Committee wanted reviewed.

Maxwell replied that it will be version 12.

Beacom moved that CC:DA form a task force review version 12 of Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early-Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM). Kinney seconded the motion. No discussion; vote to form task force is 7-0.

Kinney thanked Maxwell for his report, and circulated a sign-up sheet for additional volunteers to serve on the task force.

696. Agenda item 21. Nonroman headings as optional access points in bibliographic and authority records: Chair/Elman

Kinney reminded the committee that at Midwinter 1999, James Agenbroad had presented to CC:DA rule revision proposals for six rules-four rules that were for chapters 22-25 dealing with forms of headings, and two rules for Chapter 26 dealing with references. CC:DA had then asked the Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials (CC:AAM) for some input, and CC:AAM had sent CC:DA the report Final report of the CC:AAM Non-Roman Access Points Subcommittee. Kinney asked ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM liaison Sarah Su-erh Elman to speak to the committee about that report.

Elman reported that the Non-Roman Access Points Subcommittee of CC:AAM had examined the documents listed in the report, and some other e-mails messages that are not listed, and had discussed the issue in CC:AAM meetings at ALA Annual in 1999 and at ALA Midwinter in 2000.

In principle, Elman said, CC:AAM supports the idea of including additional nonroman access points in both bibliographic and authority records to facilitate the retrieval of items in nonroman scripts. The subcommittee agrees, Elman said, that Mr. Agenbroad’s proposal has merit, but feels that it does not adequately address all of the broader issues surrounding the use of additional non-roman headings and references in library catalogs.

Some of these issues, Elman said, include the current inability of library systems to manage nonroman- script data, and the lack of adequate provisions for integrating non-roman headings into the current concept of authority control.

Elman said that the subcommittee had come up with three recommendations. These are that CC:DA temporarily table the rule revision proposals; closely monitor the activities of the MARBI Multilingual Records Task Force; and, reopen the discussion at a later time, perhaps after ALA Annual in 2001, at which time the MARBI Multilingual Records Task Force is scheduled to have finished its report on multilingual issues related to MARC21, and at which time CC:DA can consider how that completed MARBI report relates to other work in progress at MARBI, PCC, and in some groups that are part of IFLA. The subcommittee suggests, Elman said, that at that time CC:DA can work with Mr. Agenbroad and reevaluate Mr. Agenbroad’s proposals in light of the aforementioned work.

In closing, Elman said that CC:AAM and the Non-Roman Access Points Subcommittee wanted to thank Mr. Agenbroad for his efforts in promoting awareness of issues related to cataloging nonroman-script materials, and said that CC:AAM and the Non-Roman Access Points Subcommittee looked forward to working with Mr. Agenbroad in the future.

Kinney thanked Elman for her report, and asked her to thank CC:AAM on behalf of CC:DA.

Attig commented that he was not convinced that the problems with authority record structure and MARC format coding needed to be solved before CC:DA could decide what the descriptive conventions ought to be. Attig said he doubted that those discussions would tell CC:DA much that would change its thinking on the descriptive issues, and pointed out that when problems are addressed in this fashion (i.e. when MARBI decides the coding and then tells CC:DA after the fact), CC:DA usually complains that MARBI should have waited for CC:DA to give guidance on what the rules will say about it.

Schiff said he agreed with Attig that the code need not wait for MARBI action before making a statement that as a matter of principle, nonroman access points can be provided if a library wishes to provide them.

Larsgaard said she concurred with Attig and Schiff, especially since what was being discussed was an option, and also an important step toward providing access to users who search with nonroman scripts.

Attig pointed out that the whole effort being undertaken at MARBI in regard to this was proceeding under the assumption that CC:DA wants this to be possible, so it might be a good idea for CC:DA to go ahead and make a statement to that effect at this point.

Schiff said he wondered how the committee felt about the alternative proposal of just adding the single rule to Chapter 20. [cf. CC:DA/Agenbroad/2]

Kinney said that the committee had an either/or choice of whether to table the Agenbroad proposals, as the report from CC:AAM recommended, or to form a task force to explore either one or both of the proposals that Agenbroad submitted.

MARBI Chair Bruce Chr. Johnson commented from the floor that it was not at all certain that any MARBI action was forthcoming on this issue, and that as a general principle, it is always better for CC:DA to decide what it wants to accomplish, and to then approach MARBI with the issue and let MARBI figure out how it will be accomplished in MARC format and library systems.

Schiff moves that CC:DA approve CC:DA/Agenbroad/2 revised as follows:

    20.5 Nonroman access points. Optionally, when technically feasible libraries whose collections include and whose clientele seek items in nonroman scripts should may assign nonroman access points to records of such items. Apply the relevant rules of chapters 21-26 and the conventions of reference tools on persons, corporate bodies and titles using nonroman scripts to determine the choice and form of such access points and of cross references to them.

Larsgaard seconds the motion.

Glazier commented that he would go even further than Schiff had proposed in revising the proposed new paragraph at 20.5. He said he would suggest rewording the first sentence to simply say: “Optionally, assign nonroman access points for resources in non-Roman scripts.” Glazier said that he thought the rest of the sentence was implied and not necessary.

Elman pointed out that what was originally being proposed by Agenbroad was that nonroman access points be allowed in addition to the roman-alphabet headings that they parallel, and suggested that the wording being proposed did not make that clear.

Glazier mentioned that the report of the subcommittee contained some quotes from his RLG colleague Joan Aliprand that point out problems with including nonroman access points in bibliographic and authority records.

Tillett said she wanted to point out that this is something that IFLA has been addressing for some time, and that she has served on several committees that are looking into this, as well. The approach that IFLA is taking, Tillett said, is that formats — both UNIMARC and MARC — already accommodate this kind of capability. We have the 7xx field in MARC21 that already allows for this, she said, and in fact, there are some countries that are already experimenting with doing this. Tillett cited as an example a consortium in Hong Kong that is considering this issue at the moment, and has suggested using the Chinese characters in their 1xx fields, and then, for example, the LC form in a 7xx field, with the text string, as well as the LC control number as a “number linking device” for two authorized forms according to different scripts.

Another possibility, Tillett continued, is that two authorized forms according to different languages may need to be linked within a given record, and this is another experiment that an IFLA group is doing with the Deutsche Bibliothek. They are doing this in their format, putting the LC form in what is equivalent to a 7xx field.

Larsgaard asked the rest of the committee whether CC:DA would need to recommend rule changes in chapters 22-25 if it were to recommend the rule change now being discussed.

Kinney said that the motion on the floor at the moment did not require it, but said that if Schiff withdrew the motion, the committee could instead vote to set up a task force to further study the issues with these two proposals if it thought that would be a better course of action.

Schiff said that it seemed to him that as an interim measure, this one rule might obviate the need for adding rules to all the other chapters, and suggested that CC:DA could send it to the JSC, who might send it back and ask that CC:DA do more research on the issue, but at least CC:DA could put the ball in play now.

Kinney asked Schiff to restate the proposal with the changes in wording that had been proposed in this discussion since Schiff’s original motion. Schiff said that the proposed addition to chapter 20 would now read:

    20.5 Nonroman access points. Optionally, assign nonroman access points for resources in nonroman scripts. Apply the relevant rules of chapters 21-26 and the conventions of reference tools on persons, corporate bodies and titles using nonroman scripts to determine the choice and form of such access points and of cross references to them.

Attig pointed out that this proposal as presently worded addressed resources in nonroman scripts. Was the committee sure that it did not want to word the proposal to instead address the addition of names in nonroman scripts to records?

Mangan suggested the wording “Optionally, assign nonroman access points as appropriate” for the first sentence.

Schiff said that he could accept that wording. He added that it had just occurred to him that we might want to also add the phrase “… and make references as appropriate.”

Tillett pointed out that adding nonroman references was already allowed in the code.

Schiff said that in that case, the phrase “… and make references as appropriate” would not be necessary.

    20.5 Nonroman access points. Optionally, assign nonroman access points. Apply the relevant rules of chapters 21-26 and the conventions of reference tools on persons, corporate bodies and titles using nonroman scripts to determine the choice and form of such access points and of cross references to them.

Vote to accept proposal and forward it to the JSC is 7-0.

Kinney thanked James Agenbroad, who was in attendance as an audience member, for submitting his proposal.

697. Agenda item 22. Report from the floor, announcement of next meeting, and adjournment : Chair

Kelley reminded the committee that at the CC:DA meeting on Saturday, there had been discussion about ALA Editions’ promise at Midwinter to make the 1999 Amendments package available in a timely manner. She reported that representatives from ALA Editions had attended the Sunday meeting of ALCTS/CCS, and had responded to these concerns, saying that the package was now available. Kelley said that CCS had not yet been able to confirm that fact.

ALA Editions representative Don Chatham, who was in attendance as an audience member, said that the package was indeed available now. He detailed the technical complications that had arisen since he had spoken at the Midwinter CC:DA meeting, and said that the package was now very much available at:

There are three options for accessing the 1999 Amendments.

  1. The PDF and disk options are now online at this URL (all lower case):

  2. It is also available at the ALA Online Store by going to the ALA Web site (, then selecting The Marketplace, then the ALA Online Store, then the ALA Books Online button and then the Cataloging & Classification category.

  3. Finally, it is also available at the ALA Editions Web site called Open Stacks, which is contained in the About ALA Editions section of The Marketplace: About ALA Editions, Open Stacks, Beyond the Book, Book Updates.

Chatham said that ALA Editions was now in the process of advertising the availability of the package on several library listservs, and was planning to advertise it through different channels, as well.

Beacom said he wanted to read a resolution on behalf of CC:DA:

    Whereas he has provided CC:DA excellent service since 1997, including the organization of an international conference on AACR2, and

    Whereas under his leadership CC:DA has undertaken substantial revision of AACR2, including Rule 0.24 and ISBD (ER) harmonization, and

    Whereas he has served with equanimity, intelligence, and patience,

    Therefore be it resolved that CC:DA thanks Daniel Kinney for his contributions to CC:DA, and to the national and international cataloging communities, and wishes him well in all his endeavors.

After a sustained round of applause from the committee and all in attendance, Beacom made a motion that CC:DA accept the resolution. Larsgaard seconded the motion. There was no discussion, and the resolution was adopted unanimously.

Kinney thanked the committee and said that it had been a great honor to serve as chair of CC:DA.

Kinney said that he would also like to thank the three voting members of CC:DA who were finishing their terms after this meeting: Wayne Jones, Sherry Kelley, and Matthew Beacom.

Kinney mentioned that Jones had chaired the CC:DA Task Force on Seriality, and had also served as chair of the Task Force on Recommendation 2 in 4JSC/ALA/30. Kinney said that Jones would be continuing his association with CC:DA as the editor of the Metadata Preconference proceedings, and as a member of the reconstituted Seriality Task Force.

Kinney said that Kelley had been one of the important early forces in encouraging CC:DA to investigate metadata, and had submitted a position paper all the way back in 1995 that she had co-authored that suggested that CC:DA work with MARBI on this issue. Kelley also chaired the first CC:DA task force on metadata, the Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules, which submitted that excellent report at ALA Annual in 1998 that recommended some sort of continuing education effort, which, as you know, became the Metadata Preconference to this conference. Kelley will also be continuing her association with CC:DA, Kinney reported, as Chair of the VRA Core Categories Task Force.

Kinney thanked Beacom for his four years of service to CC:DA, and mentioned that Beacom had served on the Metadata Preconference Planning Task Force, was a speaker at the preconference, served on the Task Force on Recommendation 2, on the Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD (ER) and AACR2, on the OPAC Displays Task Force, and on the Metadata and Cataloging Rules Task Force. Kinney said that Beacom would be continuing his association with CC:DA two hours from now as a CC:DA speaker at the joint CC:DA/MARBI meeting this afternoon, and also as a member of two CC:DA task forces.

Kinney said that there was no further business, and asked if there were further comments.

Hearing none, Larsgaard moved that the meeting be adjourned. Beacom seconded the motion. No discussion; vote to adjourn is unanimous.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael Chopey, Intern

Joint Meeting of MARBI and CC:DA

Monday, 10 July 2000, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Chicago, Grand Ballroom A