Minutes of the meeting held at the
|LC Full/Core-Level Cataloging||159,091||148,628|
|TOTAL records created||200,657||196,302|
|TOTAL volumes cataloged||224,544||205,893|
For more information contact: Beacher J. Wiggins, Director for Cataloging, Library of Congress, LM 642, Washington, DC 20540-4300 (telephone: 202-707-5333 or Internet: email@example.com).
NATIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORATE
Cataloging Distribution Service
Pilot Test of World Wide Web Access to Library of Congress Classification. From January 8 - March 30, 2001, the Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) is conducting a pilot test of World Wide Web access to LC Classification schedules. Libraries of all sizes and types are encouraged to try Classification Web during the 90-day test period. The Web address for the pilot is <http://lccweb.net>. Information about the pilot test is also available on the CDS home page at
<http://www.loc.gov/cds>. Additionally, CDS will feature demonstrations of Classification Web at the LC exhibit booth. Should the pilot prove technically and economically feasible, CDS may offer Classification Web on a subscription basis.
Catalogers Desktop and Classification Plus. CDS will conduct training sessions on Catalogers Desktop and Classification Plus on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Tuesday, January 11th, 12th, 13th, and 16th. The training sessions are by reservation only, but continuous demonstrations of both products will be offered at the LC exhibit booth. Times and locations of the training sessions and special presentations in the exhibit booth theater may be found at <http://www.loc.gov/ala>.
MARC 21 and Other New Print Publications. The CDS exhibit booth display will feature the new MARC 21 publications. MARC 21 editions of all of the formats, as well as Update 1 (2000) and updated editions of the code lists, are now available. Other new CDS print publications include Archival Moving Image Materials: A Cataloging Manual, 2nd edition (2000) and new editions of several LC Classification schedules. Please see the CDS Web site at <http://www.loc.gov/cds> for prices and order information.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM
In May 2000, the Library installed the MARC Record Validator software. This software checks for legal MARC 21 values in catalog records by identifying data errors and inconsistencies in records as the records are added to the database, so they may be immediately corrected by the cataloger, thus reducing the cost of quality control activities and improving the timeliness of data corrections. The Library added interfaces to the Electronic Cataloging In Publication (ECIP) to receive digitized publisher data and to the Federal Financial System (FFS) interface to automatically load LC ILS data to the Librarys automated financial system. A new capability for geospatial searching, a welcome enhancement for accessing cartographic materials, was loaded on the test server at the end of the fiscal year, and is expected to be available on the production system by summer 2001.
The Library is working with Endeavor Information Systems, Inc. to prepare for implementation of the Voyager Release 2000 software targeted for May 2001. In preparation, the Library loaded the beta versions of Voyager Release 2000 on its test server. Staff began testing the software and reported found bugs to Endeavor for correction before their final software release. Library staff is also creating new training courses and updating operations procedure documentation, especially for the new features and capabilities in the acquisitions, serials check-in, and public catalog modules. Release 2000 also includes the capability to display Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Hebrew vernacular characters in the Web OPAC (from data stored in the 880 fields of MARC bibliographic records) and access to full MARC authority records via our Web OPAC. I know many of you have been eagerly awaiting the restoration of this capability.
Additional information can be found on the public ILS home page, <http://lcweb.loc.gov/ils/<.
On October 1, 2000, the American library community, including LC, OCLC, and RLG, began using pinyin as the standard romanization scheme for Chinese characters in bibliographic and authority records.
The Library coordinated conversion activities with RLG and OCLC throughout the year. Conference calls were held with the utilities at least monthly to discuss and agree on policy issues, and to work out aspects of the conversion and transfer of records. The Library received input on the project from many libraries and librarians, both in this country and abroad.
The year of intensive planning culminated in the conversion to pinyin of 158,368 name and series authority records by OCLC. Converted authority records have been loaded into the LC database and distributed to CDS subscribers. By the time of the conference, RLG will have converted 142,555 LC Chinese bibliographic records containing vernacular script, and some 30,000 in roman script only. OCLC is currently testing its bib record conversion program, and hopes to begin converting bib records in WorldCat in early 2001. CPSO staff have converted hundreds of subject authority records, and made necessary changes to the classification schedule. Classification schemes for Chinese literary authors and Chinese local history have been revised, based on pinyin romanization.
A moratorium on creating and changing Chinese authority records was observed during August and September while OCLC performed its conversion. Similarly, a moratorium on the updating of Chinese bibliographic records created before August 1 has been observed during the RLG conversion of LC records. Since October 1, six catalogers, along with CPSO specialists, have been manually reviewing converted authorities and making corrections where necessary. In addition, 14 catalogers at 11 NACO libraries are reviewing and updating converted non-unique personal name authority records.
OCLC and RLIN through a cooperative partnership supplied Wade-Giles romanized authority records with their pinyin updates for load into the LC ILS and distribution through the MARC Distribution Service by the start date. These converted authority records will be available in the LC Online Catalog and via Z39.50 in May 2001. RLG began to convert LCs bibliographic records on November 20, 2000. OCLC will convert CONSER records after January 1, 2001, according to the same specifications. LC expects to load approximately 180,000 converted bibliographic records into the LC Database by the end of February 2001. The first 30,000 converted bibliographic records will be included in the MDS-CJK distribution for December 2000 (volume 14, issue 11). LCs converted bibliographic records will be available in the LC Online Catalog and via Z39.50 as soon as they are loaded into the LC Database.
The Librarys pinyin home page <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin> has made available a coordinated timeline, romanization guidelines, explanations of various aspects of the conversion project, answers to frequently asked questions, and links to other related sources of information.
The Library will begin to acquire its first complete set of electronic journal archives this month through an agreement signed by Associate Librarian for Library Services Winston Tabb and the American Physical Society. APS will send the Library the complete archives of eight of its premier physics journals in electronic form. The electronic archives will be updated continuously, creating a permanent repository at the Library of both historic articles and the latest research in physics.
At a forum in the Mumford Room on Saturday, January 13, 3:00-5:00 p.m., the Librarys Digital Futures Group will share with the library community its 5-year Digital Futures Plan, including plans for implementing various recommendations contained in LC21: A Digital Strategy for the Library of Congress, a study commissioned by the Library of Congress from the National Research Council and released to the public last summer. Comments and suggestions from the library community will be solicited at this forum.
NATIONAL DIGITAL LIBRARY
Since the last ALA meeting the National Digital Library met its goal of making available 5 million items available on the American Memory website. At present American Memory has over 90 collections available online.
As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 [P.L. 106-554], an appropriation of $100,000,000 was included for a National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. Of that amount, $75 million is available as matching funds for private donations (including in-kind contributions) received before March 31, 2003. The program is to be administered under a plan developed by the Library and approved by the House and Senate authorizing and appropriations committees. The Library will develop the plan jointly with the Secretary of Commerce, the White House Office of Science and Technology policy, the National Archives, and other federal, research, and private libraries and institutions with expertise in the collection and maintenance of archives of digital materials, as well as private organizations involved in efforts to preserve, collect, and disseminate information in digital formats. There will be more information coming out soon as to how non-federal entities may apply for the matching funds.
Glenn Patton said he would begin his report with a bit of OCLC news. He said that OCLC was launching at this conference what would be a year-long celebration of the 30th anniversary of online shared cataloging. He said to look for related events at the Annual Conference in San Francisco this summer. The actual anniversary is some time in August.
Patton said that the report [http://www.ala.org/alcts/you/ifla/cataloguing4.html] that he and Barbara Tillett put together after the IFLA conference in Jerusalem contained a lot of information about what is a very active Section on Cataloguing under Tilletts chairship. He said that Tillett has initiated a lot of interesting projects, and urged committee members to go to the sections Web page to read about these.
Patton said that he would highlight a few points from the report that have a bearing on the work of CC:DA and the JSC.
The ISBD Review Group, which is part of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing, is about to publicize changed procedures for the international review of ISBD revisions and changes. In the past, this has been a very paper-oriented process which involved sending lots of copies of documents out not only to section members, but also to a wide variety of other interested parties. Not surprisingly, this has become a great burden on the UBCIM office, which coordinates this activity, but it has always been a very slow process, as well. The Review Group is now moving to what will primarily be an electronic distribution system for documents. Paper documents will still be distributed to parties that face challenges dealing with electronic distribution.
The other thing that Patton said he wanted to call the committees attention to was also related to the ISBD Review Group. There is some concern within the group about the amount of cataloging rule revision that is going on around the world these days, not only in the AACR2 community, but also in the German cataloging community, where they are undergoing far-reaching and fundamental changes to their cataloging code. Patton said that the group recognizes the need for change in cataloging codes as new materials emerge, and that the group supports the goal of achieving universal bibliographic control, an important aspect of which is the ability to exchange bibliographic data created using various sets of cataloging rules. One of the foundations of that goal has been the idea that national cataloging codes are founded in the ISBDs, and that kind of structure. So the Review Group has been working with the JSC, with the German cataloging rules revision group, and with the group that is revising ISBD(S) to see if there is way the Review Group could be alerted when a revision of a given cataloging code that represents a major departure from the ISBD standard is being considered. The idea is to set up a "cross-fertilization" process whereby revisions to the existing ISBDs could be considered at the same time that changes are made to national cataloging codes.
Patton said that those were the two main things he wanted to say. In response to Schiffs earlier comment about when the revised ISBD(M) would be available, Patton said he did not know either. He said that the Review Group was currently working with the IFLANET implementation staff to get the ISBD(G) and ISBD(A) up on the IFLANET Web site. IFLA has been very fortunate, Patton said, to get K.G. Saurs permission to make these publications, and the ISBD(ER), freely available on the Web.
Attig asked if Patton could confirm that when the revised ISBD(M) is finally issued, it would be available electronically.
Patton said that he believed that was the intent.
Tillett said that another very important point in the IFLA Section on Cataloguing report was the point about UBC [Universal Bibliographic Control] activity, and the new view of UBC that is coming out of the FRANAR working group. She asked Patton if he wanted to comment briefly on that.
Patton said that he had spoken once before to the committee about the IFLA group that had started out to revise the IFLA document The Form and Structure of Corporate Headings. He said the old goal of that group was to devise ways to create a single form of name for corporate bodies that would be usable in the context of any catalog. That was a noble goal that had gotten started in the late 1970s or early 1980s, but the group quickly realized that it was not an achievable goal, and in fact if it were kept as a goal, it would actually be a disservice to library users. So that led them to give up that effort, and to move along and work on a task started by a group that was working on minimal-level requirements for authority records. That task involved the linking of authority files. The idea they started with was that, in the case of both personal and corporate names, you could have multiple authoritative forms of a name, each of which was valid in the context of a different cataloging code, and that the way to bring these together was to link the different authority files. That work is now going forward, Patton said, under the banner of the Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering for Authority Records, which you will increasingly hear referred to as FRANAR. That group is chaired by Françoise Bourdon of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and they are trying to get that moving along. In the next couple of weeks, Barbara [Tillett] is going to be coming to OCLC to see what can be done about setting up some kind of machine matching of authority files, and see if we can this started as a sort of a pilot project, Patton said.
Bradford Eden, speaking as ALCTS Publications Committee ex-officio member of CC:DA, and as editor of the ALCTS Paper Series, said that CC:DA Chair Adam Schiff had asked him to give a report on the progress of the publication of the papers from the ALCTS 2-day metadata preconference at ALA Annual in Chicago in July 2000. Eden said that he wanted to make sure everyone realized what a Herculean task it was to put together this 26-chapter book for publication in the very short time frame of eight months. He said he wanted to thank Wayne Jones, who, as general editor, began more than a year ago to put together a team of associate editors and transcribers. Before the preconference, the editing team put together for publication all of the papers that speakers had submitted in advance. Those speakers who did not submit papers agreed to have transcribers transcribe their presentations. The editing team put these into their final form quickly-within two months. Eden said that he had then been able to submit these to ALCTS Executive Director Karen Muller by early October. According to ALA Editions, Eden said, the document is supposed to be published by March. The title of the book will be Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR, and MARC21.
ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee Brian Schottlaender that he first wanted to thank all of his CC:DA colleagues, especially those members who were chairing and serving on task forces, for the degree to which they have been able to work between conferences and expedite the work of the JSC, and for reviewing a large number of JSC documents under great press of time. Schottlaender said that this was very much appreciated by the JSC and by the international cataloging community who are able to expedite their work to the degree that the JSC is able to expedite its work.
Schottlaender said that the reason he had asked CC:DA Chair Adam Schiff for only 30 minutes to speak at this meeting was thanks to John Attig, Laurel Jizba, Mary Larsgaard, and Kristin Lindlan, who would be reporting in their agenda items on some JSC actions and thereby sparing Schottlaender the need to do so. Schottlaender said that he thanked Attig, Jizba, Larsgaard, and Lindlan for that very much.
In conclusion to his opening remarks, Schottlaender said he particularly wanted to thank Attig, because everything Attig does for CC:DA in his capacity as CC:DA Webmaster, he is also doing for the JSC, and for AACR as a document. The JSC is extremely thankful and grateful to Attig for this, Schottlaender said.
Schottlaender said he would begin by briefly outlining some of what was in the document CC:DA/JSC Rep./BECS/2000/10, the report of the JSC London Meeting. He said the JSC had approved for inclusion in the next revision package revisions relating to:
Schottlaender explained that the agreement that the JSC had reached about 18 months ago was that when the JSC had gotten to the stage in Chapter 9 rule revision deliberations where they felt the question had more or less been called, and they were at the stage of editorial review not substantive review then editorial review would be carried out by the national libraries representatives to the JSC, since those libraries were more likely to have support staff to facilitate that kind of review. Accordingly, the national libraries have been reviewing the clean Chapter 9 iterations.
Schottlaender noted that there were members of CC:DA who had also been interested in reviewing these, and that he had already forwarded to the JSC good comments from Schiff and Attig, with the request How would you like us to proceed?. In his most recent exchange with JSC Chair Ann Huthwaite, Schottlaender said, Huthwaite had told him that the JSC did not want not to risk slowing down the revision process unnecessarily at this point, so she suggested that these questions be put into play when the Chapter 9 proposal comes to the JSC as a rule revision package. That would be the time to prepare an ALA response, which, if nothing else, could summarize Attigs and Schiffs comments apropos of Chapter 9.
Attig expressed the concern that this extra step would have the effect of slowing the publication schedule for a revised Chapter 9.
Schottlaender pointed out that the revised Chapter 9 would not go to the publishers before a national library review in any event, and said also that the JSC was motivated for a variety of reasons to get these revisions published quickly.
Schottlaender said that there had been several other rule revision proposals discussed in London that did not make it to the point of being approved for the revision package, and said he would talk briefly about these.
Upon reading 4JSC/ACOC/1, the JSC decided to ask ACOC to look further at pursuing option 2 in that document, and ACOC has done so in the very recently received 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up. Schottlaender said he would talk further about this in a few minutes [see below].
Schottlaender reported that there were four active JSC document series that he wanted to mention briefly:
Schottlaender said that he would now talk briefly about several other JSC actions taken at the London meetings that did not relate directly to rule revision proposals.
Schottlaender said that his own opinion on this was that the situation was slightly confounded at the moment because of the conflating of the JSC and AACR Web sites into a single site. There are some things the JSC needs to do as a committee, by way of tracking documents, keeping track of what is in play and who has reviewed what, etc., that the Internet is such a logical way of doing (as Schiff has proven by doing it for CC:DA), and to not take advantage of the available technology and Attigs skills would be a great shame. Schottlaender said that he hoped a better explanation would help the right people feel better about the JSCs use of the technology.
Attig suggested that, because the JSC was running into this kind of reaction to the combined site, which is what he prototyped first, they had decided that the way to go was with separate sites, so what he has now developed is a JSC Web site, and with a few finishing touches, that should be ready to go very soon. From there, Attig suggested, the way to proceed would be for someone other than the JSC to approach the Committee of Principals and the publishers, and try to convince them that there is a further need that has to be addressed.
The JSC has endorsed that proposal, and Schottlaender has drafted some Terms of Reference for an International Working Group on Format Variations. Those Terms of Reference were reviewed by the JSC at the London meetings, and Schottlaender revised them subsequent to that review. The JSC has been brainstorming electronically about the chairpersonship and membership of such a working group, and is basically finished with that process, so the appointment of that working group is now imminent. Unfortunately, Schottlaender said, since it was still imminent, he could not tell the committee anything about the makeup of that group.
First, the JSC has agreed that constituent communities that bring rule revision proposals to the JSC should be alert to potential disharmonies with the ISBD that these could create. Furthermore, constituent communities should be alerted explicitly that is, when submitting a proposal, they should say something like we recognize that making these proposals will create disharmony with ______.
The reason that the JSC is eager for this to happen rather more explicitly than has been the case in the past, Schottlaender said, is to achieve what Patton described rather nicely as the cross-fertilization of AACR and the ISBDs as a result of this kind of action. Schottlaender said that he felt it was important that it be recognized that this is a two-way street that AACR revision proposals could cause disharmony with the ISBDs, but also that ISBD revision can cause disharmony with AACR.
Schottlaender said that CC:DA now had two documents to consider besides 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up, and these are 4JSC/LC/50 (Series authority records in AACR2) and 4JSC/LC/51 (Multipart items in AACR2). He said he wanted to talk about the first of these two JSC documents (both which CC:DA has). The second, he said, would be discussed on Monday as a separate agenda item [see 717 below]
In a nutshell, what Kuhagens discussion paper makes clear, Schottlaender said, is that there are bibliographic entities notably multipart items or monographic series for which series authority records serve as surrogate bibliographic records. As a consequence of this, changes of sufficient substance to those bibliographic entities necessitate changes not in bibliographic records, but in series authority records. Therefore, the Major Changes Appendix ought to attend to that possibility, as well. The problem faced by the Task Force, Schottlaender said, is that the code does not really talk about series authority records, which makes talking about them in the Appendix difficult. Kuhagens paper ends with some very nice concrete recommendations for dealing with this problem.
Schottlaender said that he would suggest that CC:DA do one of two things. It could either review 4JSC/LC/50 as a stand-alone document, either with a task force or here, right now, or, it could ask Lindlans task force to undertake that review in the context of its review of the Major/Minor Changes work. Schottlaender said that he did not feel strongly that one or the other solution was better, but pointed out that if a separate task force were to make recommendations and have them approved by CC:DA, the task of implementing the recommendations would fall to Lindlans task force anyway.
Schiff asked Lindlan if she had a preference as to how this should be done.
Lindlan said that what Schottlaender had said made sense.
Schiff asked Kuhagen, who was in attendance at the meeting, if she would be willing to join Lindlans task force to help with the revised charge.
Kuhagen said that she would.
Schiff said that he would revise the task forces charge accordingly.
Schiff asked the committee if it thought that a task force should be put in place now to review the whole revision package when it is issued. He said the committee would also have to decide whether this task force should be charged with reviewing the entire revision package, or just the Chapter 9 revisions.
Schottlaender said that he would like to remind the committee that it is under no obligation to review the revision package. The national libraries are very well equipped to perform the review. On the other hand, he said no one would refuse a report from CC:DA if it wished to carry out its own review.
Schiff said the committee take the course of action suggested by JSC Chair Huthwaite and make comments in the form of an ALA document after the review by national libraries has taken place and the revision package has been distributed. Schiff invited any interested committee members to look at the clean Chapter 9 at any time, and send comments to him by e-mail.
Schiff asked the committee if it wanted to form a task force to review 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up, the proposal to make the rule of three optional.
Larsgaard moved that a task force be formed. Carol Hixson seconded the motion. There was no discussion, and the motion was approved by a vote of 8-0.
Schiff said that he would send around a sign-up sheet for the new task force. He asked if the committee felt it was reasonable to establish a March 1 deadline for the task forces report to be submitted.
Schottlaender asked Tillett and Marg Stewart (present in the audience) if they could shed some light on what the JSCs expectations were for this. Schottlaender said that he had not come away from London with the impression that ACOC would have finished its work in sufficient time for ALA to have reviewed it in time to call the question at the April meetings.
Tillett said she thought that the JSC would like to have it done in time for the April meetings.
Stewart said that she did not recall hearing any suggested deadline.
Schottlaender said that in that case, he felt that the committee would not want to give this proposal short shrift by trying to get it reviewed in an unreasonably short time frame.
Hixson suggested that such a short deadline as March 1 might restrict who can participate.
Larsgaard said she agreed with Hixson and thought that March 1 was an unreasonable deadline.
Schiff and the committee decided that the task forces report would be completed in time for discussion at the Annual 2001 CC:DA meetings in San Francisco.
Tillett said that there was still one matter to resolve before moving on to the next agenda item. She said that, regarding 4JSC/LC/47/LC follow-up/2, LC had asked the JSC for consideration of an item on the very last page. Tillett said that LC had originally submitted this proposal on behalf of the PCC. She said that PCC participants were very interested in implementing the change in terms used in the numbering of series statements. LC proposes issuing the text of this revision after JSC approval as a Library of Congress Rule Interpretation before the revision is published in the next Amendments package, Tillett said, and she welcomed comments from the committee on this idea.
Steven Arakawa and Kate Harcourt both indicated that they would support such an LCRI. There were no objections from the other voting members.
Tillett said she would appreciate ALAs mentioning this in its response.
Schottlaender said he would do so.
Task Force Chair Kristin Lindlan thanked the members of the CC:DA Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes for their active participation and hard work, and said that she appreciated the wide range of expertise that the members brought to the task forces work.
Lindlan reported that the task force had been asked by the JSC to rearrange the draft appendix in two ways. One was to make the appendix address only major changes, not minor changes, except in the area of title proper. The other was to rearrange the appendix into four parts: Monographs, Serials, Integrating Resources, and Multiparts. Lindlan said that the task force had completed this rearrangement, and commented that in the process, the task force had discovered several gaps in what they had already done, and were able to address several issues that they had missed the first time around.
Lindlan said that the task force had also decided on their own to remove the section of the first draft appendix that had dealt with reproductions, thinking that it was better covered in the general rules in the new arrangement.
Lindlan said that the task force was recommending, as they had in their first report, that changes to corporate body names be covered by rule 24.2, Variant names. General Rules.
Lindlan said that the task force had been paying attention to some related discussions, including the harmonization discussions of the AACR, ISSN, and ISBD groups, and had made some revisions to their recommendations as to what constitutes a major or minor change in the area of title variants. She said that in the harmonization talks it had been decided that numbering that began again would not constitute a major change. The task force had also been paying close attention to the Chapter 12 rule revisions, Lindlan said.
Lindlan said that the task force had identified a topic that might need to be addressed in the future: what to do with changes in URNs and URLs. The task force did not discuss this question, she said, but was pointing it out as an area to be addressed in the future.
Lindlan said that she had included at the end of her report a list of questions that she wanted CC:DA to consider. The first question is whether or not the task force should have used not applicable" in all the places it did in the appendix. She said that it had made the task forces work easier to have the same numbering in each section as it looked across the rules for monographs, serials, integrating resources, and multiparts. That was the reason for the parallel numbering in each section and the use of not applicable, she explained, but she said that the task force was not sure that that was the best solution for the final product, and was open to suggestions from the committee.
Another of the task forces questions for CC:DA, Lindlan said, was whether the terms significant and substantive were acceptable as they are used in the draft appendix. She said that the task force wondered whether they were relying too much on catalogers judgment. She said that the task force had defined their use of these terms. They had used significant when the emphasis was on matters of degree, and substantive when referring to real, actual changes.
Lindlan said that the task force had noticed that there was overlap between rules 21.2 and 21.3 and some of the appendixs basic guidelines on what constitutes a major change. At one point, the task force had had in its report instructions on what to do with a major change, Lindlan said, but they realized that this was not part of their charge, and took out those instructions. This leaves for CC:DA the question of where in the rules to address this, she said.
The task forces last question for CC:DA, Lindlan said, was on the consideration of series authority records. She said that this question had already been answered now that the task force had been given a revised charge.
Lindlan said that she would go through the appendix point-by-point, and accept comments from the committee as she went along.
Subtitle The task force added the subtitle when to create a new record.
John Attig noted that the appendixs title should not include the word appendix. If published, it will be Appendix E. Major Changes.
Basic Guidelines Lindlan asked if there were any comments on the basic guidelines in the appendix. She noted that the committee had gone over these at the last meeting, and said that Ed Glazier had commented at that time that the appendix was not always clear on what was a change, and what was a difference. Lindlan said that there were still places in the appendix where this was problematic.
Steven Arakawa commented that he had read the discussion in the minutes about the problem with major changes as opposed to significant differences between manifestations, and he did not feel that this had been resolved in the new draft of the appendix.
Arakawa also stated that since the point of the appendix was to help the cataloger determine when to create a new record, he was not at all opposed to the new subtitle, and in fact thought that perhaps the subtitle should become the title, and perhaps the subtitle could become significant differences and major changes. He said that as he read through the appendix, he could not help seeing it through the conceptual framework of continuing resources, where change takes place through time. As a monographs cataloger, he said, his problem with the draft appendix is that he is often dealing with significant differences between manifestations of a work where time is not really the issue. Since the purpose of the appendix is such an important one, Arakawa said, he would like to see the purpose statement at the very beginning of the appendix, rather than at the end of the first section, where it almost seems like an aside.
Arakawa said that one final comment he had on the basic structure of the appendix was that he felt that if one is dealing with finite and continuing resources, differences between manifestations of a finite resource are more fundamental than changes in a continuing resource. If this is indeed the case, instructions for dealing with significant differences between manifestations of a finite resource should precede instructions for dealing with changes in a continuing resource, at least in the introduction. Arakawa also pointed out that the order in which the rest of the appendix is presented suggests that the introduction should address the mainly monographic problem of differences in manifestations before addressing the problem of changes in continuing resources. He said that he had come up with the following suggested wording for the introductory paragraph of the appendix:
This appendix includes basic guidelines for determining when to create a new record for finite and continuing bibliographic resources, based on: 1) significant differences between manifestations; or, 2) a change within an existing bibliographic resource. What constitutes a significant difference or a major change for a resource is then described in some detail.
Lindlan asked Arakawa to give her a copy of the suggested new paragraph.
Lindlan said that she may have taken the instructions she received from the JSC too literally. She said that she thought she had been told to consider change to mean difference, or, in other words, to use change to mean both. Lindlan asked ALA Representative to the JSC Brian Schottlaender and LC Representative Barbara Tillett if she had misinterpreted the JSCs instructions on this. Schottlaender and Tillett indicated that she had.
E.3B EDITION AREA Lindlan said that the task force had added a sentence about Romance-language edition statements. She asked if that sentence solved the problem that committee members had had with that area in the first draft.
Arakawa said that he thought that the word may or generally or often could be inserted before the word reflect in the parenthetical sentence e.g., Romance language edition statements reflect printing information. He said that it reads now as if it means always, which he does not think is the case.
E.3C Carol Hixson asked what exactly substantive changes would be in an electronic resource. She said that the wording here was Consider a change in file characteristics that indicates a substantive change in the nature of the resource a major change. Hixson noted that in other sections of the appendix, an e.g. had been given following an instruction like this one. Would an e.g. be useful here, too, or would people who deal with these resources find it unnecessary?
Lindlan said she could not recall whether or not the task force had discussed this.
Attig said that the original proposals from the Harmonization Task Force proposed some changes to the rules at 9.2, but it was felt that these would be more appropriate for an appendix. Attig suggested that Lindlan look at these for suggested examples that she could use.
E.3D PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. AREA Carol Hixson said that she had a problem with E.3D1 and E.3D3a, which instruct the cataloger to consider a change in place of publication a major change. She said that, in the absence of other factors, she had never considered a change in place of publication alone to be grounds for making a new record.
Laurel Jizba said that the original line that the task force had used came from the OCLC guidelines. She noted that those guidelines say right up front that the cataloger should consider this decision in conjunction with other factors.
Hixson said that that was what she would like the instruction in the appendix to say, also.
Jean Hirons (audience) said she thought that the task force might want to reconsider its instruction that a change in distributors not be considered a major change, at least in the case of electronic serials or e-books. She noted that for serials, they had just recently made a decision that multiple electronic distributors of the same work would be put on separate records.
Mary Woodley (audience) said that one more thing that needs to be considered is that NetLibrary e-books are being cataloged as reproductions, so there are two things going on in the world of electronic distributors of e-books: electronic originals and electronic reproductions. There needs to be some reconciliation between the rules for cataloging these two different types of thing.
She said she would also like to go back to E.3A5, and suggest that the task force consider the fact that a change in the order of names in a statement of responsibility sometimes only occurs in a printing, so this might also be something that should be considered in conjunction with other information.
Schottlaender asked if he could make two general comments at this point, which were not specific to any one rule. He said that he wanted to strongly encourage the task force to avoid what, in the absence of examples, could be construed as tautological statements. He said that a phrase like if a resource changes substantively, it is a major change is not useful unless substantively is defined by the use of an e.g. In some cases, he noted, the appendix provides these, but in other, it does not.
Schottlaenders second comment was that he saw cases, such as one under E.3D, where the appendix uses loaded or soft words like genuine (if there has been a genuine change ), which should be avoided.
Hixson commented that this is case where perhaps alternative wording needs to be found, but said that this concept is valid, and should remain in the appendix.
Schottlaender said that he agreed, and would favor a statement of the concept somewhere in the introduction to the appendix.
Arakawa said that he wanted to clarify whether it was the case that we are talking about two different scenarios here: one where the cataloger has both manifestations in hand, and is trying to decide whether these are the same or different; the other where the cataloger has one manifestation in hand, and there is a surrogate of it in the bibliographic utility, and he is trying to decide whether that record represents what he has in hand. In the latter case, he said, he wondered whether E.3D1 could create problems depending on what cataloging agency had cataloged the book. One might exclude a place that would not have been excluded by another agency, for example, in a different country. For instance, an agency in Canada and one in the United states might transcribe the same imprint as London ; Toronto : , and London ; New York : , respectively.
Lindlan said that the appendix did not aim to address situations like this one that are covered by the rules in the numbered chapters of the code.
Hixson suggested that the introduction might include a statement to the effect that the appendix should be consulted after the rules in the numbered chapters have already been consulted.
E.3I Schiff said that he wondered whether language of text was more restrictive than it had to be. He cited the example of a sound recording that might not include a text. He suggested that language of resource might be better.
Attig noted that in other sections of the appendix, the task force had simply used language.
E.3J Hixson asked whether the language in E.3J1 should not more closely parallel the language in E.4J1? Should the same principle in E.4J1 for serials not also be applied to monographs?
Title Changes/E.4A Lindlan said that the task force was open to suggestions about whether rules for title changes in serials should be in Chapter 12 or in the appendix.
Hirons commented that she would rather see rules and guidelines related to serial title changes in Chapter 12 than in the appendix, since title changes are such a fundamental part of serials cataloging.
Lindlan it was not clear to her where a monographs cataloger looks for guidance on title changes.
Judith Kuhagen (audience) said that at present rule 21.2 deals with title changes for both serials and monographs.
Lindlan asked whether, if rules for title changes were moved to Chapter 12, Chapter 1 would be the appropriate place for rules on monographic title changes. The committee indicated that it would not.
Woodley asked whether it had been decided that E.4A would not appear in the appendix, but rather in Chapter 12?
Lindlan said that the text would probably appear in Chapter 12, but there would be a cross-reference in the appendix.
Schiff asked Lindlan if the task force would like guidance from the committee on whether this rule should appear in Chapter 12 or in the appendix. Lindlan said the task force was prepared to make a recommendation, but that she would not mind hearing what the committee thought.
Schiff said that maybe it would be a good idea to get a sense of how the people present at this meeting (committee members and audience included) felt about the question of whether serial title changes should be dealt with in an appendix or in Chapter 12.
Hixson commented that she thought it was a good idea to have the rule appear in Chapter 12, but that the reference to the rule in Chapter 12 should be left in the appendix. She said she liked the idea that all the points to be considered in deciding whether a new record should be created could be collected in one place in the rules. Mary Larsgaard, Kate Harcourt, and Susan Hayes all said that they agreed.
Attig commented that if this were the way that the task force was going to go with this, the implication was that something in Chapter 21 would be changed. He suggested that the task force investigate what the effect on Chapter 21 would be before proceeding with this.
John Radencich commented that, as a serials cataloger, he could not envision a rule about serial title changes not appearing in Chapter 12.
Lindlan asked for further comments on this by e-mail.
Arakawa said that he liked the style of this paragraph, where it says in general, consider as a major change in a title proper, and then it lists what those are. However, he said, he thought it was sort of strange that this pattern was not followed in the paragraphs that follow. He said he would prefer the wording consider as a major change and then a list of things that would be considered major changes.
Schottlaender said that he agreed. He said that the draft appendix was variable in its construction of paragraphs like this, and cited examples. Sometimes it said consider the following changes to be major: , but sometimes it described a situation first, and then said consider this a major change.
E.4A3 Arakawa asked if the task force meant to say does not appear in instead of disappears from in the sentence only if the original title proper disappears from subsequent issues.
Lindlan said that she would change the wording to the one Arakawa had suggested.
E.4G STANDARD NUMBER AND TERMS OF AVAILABILITY AREA Regina Reynolds (audience) said that she would like to suggest that a change in ISSN be considered a major change. She said that this was one of the key points of the harmonization efforts all three groups had agreed that when it was decided that a new record would be created, a new ISSN would be assigned, so conversely, a new ISSN should signal that a new record should be created.
Lindlan said that this had not been the case up to now, so there would still be all of the older pre-harmonization records to deal with.
Reynolds said that, nevertheless, since the future is longer than the past, and since this was a key point in the harmonization efforts, she would still recommend that a change in ISSN be considered a major change.
An audience member pointed out that in legal publications, there are multipart sets whose volumes may be replaced, and they are actually integrating resources and multipart sets at the same time. She suggested that wording be added to the section in integrating resources to mention this other category of materials. She said a phenomenon that is not uncommon in law libraries is that a large multipart set is published, and, for example the original 1960 volume 1 is replaced by a new 1999 volume 1A and 1B, and yet this not like a looseleaf publication because entire volumes are replaced instead of sheets of paper.
E.5A1 Schiff commented that in this rule, iteration might be a better word to use than manifestation.
E.5A4 Schiff said that he wondered whether saying not applicable here was the same as saying that it was a minor change.
Lindlan agreed that this was correct, and said she would change this.
E.5A5 Rhonda Lawrence (audience) said that she wanted to ask Lindlan whether the task force had consulted Adele Hallams Cataloging rules for the description of looseleaf publications: with special emphasis on legal materials [2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Office for Descriptive Cataloging [Policy], Library of Congress, 1989.].
Lindlan said that the task force had, and asked if they had missed something.
Lawrence said that the instructions here for statements of responsibility were in direct contrast to Hallams guidelines, wherein a change in statement of responsibility is not considered a major change. She said that according to Hallam, a change in statement of responsibility may or may not call for a new record, depending on other factors, such as the edition statement. She said that she was not here to defend the practices prescribed by Hallam, that these practices might need to be rethought, but she just wanted to know whether the task force had consciously considered and rejected the Hallam guidelines.
Lindlan said that they had consulted Hallam, but that this may have been an oversight on the task forces part. She said that the task force would look at this again.
E.5D2 Schiff that here once again, it was unclear to him how this would apply to Web resources.
E.5J1 Lawrence said that the statement here was an accurate statement of the principle in Hallam (i.e., that a change in statement of responsibility should not be considered a major change even if it affects the main entry), as opposed to E.5A5, which was not in line with Hallam. She suggested that E.5A5 be changed accordingly.
E.6A TITLE AND STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AREA Schiff noted that there was a reference in the serials section to Chapter 21, and said that, though the task force did not know what it was going to do with this yet, there should nevertheless at this point be a reference here to 21.2B2 for title changes within a multipart item. This is not a case, he said, of title changes between manifestations, but of a title change within one set.
E.6B EDITION AREA Lawrence asked if the task force had considered mentioning mixed editions of multipart items here.
Attig said that this is something that is done not because of rules in AACR2, but despite them, and at this point it might be better left that way.
E.6D2, E.6D3, E.6D4 Lawrence noted that these rules deal with changes between manifestations, and asked what should be done about changes within a manifestation.
Lindlan responded that if it were not mentioned in the appendix that meant that it was a minor change, and that would be the case here.
Wording Hixson pointed out that the phrase between manifestations was used in some of the rules in the appendix, but not in others where perhaps it should be used.
E.6I. LANGUAGE OF TEXT The committee reminded Lindlan that this should be language of resource.
Arakawa said that the wording here was confusing, and suggested Consider a difference in the language of a resource to be a different manifestation.
E.6J. ACCESS POINTS Rhonda Lawrence (audience) said that following these two rules (i.e., creating a new record whenever there is a change in statement of responsibility) would mean that as many as 50 to 100 records could be created in the bibliographic utilities for one single manifestation of the kind of resource that is typical in law libraries.
Schiff said that perhaps one way to rectify this would be to change between bibliographic resources to between manifestations in E.6J1.
Ed Glazier pointed out that there is a difference between integrating resources, where a record changes over time as changes in the resource occur, and other resources, where a new record is created while an old one still exists.
Lawrence said that a good record for an integrating resource is one with lots of history notes.
Mary Larsgaard said map catalogers have always had integrating resources, and they, too, have dealt with these by making lots of history notes.
Schottlaender said that he wanted to stress to the task force that there was a real problem in this document with the words significant, substantive, and genuine. He said the problem was not that the words were not specific enough, but that they were not different enough from each other. He said that the task force will have to settle upon one of these words, and define it.
Attig said that he would like to make the general observation that even though these are very discrete sets of instructions, one could not take any one of these in isolation and apply it without considering other factors in the piece in hand.
Schottlaender suggested that the introduction to the Appendix more explicitly state that no single change condition is necessary nor sufficient to meet the test of major change.
Hixson said that an appendix like this has long been needed, and she wanted to thank the task force for its perseverance in this task. She said that she felt they were very close to getting it right, and she appreciated their hard work.
Lindlan asked if anyone had an opinion on whether not applicable should remain in the appendix or be taken out.
Arakawa said he thought it should be taken out. He said that it seems to be the case in
AACR2 that it is all right to omit the rules for a given area without mentioning explicitly that you are omitting the area.
CC:DA Chair Adam Schiff called the meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. He announced that the committee had not made it through the last three agenda items at Saturdays meeting, so we would be doing those quickly today. He said he had asked all of the task force chairs and others making reports this morning to be as brief as possible in the interest of being able to cover all of todays agenda items.
Schiff introduced ALA/LITA Liaison to CC:DA David Williamson to give a report on LCs Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium: Confronting the Challenges of Networked Resources and the Web.
Williamson said that the Library of Congress had celebrated its 200th Anniversary in the year 2000, and in commemoration of that, had held a series of symposia, one of which was this conference, held at the Library of Congress November 15-17, 2001.
Williamson reported that LC had invited approximately 90 guests from around the world to participate, and had approximately 30 library staff in attendance serving as note-takers and facilitators. The event lasted for two and a half days, and the aim was to bring together authorities in the library community including those in the areas of cataloging and reference, the metadata community, and the systems vendor and Web-producing communities, to discuss outstanding issues and provide recommendations and actions for the Library of Congress, the library community, and other collaborators beyond libraries to develop and implement an effective response to the challenge of proliferating networked and Web resources.
The conference yielded eleven sets of recommendations from the eleven topical discussion groups. All 130 participants were divided into these eleven groups. The groups met for about a day, and came up with ideas, suggestions, and recommendations. By the end of November, the recommendations were distributed to the participants, who looked them over and made comments, and last week the recommendations were posted on the LC Web site at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/.
The Cataloging Directorate hosted this conference, Williamson said, because LC, like the rest of the library community, is faced, if not overwhelmed, with dealing with digital resources. The Librarys sense of urgency was heightened this past summer when the National Academy of Sciences released its report LC 21: A Digital Strategy for the Library of Congress. In planning for the conference, planners linked to the report from the Conference home page, so conference attendees would understand the reports relevance to the conferences deliberations and to the Librarys strategic planning and budget preparations. The report told the Library that some of what it was doing was fine and on target, but more needed to be done, and faster, of course. The Cataloging Directorates managers were happy to note the reports positive acknowledgment of the conference, and its goal of bringing together experts from the various communities and stakeholders in the digital world.
Williamson went on to list the eleven working groups, and suggested that anyone interested in the charge of a particular group could go to the Web site to read that groups recommendation. The eleven groups were named and organized around these questions:
Williamson invited anyone interested to send comments to John Byrum, whose e-mail address is listed on the site, or to make comments on the listserv dedicated to discussion of conference topics. The listserv is called BIBCONTROL, and you can subscribe by sending the message SUBSCRIBE BIBCONTROL [your name] to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Williamson reported that the Cataloging Directorate and other LC staff are now trying to determine which of the recommendations can be accomplished in the near term (6-18 months) and which can be accomplished in the longer term (2-5 years). They are also trying to determine which recommendations the Cataloging Directorate or LC alone can deal with, and which need to be worked on in collaboration with partners in and beyond the library community.
Williamson invited CC:DA members to visit the Web site to read the papers, almost all of which are now in their final form, the form in which they will appear in the published proceedings. The conference organizers will continue to use the Web site to keep us appraised of progress in implementing the recommendations, Williamson said. The proceedings are now being edited by Conference consultant Ann Sandberg-Fox, and will hopefully be published before ALA Annual 2001.
Task Force Chair Michael Chopey reported that the Task Force was set up after ALA Annual 2000 and charged with reviewing ANSI/NISO Draft Standard Z39.85, The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. The draft standard was balloted by NISO voting members from July 1 to August 15, 2000, and the task force was charged with reviewing the document in the very short time of frame of two weeks, and submitting a report to ALAs NISO voting member, Paul Weiss.
The task force recommended that Weiss vote yes, with comments and included these comments in the final report. Mr. Weiss subsequently reported that he had voted Yes as the task force had recommended. The voting during the balloting period was: 39 Yes; 2 No (National Library of Medicine, Special Libraries Association); 0 Abstain. The official ANSI public review was held August 11-October 10, 2000. NISO Standards Committee AS, chaired by John Kunze, appointed to process the adoption of the Dublin Core as a NISO American National Standard, responded to the negative voters and all commenters in November 2000. The negative voters were invited to change their votes to an approval or abstention based on the information presented by the Standards Committee, but they declined. Therefore, a reconsideration ballot will be put out during the period February 2 - March 5, 2001. All of the pertinent documents on this can be found at http://www.niso.org/DC-recon.html
Chopey thanked task force members Laurel Jizba, Sherry Kelley, Gabriele Kupitz, Noelle Van Pulis, and Mary Woodley for their participation and their willingness to serve on the task force under such a short deadline.
Schiff thanked and discharged the task force.
[Recording Secretarys note: CC:DA Chair Adam Schiff subsequently reconvened the task force in February, and charged it with reconsidering the Draft Standard in light of the SLA and NLM comments, and the NISO Standards Committee AS responses to those comments. The task force did so, and reaffirmed its original recommendation of a Yes vote. CC:DA approved the reconvened task forces recommendation by a vote of 8-0, and Schiff forwarded the recommendation to Weiss on February 12, 2001.]
Task Force Chair Daniel Kinney reported that the task force had been charged with reviewing AMREMM for consistency with AACR2. Kinney thanked the members of the task force: Thomas L. Amos, Western Michigan University; Matthew Beacom, Yale University; Melissa Conway, Uncatalogued Manuscript Control Center/DeRicci Census Project Update; Brad Eden, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Gertrude Koh, Dominican University; and Maria Oldal, Pierpont Morgan Library.
Kinney said that since CC:DA had already approved the task forces report, he would not go through the whole document in detail, but would just mention three issues that would probably need some follow-up, not necessarily from CC:DA.
The task force felt, Kinney reported, that there needed to be a review of the MARC examples, of which there are about 30 pages. He said the task force had noticed errors in these, but it was not within the scope of the task forces charge or within the purview of CC:DA to report on these. This suggestion was being passed on to the editors of AMREMM.
Another issue that needs some sort of resolution, Kinney said, was the relationship of AMREMM to Steven L. Hensons Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts [: a cataloging manual for archival repositories, historical societies, and manuscript libraries / compiled by Steven L. Hensen. 2nd ed. Chicago : Society of American Archivists, 1989]. AMREMM also deals with those types of materials, and the task force noted that we now had two sets of rules, sometimes conflicting, for dealing with the same materials.
A final issue, Kinney said, was one that is within the purview of CC:DA, but may not require any action. Kinney said that he was reporting on it because he thought the CC:DA membership might be interested in hearing the opinion of a manuscripts cataloging specialist on the task force with regard to formulating uniform titles for manuscripts. Kinney said that a member of the task force had suggested that the general rule for formulating a uniform title for a manuscript could be improved by preferring the shelfmark over the name. Kinney pointed out that this is the opposite of the instructions in Rule 25.13B1 and the corresponding LCRI, which say to prefer the name. This manuscripts cataloging specialist stated that this is one of the most problematic AACR2 rules to follow in manuscripts cataloging, and that this rule might be one of the reasons why institutions with large manuscripts holdings do not consider AACR/MARC cataloging appropriate for their bibliographic records. This rule may not pose a problem for manuscripts of works like the Book of Kells or the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it does for many lesser-known works in manuscripts. This rule has resulted in titles made up by the publisher in the language of the publisher that appear on the title pages of commercial publications being used as uniform titles, when it is actually the shelfmark that is the unique identifier from the repositorys standpoint, and is the name that scholars and curators use to identify the work. Another problem with popular names is that they vary from source to source and change over time.
Kinney said that the task force was unanimous in its praise of AMREMM, and felt that Gregory Pass is to be commended for solving many of the most complex and complicated problems in manuscripts cataloging.
John Attig said that he had been asked by ACRL liaison to CC:DA Robert L. Maxwell to make a comment. He said that this had been referred to Maxwell by the Bibliographic Standards Committee of Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of ACRL. That Committee appreciated the review of AMREMM undertaken by the CC:DA, and indicated that the recommendations of the task force would be acted upon, especially the recommendation that the MARC examples be reexamined.
Schiff said that he invited the archives and manuscripts cataloging community to make rule revision proposals to address any of the concerns that the task force had raised.
Schiff thanked and discharged the task force.
Task Force Chair Sherry Kelley reminded the committee that this was a task force that had been formed after ALA Annual 1998. Kelley said that the task force was now down to four members after some changes in the membership, and after some changes in the Core Categories themselves. Kelley thanked the other three members of the task force: Ann Champagne, Robin Wendler, and Sherman Clarke. She said that she wanted to apologize for the fact that the task force did not have a final report to submit yet, but that she had spoken to CC:DA Chair Schiff about this, and the task force fully intends to submit a final report by the end of January, which can then be deliberated upon and voted upon electronically.
The VRA Core Categories is a qualified metadata element set, Kelley said, consisting of 17 categories. It is a data structure standard, not a content value standard or a data communication standard. It grew out of the needs of the visual resources community, particularly the slide libraries community, who felt that MARC and AACR2 are overly complex and elaborate in ways that provide no benefit to their resource description needs.
Kelley referred the committee to a sheet that she had distributed prior to the meeting. The sheet contains the task forces charge, originally written in 1998, and then revised at a later time. She noted that one of the things that had slowed the task force down was the fact that about a year ago, Version 3.0 of the Core Categories replaced Version 2.0, and at that point, the task force had had to start over again in some ways.
Kelley reminded the committee that this task force had grown out of the original CC:DA Metadata Task Force, and the interest on the part of the cataloging community in keeping track of metadata standards that might have implications for cataloging and the catalog, and in pursuing how those metadata standards might inform catalogers and CC:DA in its rule revision work, and conversely, how CC:DA and the cataloging community might inform those who are developing metadata standards.
Kelley said that one of the most important goals of this and other CC:DA task forces studying metadata standards was to determine if and how library data structures and non-library data structure could achieve interoperability and data sharing. That goal is reflected in the various charges of this task force.
Kelley reported that the mapping from VRA Core Categories to MARC21 was part of the standard. She said that this mapping could be done fairly faithfully and successfully, with little data loss, if the mapping were done by the standards developers themselves.
Kelley said that the task forces final report would address all of the charges, as outlined on the sheet she had distributed, and would contain a section on an analysis of the user tasks identified in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. She said it would also contain a very careful analysis of the mapping from VRA Core to MARC21 (field-by-field), and to AACR2 (area-by-area), along with a general overview of the issues involved in mapping non-library data structures to library data structures, and vice-versa.
Kelley noted that the task force was not recommending that there be a formal designation of a liaison between CC:DA and the VRA Data Standards Committee, as the task force felt that sufficient mechanisms were already in place to ensure a meaningful exchange of information between the two communities. She said that Sherman Clarke was already serving as the de facto liaison from VRA to CC:DA and to the MARC Advisory Committee, and at his request the task forces final report would be forwarded to members of the VRA Data Standards Committee prior to their February 2001 meeting.
Finally, Kelley said, the final report will contain a section with a fairly close comparison of the standard to the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, and appendixes on background, history, communities served, sample records, and citations.
Schiff thanked Kelley for her report, and said that the committee would look forward to reading the final report and discussing it electronically.
Kelley said that one final comment she would like to make is that it is very useful and valuable to the cataloging community for CC:DA to continue to appoint task forces to review metadata element sets as they emerge, in order to keep the committee and the cataloging community informed about new issues and new metadata standards, even if these task forces do not end up making any rule revision proposals. She said that one emerging metadata element set that merits a review by CC:DA would be the ONIX metadata standard. She said that the ONIX standard could be valuable to catalogers in that it would allow us to make use of metadata already supplied by publishers.
Carol Hixson moved that CC:DA establish a task force to review the ONIX metadata standard. Eden seconded the motion. There was no discussion, and the motion was passed by a vote of 8-0.
Task Force Chair Michael Chopey reported that the Task Force on ISO Harmonization had been set up after ALA Annual 2001, and charged with:
Chopey said that the originally appointed chair of the task force had resigned in December, and that he had been asked to take over as chair shortly before this meeting. In addition to the chair, the task force has also lost 2 more of its originally appointed members, Chopey said, and he would welcome participation by any other CC:DA members who might be interested in serving on the task force. He noted that CC:DA Chair Schiff had already approved his asking for additional members at this meeting.
The impetus for the setting up of this task force was the rule revision proposal document presented to CC:DA by John Hostage of Harvard Law School Library at ALA Annual 2001. This document, CC:DA/Hostage/1, proposed removing the full stop after metric units of measurement in AACR2, and treating them as symbols rather than abbreviations in bibliographic description.
Chopey said that the Task Force, which now consisted of himself, John Hostage, Kristin Lindlan, and Aimée Quinn, had had a meeting this morning to begin to decide how they would be addressing their task forces charge. The first challenge will be identifying all of the ISO standards relevant to bibliographic description. He said that the task force would welcome comments from any member of the committee or audience, and these should be sent to him at email@example.com. The task forces final report is due to the CC:DA chair by May 15, 2001.
Schiff thanked Chopey for his report and announced that anyone interested in serving on this task force could contact either Chopey or himself to volunteer.
Laurel Jizba distributed an interim report from Friday that she said was out-of-date at this meeting because the task force had met Saturday and changed it substantially. She thanked the active task force members (Brad Eden; Greta de Groat; Gene Kinnaly; Jimmie Lundgren; Nan Myers; Ann Sandberg-Fox).
She said that her verbal report would summarize the recommendations and how they arrived at them. In their work, they had looked at the big issues and then broken them down into smaller ones. The charge for the task force had been to look at areas 3, 5 and 7 of chapter 9 on electronic characteristics. Jizba reported that they had conducted three focus groups to provide feedback for the task force: a questionnaire to electronic resources catalogers; an internal task force questionnaire; and feedback from 20 additional catalogers (mostly academic) on Saturday. The methodology they used is described in the written report.
Jizba said the task force recommended eliminating area 3 and relocating the data to area 7 for remote resources. There was no clear majority on what to do with area 5. File size was not seen as useful as other data.
In the extent for direct access resources, Jizba reported that they wanted to replace computer optical disc with computer disc (CD-ROM). Optionally, they suggested adding only established terms from other appropriate chapters related to content. For this same question, #4, they do not want to provide for remote resources, but use a note instead. For complex accompanying material, LC provided an example, but users dont like it. They recommend an LCRI be created regarding accompanying materials.
In B.4. Extent for remote resources, Jizba said the task force would prefer a specific and useful note. They rejected 17 different terms as possibilities.
In B.6 of the report, the task force agreed there was no need to routinely record sound and color characteristics, though the cataloger may provide them.
Jizba reported that electronic resources catalogers prefer specific notes to general notes for remote electronic resources. They also thought guidance in the construction of summary notes is necessary.
Jizba said that their final report is due at ALA annual 2001, with an interim report due March 1, 2001, for the JSC meeting in April.
Attig said it was a solid interim report, but added he was concerned about a couple of details where reversing decisions that were being published for the first time, e.g. in area 3, the use of computer disk vs. CD-ROM. Attig said the rule says can use 1 CD-ROM.
Jizba replied that was fine with the task force.
Attig said that chapter 9 contains a parenthetical extent of file for direct access resources.
Jizba said they were not concerned with direct access resources, only remote.
Schottlaender complimented Jizba for the great report.
Schiff thanked the task force for its work.
Don Chatham, Head of Publishing Dept. at ALA, reported that there would be an amendments package out in early spring. He said that the idea of publishing in loose-leaf format had been raised again to accommodate the substantial changes currently pending. He added that the former problems with the binder would need to be addressed. The amendments available on the web in pdf format had been a popular option. The publishers are considering the idea of a new revision and it would take 18 months to put together. He reported there would be a meeting scheduled with the Committee of Principals in April after the JSC meeting.
John Attig reported that the task force had been discharged, but had continued working and would have a final report soon. The task force still needed to consider recent documents and welcomed comments. At this meeting he wanted to discuss the broader issues.
Jean Hirons said that ISBD(S) had agreed on a definition of continuing resources and that the ISBD(S) was to be changed in scope to become ISBD(CR) for serials and other continuing resources. The focus included more than bibliographic description, e.g., serials control.
Regina Reynolds summarized recent ISSN activities, including agreements by the three groups (AACR, ISBD, ISSN) on rules for major/minor title changes, broader, lead to fewer title changes, fewer new record for trivial changes. She expressed concern that the concept of continuing resources was not being accepted by AACR, when the ISSN community had accepted it.
Attig said that continuing resources would not appear in the code until it appeared in the introduction, at which point it could then appear elsewhere in the code. He had unofficial minutes from the meeting of experts, at which there had been a discussion of scope of the common universe of the 3 groups (AACR, ISBD, ISSN). He reported that this would be in the final version of the minutes and that a formal definition of continuing resources was forthcoming. He added that the extent of harmonization that had been reached was great.
Hirons read the definition from the report for continuing resources, including the lack of predetermined conclusion.
Attig said there was some consensus in dealing with continuing resources: a lack of predetermined conclusion. The words determinate and indeterminate are from the original Graham/Hirons paper [Jean Hirons and Crystal Graham, Issues Related to Seriality, The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 23-25, 1997, Jean Wiehs, editor (Chicago : American Library Association, 1998), p. 180-212] If one goes back to the original discussion in the Toronto paper, seriality equaled anything that moves. He said he wanted to concentrate now on issues having to do with the model of bibliographic resources and the scope of chapter 12. He said that the model takes the concept apart and looks at: single vs. multipart; complete vs. incomplete; successive vs. integrating; determinate vs. indeterminant. These arent hierarchical, but independent axes. He added that what is needed is a 5-dimensional model, which makes it complicated when it is reduced to a two-dimensional page. The emerging consensus was to simplify by flattening the model, with the concept of finite to include concept of determinate and continuing resources to include concept of indeterminate. This makes the concept of finite include determinate and then makes secondary distinctions about complete vs. incomplete, successive and integrating, etc., though he realized they cross the lines. If this model were accepted, it clarifies where to place multipart items since they are determinate and therefore finite. If thats where we want to proceed, it is legitimate to suggest adding continuing resources to the scope statement of Chapter 12, although the chapter also covers some things that arent continuing resources.
Schottlaender said that that was the JSCs intention once seriality was on the table, but questioned whether Attig was saying to include now before the introductory chapter is written. He added that it was not definite that multiparts would be included in Chapter 12.
Attig replied that it was not a definite decision that multiparts arent continuing resources and therefore they were not ready to put in the rules. If we are ready to put them in the rules, then this is just a limited introduction of the concept and the introduction can provide that.
Tillett said that the JSC thinks the introduction should come first to get the concepts out and then the use of continuing resources in chapter 12 would follow.
Carol Hixson said she would support having continuing resources in chapter 12 now, because she thought it was important to get the concept out now, rather than waiting on the introduction. She doesnt want a new chapter 12 now and then another chapter 12 later. She added that we know the concepts and harmonization is more important than getting them all in the right order.
Susan Hayes said the terms are being used now. She asked what the timeframe was for the introduction that LA/BL is writing.
Schottlaender replied that a draft or outline was due by the JSC meeting in April.
Schiff said that the term integrating resources was also going into chapter 12 and he questioned the need to wait on the term continuing resources.
Jizba said the two terms have practical value and people need them now. Waiting is a theoretical exercise.
Tillett point out that integrating resources are both continuing and not continuing and chapter 12 is a little unclear as a result. JSC wanted to be clear what was in chapter 12. She said including finite would add to the confusion.
Hirons said there were two issues: 1) what is the chapter title, and 2) getting the words into the scope statement.
Attig added that putting it in the scope statement allows us to define the term in glossary.
Schottlaender said chapter 12 includes determinate and indeterminate, as well as non-continuing integrating resources. We can call the chapter Continuing resources. If multiparts are included, Chapter 12 would include all continuing plus some non-continuing resources.
Attig said that what is in the chapter cannot be described with single term. The question is whether continuing plus or integrating plus is included in chapter 12 before the introduction is revised. He said the scope statement could be written either way.
Attig asked for a straw poll on whether or not CC:DA wants to include continuing resources in scope note of chapter 12? There was unanimous support for it by everyone present.
Attig mentioned the many subrules for serials and integrating resources and asked whether it is better to have them in separate chapters. He added that the clean draft of chapter 12 made it clearer what happening, but that the task force hadnt had a chance to discuss it yet.
Hixson said she thought it was clear as written.
Lindlan said she would like to have serials and integrating resources in separate chapters, even if that means repeating parts of rules, because the rules for the two categories tend to have opposite instructions.
Tillett said the JSC had thought about all of the options and at this point, wanted to keep the two together, but having them separate is something they could consider. She reminded CC:DA of the Delsey reports recommendation of reorganizing the first part by ISBD areas.
Schottlaender said that if we are going to make that recommendation this is the time, even if it is late in the game.
Hirons questioned splitting up continuing resources, because if they are split up, the concept of continuing resources is lost.
Larsgaard said that there are pros and cons both ways and suggested that we could have chapter 12 in two parts: serials, and integrating resources.
Jizba said that it would be easier to have non-serial stuff together.
Attig said the task force needed to think about it more before asking CC:DA to make that recommendation. He added that he had a procedural question. There are many documents that discuss 21.2 and he wanted to know which task force should be discussing it and in which report the comments should be.
Schottlaender replied he preferred them in chapter 12 recommendations.
Attig said he and Lindlan would coordinate to get them in one place.
Schiff reminded CC:DA to send specific editorial comments on the chapter 12 text to John Attig.
717. Multipart items in AACR2: Schottlaender
Schottlaender thanked Judy Kuhagen and commended her work on analyzing multipart items. The two-three paragraphs preceding how to address provisions not in AACR2 for handling changes to parts of multipart items depend on decisions JSC and this group need to make.
Schottlaender said that Recommendation #1 had a question to answer, i.e., the number of bibliographic records to describe. Two possibilities had been identified by Kuhagen: (1) reaffirm the principle for a single record to describe a multipart item, irrespective of the number of title changes on later parts, or (2) create a new principle, i.e., create a series of bibliographic records to describe each part of a set.
He said the JSC and CC:DA also needed to decide on which part to base the description: 1) earliest; 2) latest; or, 3) as in the current AACR2 principle, base the description on the part with the predominant title. He added that the word predominant is undefined in the code.
Schottlaender asked Schiff how to proceed. Should we see if there is consensus or continue discussion electronically? The rationale for basing description on earliest means that it avoids having to go back and change earlier record(s) when new items issued.
Steven Arakawa said he would like to keep the principle of a single record approach, but was willing to be devils advocate on the description by latest or earliest or predominant issue. He asked what was the user perspective in looking for that book. He also brought up the rationale for description from the earliest part, i.e., less work if analyzed.
Larsgaard said she supported the principle for a single record approach, but added that description based on the earliest part does not work for cartographic multipart items. In a classic situation, e.g., a 9-sheet map in which the bibliographic information is spread across the tops of the first three sheets, a cataloger needs to catalog from all or as many sheets as are in hand because the first sheet may not have the title.
Schottlaender asked whether cartographic materials were the only exception and that, if they were an exception, how are they to be handled.
Attig voiced support for description from the earliest issue, because it is similar to workflow. He said that staff notice little about changes to multiparts and added that theyre lucky if a title change is noticed.
John Hostage said there are a lot of cases for multiparts where incomplete and replacement volumes may have new title. Many legal titles may be both integrating and multipart.
Hirons asked what the distinctions are for these materials if they were successively issued, each part with own title, or integrating, with only one presentation of title at any one time. She said a cataloger may have to make a decision about which category a particular title falls into.
Schottlaender said that he was hearing a reaffirmation of the single record approach by CC:DA, but added that description on the earliest part seems problematic and hes not hearing a proposed alternative.
Hixson said that what may be describe is not later information, but bits of information across sheets for cartographic materials in a situation where a title can only be cataloged when all sheets are available. Its not a situation of have slightly differently information. Perhaps we need wording added that a series of parts constitute enough to catalog by when complete bibliographic information comes out on top of the sheets over time.
Jizba said there was an analogous philosophical situation in chapter 9, with most complete title appearing on source. She summarized that what she was hearing from the law and map catalogers was using the most comprehensive title.
Hixson expressed disagreement, because volume 2 may have a subtitle that is most comprehensive. She wouldnt advocate using that principle.
Schiff said he wouldnt have a problem retaining the concept of predominance. He has seen sets where the first part had one title and later parts another and its a 20-volume set likely to be known by later title. He added that Arakawa had good point, i.e., ff Analyzable parts, the cataloger would have to go back and change it. If we retain predominance, it needs to be defined. He added that variant forms of names have 80/20% rule and we may need something similar for titles in the rules.
Schottlaender said that he was still not hearing consensus.
Jizba said that access is necessary for the other title and its not expressed in the rules. Chapter 21 needs some provisions for it. She said CC:DA should endorse description based on earliest part. She added that when the first issue is the latest, the next time it comes in its still the latest and its always going to be latest, even if its the earliest.
Glazier asked at what point did the Appendix enter here.
Schottlaender replied that at this point, the Appendix is where those instructions are and will be.
Kuhagen added if its one record, it should be in the first part of the code. The Appendix is only for major changes.
A straw poll was taken with the result that basing description on the earliest has it, but Schottlaender added that CC:DA needs to talk to law and maps catalogers because the response should have their needs in mind.
Schottlaender reported that in the discussion leading up to Recommendation #2, Kuhagen wrote that there were at least three general configurations possible if reorganize part 1 of AACR2: (1) areas of description; (2) a variation of the current AACR2 organization; (3) categories of publications. He referred to Appendix B in Kuhagens report for a variety of other possibilities and explanations of why they were rejected.
Schottlaender said that Recommendation #2 describes the creation of a conceptual chapter expanding on the content of chapter 13, the analysis chapter. It merges it with future provisions, including the major change appendix and the LC 50 recommendations on series authority records and covers topics related to how many bibliographic records are created under which circumstances and the relationships of bibliographic records to each other. Kuhagens recommendation is that such a chapter be in the code either as the first chapter or as a general chapter preceding part 1. He asked Kuhagen what she thought the relationship was between the conceptual chapter and the new introductory chapter being written by LA/BL.
Kuhagen said this was not a new idea on her part. In the Hirons/Graham paper, there were recommendations to include information on why creating a new record and a chapter on mechanics. She added that concepts integral to the code should be in the code, not in the introduction. The introduction should be limited to introducing the document.
Schottlaender said that if CC:DA endorsed this recommendation, it would constitute additional information being added to the code. He said he thought the British were working on an introduction that does extend to some of these concepts that are in the conceptual chapter that Kuhagen is recommending. It may be an undesirable mixing together of introduction and cataloging.
Attig said he agreed. He also made the suggestion to not limit number (5) under Recommendation #2 to the concept of serials control. He said it was applicable to other types of local information as well. Also, in bibliographic records, he said there is copy specific data which is now covered throughout the rules and could belong in the conceptual chapter.
Glazier added that anything in the conceptual chapter on the topic of serials control would mostly be ignored.
Vote: unanimous endorsement of Recommendation #2.
Schottlaender said that it was unstated in the document how recommendations in this document would be implemented if the JSC endorses. If JSC endorses Recommendation #2, it clarifies that the conceptual chapter is different from the introductory chapter that LA/BL is preparing. He asked whether the Library of Congress was volunteering to draft the conceptual chapter, if the JSC decides that a chapter separate from the introduction is needed.
Tillett said she stopped short of saying that, but it was not impossible.
Kuhagen added that her paper laid out topics, e.g. multiparts, that were not addressed in AACR2, but did not say where the information should go.
Schottlaender summarized Recommendation #3 on ways to organize part 1 of AACR2. #3 or 3a suggests that part 1 by arranged by areas of the description. Seriality would be included in the conceptual chapter and in chapter on notes area. Information in chapter 13 would be added to the conceptual chapter. He said that the Alternate recommendation #3 is to retain the current organization of part 1, but make the following changes: merge current chapter 1 with conceptual chapter; add multipart items; a revised chapter 12; new chapter 13 dealing with changes in data elements. He asked Kuhagen about the recommendation merging chapter 13 into conceptual chapter.
Kuhagen replied she was concerned about renumbering all of the other chapters. If add multiparts to chapter 12, chapter 12 could be bibliographic description and new 13 changes. She added that not all serials or integrating resources have changes.
Schottlaender asked to clarify if new 13 would comprehend what is current being drafted as the Appendix on Major changes.
Kuhagen said it would include the notes for dealing with changes, which would be taken out of chapter 12.
Jizba said that this recommendation seemed to be print and textual-oriented and she said she hoped that a new conceptual chapter would not be overly written for print interests. This was seconded by Larsgaard and Lorimer in the interests of map and music catalogers.
Kuhagen said she had taken special formats into account. She added that if the JSC does not want to reorganize part 1 of AACR2, we still need to think about how to get all of the parts into the code. The easiest way is her alternate recommendation. She said she had thought of as many possibilities as she could and had provided rationale for two of them.
Attig said that in the general part under Recommendation #3, he was not convinced you could limit the rules for changes to area 7, especially not for integrating resources where the cataloger changes the description. He added that he did not think CC:DA was at a point to recommend on the reorganization of part 1 of AACR2 until weve dealt with question of whether benefits outweigh the costs. A decision is needed on the alpha prototype of AACR2.
Vote: Neither recommendation endorsed.
Schottlaender said he would distribute a draft ALA response for member review prior to sending it on to JSC.
Mark Watson distributed his CC:DA/ MARBI rep. report and summarized the report:
Proposal No. 2001-02. Proposal allows for non-MARC country codes in fields 043 and 044 and proposed $c in field 043 be defined for use of an ISO 3166 code for representations of names of countries and subdivisions, which is used in several metadata schemes. This was unanimously approved by MARBI.
Discussion paper 2001-DP02. Non-MARC language codes in field 041 of bibliographic and community information formats. The discussion document explored a number of approaches to provide for other standard types of language codes in MARC records. Watson reported that the issue will come back to MARBI at annual as a proposal that features the following characteristics: use of a repeating 041; use of repeating subfields a-h; second indicator 7 for non-standard codes used in 041; use of subfield 2 to specify language code scheme. The proposal will also suggest that stacking of language codes, e.g., engfreger, be eliminated in favor of the use of separate subfields for language used in each item. The repeating 041s and un-stacking would apply to both MARC and non-MARC language codes. He added that this is a major change and he would keep CC:DA informed on this issue.
Proposal No. 2001-01. Designating taxonomic hierarchies in field 754. This proposal came back approved but slightly modified. Subfield a was redefined to contain taxonomic name only, $c taxonomic category, with both subfields a and c repeatable and $c containing a non-repeatable public note. Another subfield, maybe x, is to be worked on for a non-public note. Another subfield (to be determined) will be defined to contain a common or alternative name.
Discussion Paper 2001-DP01. Recording narrators in fields 508 and 511. MARC 21 documentation instructs catalogers to record on-screen narrators in field 511 and voice-over narrators in field 508. Watson reported that in actual practice, this is an impractical distinction and results in inconsistencies. The discussion paper recommended putting all narrators in field 511. Watson reported that there would be no follow-up proposal, but the documentation will be changed to implement this.
Discussion Paper 2001-DP03. Types of dates for electronic resources. The purpose of the discussion paper was to help the MARC community consider whether the format has sufficient data elements to distinguish types of dates important for electronic resources that have not been needed for other types of material, e.g., date modified and date valid, both of which are qualifiers in Dublin core elements. Watson reported there would be another discussion paper focusing on the use of field 046 special coded dates for a variety of dates, not just those for electronic resources.
Proposal No. 2001-03. Identification of $2 (source) in field 015 was approved with no changes.
Attig said that mapping of dates might be useful, e.g., to distinguish date of creation from date of issuance or date of validity. The content standards of AACR do not always use these same dates, but they may be of interest for AACR2. Watson agreed to keep CC:DA informed on this topic also.
Watson said that MARBI would like to have a joint meeting with CC:DA on Monday afternoon at ALA Annual Conference 2001, with possible topics: (1) recommendations from Bicentennial Conference; (2) seriality.
Hirons suggested the proposed bibliographic level i as a possible topic. She added that if seriality were to be discussed, it would be a good idea to invite the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging to the meeting, since Monday afternoon is also their meeting time. Attig suggested a repeatable 260 field as another possible topic.
Hixson supported the idea of a joint meeting if there are substantive topics to discuss.
Schiff agreed to talk to Watson and Bill Jones, Chair of MARBI, about a possible topic.
John Attig reported that for the dissemination of documents electronically it was easiest for him if he received the original word processing copy of documents and created a PDF file, rather than scanning paper documents. He asked if use of electronic transmittal was acceptable for JSC documents. Schottlaender said he would forward any electronic copies that he received, but added that the document of record is a hard copy.
Schiff thanked Attig for his work on the CC:DA website.
720. Rule change proposals from MAGERT: Larsgaard
Mary Larsgaard distributed a photocopy of a view of the UC San Diego campus with a perspective map on the verso that illustrates the note Scale varies, because she said she often found it difficult to describe graphic items with words alone.
She reported that we would be discussing the 3.3 proposals, as the JSC had not had time for the 3.7 proposals at its September meeting. The area 7 note proposals were left in the package sent to CC:DA.
Larsgaard directed CC:DA to the MAGERT response for 3.3 and said that the JSC had agreed to renaming 3.3. The most important proposal is the new 3.3G for geospatial reference data dealing with horizontal and vertical data, grids, and state coordinate systems. She said that MAGERT had rethought this after a year of cataloging of geospatial items and has realized that detailed note information is not appropriate for area 3 and belongs in area 7. They wanted to propose three possibilities to the JSC: (1) write a revised 3.7B8 which includes notes on area 3 and example; (2) write a revised 3.7B8 including new text and examples; (3) handle this in the interpretative manual, Cartographic materials, 2nd ed., which would be out in late 2002. In response to a question from Schottlaender, Larsgaard said she preferred the additional text in 3.7B8 (all notes on mathematical and other cartographic data).
CC:DA concurred with her preference.
Larsgaard reported that this proposal was the result of JSC responses to ALA proposal for 3.3A3. MAGERT agreed with the JSC response on repeatability of the area and said that punctuation should appear in 3.3A1 and not in 3.3A3. MAGERT accepted CCC suggestions and LC wording, but found one incorrect phrasing in the LC proposal. In the last paragraph of the response, if 3.3G becomes a note which it has the last three instructions would need to be deleted.
Larsgaard reported that in the MAGERT response, MAGERT agreed that the first statement (This area is repeatable) is now covered by the addition to 3.3A1 and is no longer necessary. MAGERT would like to have this rule because they have deleted geospatial reference data in 3.3G. The example needs to be changed. She added that MAGERT accepted the LC idea of using the note /Scale not given in this situation.
Schiff made a correction of the term Computer data to Electronic data in the example.
Jizba said that if area 3 were eliminated, this rule would need to change. Larsgaard agreed that they would take out file characteristics when changes were implemented in chapter 9, but said that MAGERT had worked with what was in the rules at the present.
Larsgaard read the text of 3.3A3, with correction of /and/or noted.
Larsgaard said that there had been differences of opinion on 3.3B1 among the JSC constituencies. MAGERT agreed with the ACOC and LC responses and, in particular with ALAs original proposal, but agreed with the language from the LC response and added as a true final paragraph: For electronic resources, give the scale if the source has a scale statement or if the scale is already recorded as part of the title proper or other title information. Otherwise, give Scale not given.
CC:DA agreed with this proposal.
Larsgaard reported there had not been an ALA proposal for 3.3B3, but there had been an LC response. She said that MAGERT disagrees with this response and wanted to keep the note Scale varies because map catalogers saw a qualitative difference between Scale varies and Scale not given. This is important information for users and MAGERT requested that the rule remain as is.
CC:DA agreed with MAGERT on this proposal.
Larsgaard said that she had left out a key point in these proposals and would rewrite them as one rule applying to all cartographic material. As a result, she was withdrawing 3.3B4, 5, and 6 and would resubmit them as 3.3B4. She agreed to get this revision to Schiff and Attig by Feb. 7 for CC:DA approval in order to be sent to Schottlaender by March 1, 2001 for forwarding in time for April JSC meeting.
Larsgaard reported that the MAGERT version had not been approved. MAGERT agreed that the word maps should not be substituted for charts in this rule because there are celestial maps that arent charts. They also took birds-eye views out of this rule. They had discovered that views and perspective maps are constructed by a cartographer to a linear scale and therefore are not a situation of non-linear scale, as this rule covers.
Larsgaard reported that 3.3B8 had already been approved by the JSC.
Larsgaard said that MAGERT agreed with LC that Scale not applicable is not appropiate here and that LCs proposed final paragraph be added to 3.3B1. 3.3B9 is withdrawn.
Larsgaard reported that MAGERT agreed to the LC revision of this rule.
Larsgaard said that MAGERT wanted to simplify this rule by putting longitude and latititude letters for direction in the same location in front of the coordincates, whether given in degrees, minutes and seconds, or in degrees. Also, MAGERT agreed to change Optional addition to Optionally, as suggested by the Canadians. Larsgaard also agreed to rephrase this sentence in the imperative as suggested by Attig, i.e., Record coordinates as
Larsgaard reported that MAGERT agreed with ACOC that this rule needed more examples and ACOC and/or CCC would provide the examples.
3.3F & 3.3F1
Larsgaard thanked the Canadian contingent of AAACM for their response. She said the second sentence should have the words mechanism and storage technique. MAGERT is also taking out note about lack of mention of typology level in the example in 3.3F1.
3.3G & 3.3G1
Larsgaard reported this was being moved to area 7 and the proposal was being withdrawn.
Larsgaard reported that the MAGERT response was approved. She said that it is useful for users to have this information in area 3. She added that this in flux because it has to do with serials and may need to be changed.
Schiff suggested the need for another document proposing changes to 5.3, 9.3, 11.3.
Schottlaender agreed to write it in consultation with Larsgaard.
Larsgaard reported that MAGERT agreed with CCC response on original proposal. She thanked Bob Ewald for noticing its omission. 3.5C2 has to do with the order of information for other physical details (e.g., layout, color). She said she would insert this into the final document prior to sending to the JSC.
Kate Harcourt said that Larsgaard had given her some suggestions that would inform discussion, even though she had not been able to incorporate them into the document. She read the existing text for 21.30J1 and outlined the benefits of changing it. She said that there were some additional decisions from the music community on that option. In her proposal, she suggested making the four exceptions in the rule optional or changing 21.30J1 so that title added entries are made routinely for all author/title combinations. She added that indicator changes may be more in MARBIs purview. Harcourt said that changing 21.30J1 would improve access for users. A rule change would codify what weve told the vendors for cleanup programs setting indicators one way or the other. Catalogers are also using macros and templates and it is difficult to remember to change the indicator values based on the exceptions.
Harcourt said that in the LCRI, LC generally makes an added entry except for exception b. She expressed concern that, especially for a and c, the title proper is identical to corporate body. Although this was a practical solution in the card environment, it does not work in online environment. We also see more and more titles composed by catalogers, particularly for web sites, and they are valid access points and are listed in finding aids. As a result, they are a valid search option. For option d) musical works, LC practice is to make a title added entry unless its not sufficiently distinctive by itself to be an access point. She said this is subjective and that it is easier to err more on the side of more title access. In the interests of simplification, Harcourt would like greater consistency and ease of application. With processing and reprocessing records by vendors, keeping exception categories is increasingly difficult.
The three options in Harcourts document are: 1) leave as is; 2) amend and simplify 21.30J to make an added entry under title proper of every item entered under a personal, corporate or uniform title heading, etc.; or 3) an alternative proposal to have an optional provision to not make added entries for the four exception categories found in 21.30J.
Larsgaard agreed that it seemed appropriate to change this rule, but make it optional for those libraries that want to use the exceptions, especially if they are still in a card environment.
Hixson moved to accept the alternative proposal, making exceptions optional. Hayes seconded.
Nancy Lorimer said that the optional clause would allow the music community to use the world as currently written and added that they have a list of what distinctive titles are.
Motion passed unanimously.
The proposal will go to Schottlaender by March.
Schiff noted that many of the chapter 12 and 21 proposals in the Chair/68 series of documents and LC/49 documents do affect this rule, but they affect only the last paragraph of this rule and not what was being discussed here.
Schiff said this topic was a holdover from annual meeting because CC:DA had not resolved whether uniform resource identifiers should be in AACR or not.
Attig said that, in his discussion paper, possible solutions without major change to the code were not particularly attractive because the places we could put things use the word number. Resource identifiers are not perceived as being numbers. If thats issue, a longer term project would be to consider broadening scope of area 8 to include standard identifiers, not just numbers. He asked if this was an approach worth exploring.
Glazier: One of issues about URIs is that they are not necessarily part of universal bibliographic description. They may only refer to individual copies/versions that people have access to. He has a problem with rewriting rules unless one can determine that they are part of a universal bibliographic description.
Tillett: Impacts ISBD also. Would require ISBD review.
Schiff noted that in ISBD (ER) there is a URL in a mode of access note.
Schiff asked for straw poll: how many people think there should be provision in AACR2? Half the room agreed. There was then some consensus that AACR2 should deal with it.
Schiff asked if it is a number or something else.
Attig replied that it was clearly not a number.
Jizba said that its a note about resource that cant be expressed in any other way, but it is a note and not a standard identifier.
Glazier said that mode of access note sounds closer than anything weve got now.
Jizba reminded CC:DA of two previous discussions. In the first discussion, CC:DA did not want it in AACR2, but in the second one did.
Sandberg-Fox said that the harmonization group agreed we needed it and wanted it proposed, but no consensus on where to put it. URLs and URNs had not been understood by people at the table, but now there has been a change in opinion.
Larsgaard said she remembered old discussions and that URLs were seen to be similar to call numbers.
Jizba said that it is an address where located. They describe access and belong in notes. The mode of access note is a good place for it
Sandberg-Fox said that another reason for leaving them out of AACR2 had been that URLs change too often and are not reliable.
Steve Shadle (audience) said that a PURL is not describing the location and in that sense, its more like an identifier.
Glazier said that URLs are also being added to other notes by MARBI on a regular basis.
Attig said he was hearing that there may not be a single place in the notes area where all identifiers could be recorded.
Schiff asked whether we needed a task force.
Bruce Johnson (audience) said that many MARC elements are not addressed in AACR2 and that, given the breadth and number of problems currently with resource identifiers, they should be left out of AACR2.
Attig said thats where we started: MARC record would adequately deal with resource identifiers, whether AACR2 does or not. But the question is should we deal with them in AACR2?
Jizba mentioned they had been in earlier drafts of chapter 9, mostly in examples and at least one was taken out by JSC.
Attig: But in part that was because there is no rule that calls for inclusion of identifiers.
Schiff: Half the group thought identifiers should be in the rules.
Larsgaard: We dont have critical mass yet. We would need to know more about URIs and Bruces comments that a URI can refer to many things.
Schiff said that a task force could provide information about URIs.
Attig said, rephrasing Johnsons point, that resource identifiers are used as linking devices, as well as information about the item.
Cecilia Preston (audience) asked to clarify whether CC:DA is talking about URIs, DOIs or other identifying schemes.
Sandberg-Fox replied that talking about a broader approach, not just URIs.
Schottlaender said that Prestons comments about emerging metadata schemes and Sherry Kelleys earlier comments were helpful and that we should begin to discuss the issues.
Hayes moved to form a task force to investigate resource identifiers in AACR. Lincicum seconded.
Schiff said he would draft a proposal and consult CC:DA on the wording of the charge.
Bruce Johnson said that URNs are a MARBI-approved concept and may be added to specific note fields as need is expressed.
Motion passed unanimously.
Larsgaard asked whether CC:DA should consider having a deadline for submission for documents for consideration at CC:DA meetings. There had been a timeline of 6 weeks before documents were being submitted electronically. Glazier said that people also needed time to consult with their constituencies.
Schottlaender said that documents were to be submitted 30 days in advance for the JSC if there were to be discussed at the JSC meeting. A document might or might not be discussed, if it were late.
Sheryl Nichin-Keith asked if CC:DA needed to discuss everything at meetings. Schottlaender said that if discussions are done via email and decisions made, should be noted in chair report, for the record, that it had been discussed.
Larsgaard agreed to examine and suggest revisions to procedural documents in order to establish better guidelines for the timeliness of submission of proposals.
Hixson said that she had had problems getting e-mail the week of ALA. CC:DA will rely on the internal distribution page.
Schottlaender announced that Matthew Beacom would be the new ALA representative to the JSC.
Schiff announced that the next meeting would be in San Francisco in June 2001.
The motion was made to adjourn the meeting and it was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Michael A. Chopey, CC:DA Intern
Kristin Lindlan, CC:DA Intern