ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services


June 2003

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Minutes of the meeting held at the
2003 Annual Conference in Toronto, Ontario
June 21 and 23, 2003

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

Members present:
Kristin Lindlan, Chair
Steven R. Arakawa
John C. Attig
Michael A. Chopey
Peter Vincent Fletcher
Kate Harcourt
Dorothy McGarry
Jay Weitz
Matthew Wise

Barbara Rudich for Lynnette M. Fields, Intern
Cheri A. Folkner, Intern

Ex-officio representatives present:

Matthew Beacom, ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee
Ann Della Porta for Barbara Tillett (absent 6/23), Library of Congress
Glenn Patton (represented by Cynthia Whitacre 6/23), OCLC
Ed Glazier, Research Libraries Group

ALA Liaisons present:

Louise Sevold, ALCTS/AS
Selina Lin for Shi Deng, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM
Kay E. Lowell, ALCTS/CCS/CCM
Mary Woodley, ALCTS/NRMC
David Van Hoy, ALCTS/SS
Robert L. Maxwell, ALA/ACRL
Rebecca Culbertson, ALA/GODORT
Shelby E. Harken, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Kevin A. Furniss (absent 6/21), ALA/NMRT
Robert Hall, ALA/PLA
Cynthia Whitacre, ALA/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons present:

Kathy Winzer, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Heather Cannon for Gertrude Koh, CLA
Robert McDonald, MedLA
Matthew Wise for Nancy E. Lorimer, MusLA

CC:DA Webmaster:

John Attig


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

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

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

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

  5. Abbreviations used in these minutes include:
    AACR = Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules
    AACR2 = Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., 2002 revision
    ACOC = Australian Committee on Cataloguing
    ALCTS = Association for Library Collections and Technical Services
    ANSI/NISO = American National Standards Institute/National Information Standards Organization
    BL = British Library
    CC:AAM = Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials
    CC:DA = Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
    CCC = Canadian Committee on Cataloguing
    CCS = ALCTS/Cataloging and Classification Section
    CDS = LC, Cataloging Distribution Service
    CILIP = Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
    CPSO = LC, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
    CSSC = ALCTS/Serials Section, Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
    DCMES = Dublin Core Metadata Element Set
    DCMI = Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
    FRANAR = Functional Requirements and Numbering for Authority Records (IFLA Working Group)
    FRBR = IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
    IFLA = International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
    IRRT = ALA/International Relations Round Table
    ISBD(CM) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Cartographic Materials
    ISBD(CR) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Serials and other Continuing Resources
    ISBD(ER) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources
    ISBD(M) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications
    ISBD(NBM) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Non-Book Materials
    ISO = International Organization for Standardization
    ISSN = Internaitonal Standard Serial Number
    JSC = Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
    LC = Library of Congress
    LCSH = Library of Congress Subject Headings
    MAGERT = ALA/Map and Geography Round Table
    NISO = National Information Standards Organization (U.S.A.)
    NLC = National Library of Canada
    NRMC = ALCTS/Networked Resources and Metadata Committee
    OLAC = Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc.
    PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
    SAC = ALCTS/CCS/Subject Analysis Committee
    SCCTP = Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (CONSER)
    VRA = Visual Resources Association


Saturday, June 21, 2003, 2:00 – 5:30 p.m.
Westin Harbour Castle Hotel, Metro Ballroom East

820.   Welcome and opening remarks: Chair

Kristin Lindlan opened the meeting and welcomed the Committee members, liaisons, representatives, and visitors.

821.   Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives: Group

Committee members, liaisons, and representatives introduced themselves.

822.   Adoption of agenda: Chair

It was moved the revised agenda be adopted; the motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

823.   Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2003 Midwinter Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, January 25 and 27, 2003: Chair

Corrections already received were noted. Matthew Beacom stated that the 2nd bullet in 807 should read “more than just a carrier chapter” not “more than just a content chapter.” John Attig moved the minutes as amended be approved. Michael Chopey seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved.

824.   Reading of the CCS resolution on Seymour Lubetzky: McGarry

Dorothy McGarry read the CCS resolution honoring Seymour Lubetzky:

Whereas, Seymour Lubetzky, an esteemed cataloging theorist, librarian, and teacher, died at the age of 104 on April 5, 2003, in Los Angeles; and

Whereas, His outstanding contributions to the profession include his philosophical and methodological thinking and writings about cataloging issues; and

Whereas, His Cataloging Rules and Principles (1953), one of the most influential works in library and information science, was the foundation of the Statement of Principles adopted at the 1961 International Conference on Cataloguing Principles held in Paris; and

Whereas, These same principles formed the basis for the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules and continue to influence code design internationally; and

Whereas, During his seventeen-year tenure on the staff of the Library of Congress (1943-1960), he developed the theoretical underpinning upon which all subsequent descriptive cataloging policy at the Library of Congress is based; and

Whereas, He was an admired and beloved professor at the School of Library Service at the University of California, Los Angeles from 1960-69; and

Whereas, He was the 1955 recipient of the Margaret Mann Citation, the highest honor in cataloging bestowed by the American Library Association, “for his scholarly analyses and critiques which stimulated and influenced profoundly the revision of cataloging rules and led the library profession to a clear statement of principles as the basis for future cataloging policy”; and

Whereas, He was a 2002 recipient of Honorary Membership, ALA’s highest honor that recognizes outstanding contributions of lasting importance to libraries and librarianship; now therefore be it

Resolved, That the American Library Association on behalf of its members, recognizes Seymour Lubetzky’s remarkable achievements; and, be it further

Resolved, That this Association expresses its sincere sympathy to the Lubetzky family, including his two sons, David Lubetzky of Washington, D.C, and Richard Lubetzky of Los Angeles and his grandson, Darren Lubetzky, of Washington, DC.

825.   Report from the Chair: Chair

Lindlan asked for a reaffirmation of the votes taken by the Committee since the adjournment of the Midwinter Meeting; Attig so moved. Matthew Wise seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Lindlan reviewed the actions taken by CC:DA in the past six months. During that time CC:DA:

  • Formed one new Task Force. The Task Force on Chapter 21.0D, chaired by Ann Caldwell, is charged with examining AACR/LCRI 21.0D, an optional rule on designations of functions in headings.
  • Responded to the five-year review of ISSN standard (ISO 3297 (1998)).
  • Sent comments on the Committee Draft on ISBN (ISO/CD 2108).

Lindlan also reviewed the ongoing task forces:

  • The Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes completed a “final” draft of the document on “when to create a new record,” which is to be a stand-alone document for publication.
  • The CC:DA/MARBI Program Planning Committee for Annual 2003 continued working on its charge to develop and publicize a program on the role of FRBR in cataloging, as well working on a preconference on FRBR for the 2004 annual conference. The program “Don’t Be Dysfunctional” will be held tomorrow morning. The speakers will be Glenn Patton, Vinod Chachra, Sally McCallum substituting for Tom Delsey, and Matthew Beacom substituting for Barbara Tillett.
  • The Task Force on Consistency across Part I of AACR continued its work and focused on areas 2, 3, 4, and 6.
  • The Joint ALA/BL Task Force to Reconceptualize Chapter 9, chaired by Michael Chopey, was charged with redefining the scope of chapter 9 in AACR2 and proposing rules in other chapters to deal with electronic manifestations of materials covered in those chapters.
  • An official Task Force on FRBR terminology was formed at the Midwinter Meeting and has developed responses to documents regarding FRBR. In March CC:DA considered the Task Force’s draft response to 4JSC/Chair/76/Chair follow-up/4 and part II of 4JSC/Chair/76/Chair follow-up.

826.   Report from the Library of Congress Representative: Ann Della Porta for Barbara Tillett

Ann Della Porta delivered the LC report. Some of the items she highlighted were:

  • The Cataloging Management Team developed a strategic plan for fiscal years 2003-2008. The plan includes six strategic goals and thirty initiatives.
  • NACO participants are now being given the option of adding 781 fields to name authority records for geographic headings that may also be used as geographic subdivisions.
  • As of July 1, 2003 the Dewey Classification Division will assign classification numbers using the 22nd edition.
  • A study group recommended that LC expand the use of the single record approach to cover all electronic serials, at least for the next three years. The group considered it essential to strip out URLs that are not valid for LC before loading in LC’s integrated library system.
  • The Integrated Library System Program has been successful in expanding access and improving service for external users. Reports from users having problems accessing the catalog have decreased significantly.
  • NDMSO has developed a new XML schema and toolkit for working with MARC metadata in XML.
  • MODS version 2.0 was made available in January 2003.
  • The Digital Reference Team is supporting the reference services to LC’s digital collections and is leading LC’s digital reference initiative. The team provides both text-based and chat services via the LC’s Website.

Chopey asked for clarification regarding the use of the single record approach for electronic serials. Della Porta confirmed that LC’s policy is to use a single record approach. Lindlan noted that CONSER institutions are free to catalog using a single record or to do separate records for the print version and the electronic version.

805.   Report on activities of the IFLA Cataloguing Section: Patton

Glenn Patton reported that the 2002 IFLA meeting marked the 75th anniversary of IFLA by returning to the country where IFLA was founded. The Working Group on FRBR, chaired by Patrick Le Boeuf, was formed. Patton believes this group will be very important in the future. The group has set up a listserv as a way to publicize FRBR experiments and implementations. A website including FAQs and a bibliography will be available on IFLANET. Attig stated he will make a link to this website from the CC:DA website. Patton added that papers from a Norwegian/Finnish project which attempted to FRBR-ize existing records and the AUSLIT project which is a reference or bibliography oriented implementation of FRBR are included on the website.

Other working groups that are continuing are: the Working Group on the Use of Metadata Schemes, the ISBD Review Group, the Working Group on Multilingual Cataloguing, and the FRANAR Working Group. The FRANAR Working Group expects to meet in Europe in May. It hopes to have a model developed that will be an extension of FRBR — to define the functional requirements for authority records. Attig asked Patton about the FRANAR document. Patton responded that it will go through the worldwide review process. He doesn’t expect it to be out for comments until the fall of 2003.

Patton asked Tillett to review the regional meetings on cataloging principles that will be sponsored by IFLA. Tillett noted that it has been over 40 years since the conference that created the Paris Principles, and these meetings, which will be by invitation only, will revisit the issues from that conference. The first meeting is scheduled for July 2003 in Frankfurt. There will be a web-based discussion list with position papers to focus the discussion. The discussion list will be available Apr.-June. Another regional meeting is scheduled to take place before the 2004 IFLA meeting in Buenos Aires. A meeting in Asia is tentatively scheduled for 2006. Tillett is contacting representatives in the Middle East in hopes of a meeting there in 2005, but the prospects are small. Currently, there is nothing scheduled for Africa due to difficulties in creating interest. The results of these meetings will impact AACR and the JSC will be involved at IFLA. There probably won’t be a North American regional meeting since the JSC represents the Anglo-American interests and will be involved at the Frankfurt meeting. Some topics that will be covered are personal names and corporate bodies, seriality, multivolume publications, general material designators, and expression level citation.

Patton also reported that the UBCIM program office will split. International MARC will be hosted by the National Library of Portugal. The location of UBC is still under discussion. Deutsche Bibliothek is asking to retain it. Marie-France Plassard, the program director, is retiring at the end of Feb. 2003.

827.   Report on activities of NISO: Weiss

Paul Weiss reported that Stephen Hearn is the ALA representative for the revision of Z39.19, Guidelines for the constructions, format, and management of monolingual thesauri.

Weiss thanked CC:DA for its comments on the revision of 2108 (ISBN) and on the five year review of 3297 (ISSN).

This report ends Weiss’s term as ALA’s NISO representative. Betty Landesman will be the next ALA representative to NISO.

828.   Report from ALA Publishing Services: Donald E. Chatham, Associate Executive Director

ALA expects to publish the updates to AACR2 on approximately July 23, 2003. There will be a full revision of the index, which appears to be satisfactory to the JSC. There will be 60 pages of updates and 40 pages for the index, making a total of 100 pages. The tentative price is $19.

Don Chatham reported progress on an online version of AACR2 to aid CC:DA when making rule revision proposals. ALA Publishing calls this online version “the infobase.” This online version would allow for copying and pasting text, including its formatting, into documents for rule proposals or commenting on them. The infobase is in alpha testing; the Cyrillic characters need more testing. This is expected to be released in August.

Cartographic materials is under review. Its publication is expected in late summer or early fall.

Chatham ended by congratulating Robert Maxwell on winning the 2003 Highsmith Library Literature award.

829.   Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Beacom

The JSC met in late April and the minutes of that meeting are on the JSC Website. Beacom commented that access restrictions to the JSC’s papers cause problems for those who contribute to CC:DA’s work but who are not members of CC:DA. He will bring this issue to the JSC before the September meeting and again at the September meeting. Beacom will report the results to CC:DA at the Midwinter Meeting.

The JSC has decided to hire an editor for AACR. This recommendation has been sent to the Committee of Principals. Its decision may depend on the resources and budget available. If the Committee of Principals agrees, the editor will bring a new process to the development of AACR.

A new edition of AACR will include new introductions, FRBR terms, a revised chapter 21 incorporating authority control, consistency across part I, a reconceptualization of chapter 9, and the work of the Format Variation Working Group. There is no deadline for this new edition; Beacom estimated it would be at least four years before a new edition would be available.

Class of materials concept and GMDs

The JSC received these documents as thought pieces and they are not intended for formal constituent response. Individuals thought through the issues and came up with recommendations. Tom Delsey responded to the Chair document. The documents need airing beyond the JSC. Attig felt CC:DA should respond to the documents formally. He also felt it would be helpful to CC:DA’s ongoing activities to know the direction the JSC is going regarding prescribed sources and area 5. Beacom responded that the JSC has no opinion on these yet and there is no set direction to give. The Task Forces should use the documents as thought pieces, just as the JSC is using them. Attig voiced concern that the JSC will form opinions without all the constituents having an opportunity to respond. Chopey asked if the chapter 9 Task Force will be folded into the Consistency Task Force; Beacom responded the Task Force can continue as it is. Steven Arakawa commented that the ACOC document is very radical and he felt more comfortable with Delsey’s response than with the ACOC response. His concern arises from the users’ perspective: users find the GMD — as well as its location in the bibliographic record — to be important. Wise agreed that CC:DA should send in comments to the JSC which may influence the direction the JSC takes. Beacom responded that CC:DA will need to have comments completed by August 11 to be considered for the September JSC meeting.

Multipart monographs: basis of description

Beacom stated CC:DA needs to respond to this document by August 11 since it will be discussed at the September JSC meeting. Arakawa asked if CC:DA needed to consider 4/JSC/LC/59 in tandem since it has a definition of what is the first part and that may or may not affect the response to this document. The Committee decided to table discussion on this document until all the members could look at 4/JSC/LC/59. CC:DA will respond to it and 4JSC/LC/55/LC follow-up together. Beacom reiterated that the response needs to be to the JSC by August 11.

Transcription of series title (1.6B1 and 1.0F1)

Beacom summarized that this proposal removes the “see also 12.1B” reference from 1.6B1. Attig emphasized that something is lost by severing the connection between 1.6 and 12.1. Beacom responded that this proposal is a result of the lack of rules distinguishing between what to do when transcribing and what to do when creating an access point. He believed LC is proposing this as a fix until the section on authority control is added to the rules. McGarry commented that this see also reference has been identified as an issue to be discussed within the ISBDs. Attig moved that CC:DA endorse 4JSC/LC/58/LC follow-up. The motion was seconded and approved.

Specific characteristics of electronic resources (Chapter 9)

Beacom reviewed the recommendations and the proposed revisions in the document. The question asked of the JSC constituents is: Which terms from the list of SMDs in the current rule should be retained and added to the list in 9.5B1 of the proposed revision?

Elizabeth Mangan started the discussion by commenting that her new computer has a “DVD-RW” option and “DVD-RW” is not on the SMD list. This demonstrates one problem with controlled lists — it will be impossible to keep up with changing technology. She noted that the rule allows the use of conventional terms for new technology as needed.

Wise commented that historically SMDs have served two functions: to describe the physical carrier and as a statement of sensory mode of manifestation. For example, an opera can be manifested as a libretto, a score, a moving image, or in 3D artifacts and each manifestation occurs in a sensory mode — it can be seen, it can be heard, it can be touched. The second function is not captured in the chapter 9 SMDs. Attig added that SMDs often repeat elements of the GMD and the redundancy may not be an essential aspect of the SMD. Mangan noted in cartographic materials cataloging there is a third use of the SMD — the way the cartographic information is presented (e.g., view or remote-sensing image). Wise concurred with this and mentioned in chapter 5 there are different types of scores. Attig pointed out this function is covered somewhat in the optional rule of the proposed revision. Beacom asked how to incorporate these comments into the response regarding the chapter 9 SMDs. He suggested that the Chapter 9 Reconceptualization Task Force is addressing some of these issues and that CC:DA wait to see how that work develops. Wise agreed and added that his comments were targeted towards the third edition and how it might be structured.

Regarding the new SMDs in the proposal, Attig reported that OLAC suggested the terms “CD-ROM” and “DVD-ROM” cover all types of computer-readable CDs and computer-readable DVDs respectively. The differences between “CD-ROM,” “CD-I,” and “CD-RW” are differences in encoding standards and could be covered in the system requirements note; Beacom stated that there would need to be instructions in the rules explaining this. Peter Fletcher felt the OLAC suggestion would be confusing to users.

Attig listed several problems with using conventional terminology in the SMD:

  • when a term is used incorrectly repeatedly it then becomes conventional which leads to catalogers having to use a term incorrectly since it has become conventional.
  • the list of terms used would become endless.
  • terms in common usage will include trade names that traditionally have been included in a note. The proposed revision list of SMDs includes both “zip disk” and “Photo CD” which are trade names.

Chopey liked the method in 4JSC/CCC/6 and 4JSC/CCC/7 where the standard term is used and followed by the conventional term in parentheses. This may help in the future when the conventional term is no longer conventional. Beacom asked if the approach in the MLA proposal CC:DA/MLA/2003/1 would be welcomed by CC:DA and help answer the question at hand; it is similar to the method Chopey describes. Arakawa agreed with MLA’s strategy of using the type of encoding as a qualifier, but thought it may delay the revision of chapter 9. Chopey commented “compact disc” is not the same as “sound disc.”

Beacom asked again about the list in the proposal revision. Chopey couldn’t imagine any cataloger using the term “computer optical disc” if the term “CD-ROM” is available. Arakawa suggested adding the terms in the current rule to the list for the short term, but with the recommendation that the MLA strategy be considered. Attig felt that response would result in the package being delayed and therefore area 3 will still need to be included in descriptions a year from now. Wise pointed out Arakawa’s proposal is dependent on CC:DA approving the MLA strategy.

Attig reported that OLAC would like to warn CC:DA that “flash memory cards” will be coming as a possible SMD. Mary Woodley commented there is a plethora of new technologies and the list could become endless.

Attig reported OLAC agrees with MLA that old technology should not be renamed and therefore “computer chip cartridge,” “computer tape cartridge,” “computer tape cassette,” and “computer tape reel” should be retained. There was discussion about the term “floppy disk” referring to 5¾? computer disks and the term “diskette” referring to a 3½? computer disk. Chopey was in favor of retaining the term “computer disk” and letting the dimensions and memory size identify the type of disk.

Wise stated that perhaps the current terms in the current rule should stay since that rule appears to be working. Attig commented it took great effort to get the rules to allow the use of “CD-ROM” and not to include it in the list of terms would be a step backward. He was also concerned about including the current terms with the terms in the proposal since there would be overlapping concepts, e.g., a CD-ROM is a computer optical disc. Mangan suggested a footnote could instruct the cataloger to use “computer optical disc” for those computer optical discs other than computer-readable CDs and computer-readable DVDs. Wise felt that would be a messy way to resolve the problem and would confuse users. Chopey stated that the way the rule is currently applied is not bad and that many catalogers feel the rule and the LCRI are great improvements.

Because of time constraints, the Committee decided to resolve this issue on the electronic discussion list by August 11, 2003.

6.5B1 conventional terminology; and, Rule revision proposal from MLA: Wise (for Lorimer)

Attig presented OLAC’s position regarding the SMD terms used in 4JSC/CCC/6/Rev. Although “DAT tape” and “DVD-audio disc” include the redundancy of “tape” and “disc” respectively, OLAC was not opposed to their inclusion. OLAC did question using the term “compact disc” rather than “CD” which would seem to be the conventional term. Another comment was that the type of encoding should not be included in the SMD; it should be included in other physical details or a system requirements note.

Beacom reviewed the position of ARSC on the chapter 6 conventional terminology sent to CC:DA by Laurel Jizba. ARSC supports the idea of conventional terminology with certain reservations:

  • “tape” in “DAT tape” and “disc” in “DVD-audio disc” are redundancies and inclusion of those terms tends to give the impression that catalogers are uninformed. “DAT cassette” is suggested as an alternative for “DAT tape” if “DAT” alone is not adequate. “DVD-A” may become the post-CD audio accepted format.
  • “SACD” is better than “Super Audio CD” and ARSC supports the use of one of those terms.

Beacom stated that the MLA response to 4/JSC/CCC/6/Rev disagrees with the inclusion of “Super Audio CD.” Adding to the SMDs in this way would lead to a proliferation of SMDs, given all the various sub-formats available. MLA suggested noting the type of encoding. In CC:DA/MLA/2003/1 MLA proposed restricting the use of “sound disc” and “sound cassette” to analog recordings. OLAC agreed with the idea.

Arakawa felt the phrase “Where possible use terms that have already been established by national bibliographic agencies” used in 9.5B3 could be incorporated into the MLA proposal.

Wise presented the MLA proposal CC:DA/MLA/2003/1 as a response to the CCC proposal and in order to do damage control. The two functions of the SMD are not addressed by either the CCC or MLA proposals. Since MLA did not create the proposal in response to a perceived need, he recommended that CC:DA vote against both 4JSC/CCC/6/Rev and CC:DA/MLA/2003/1.

Attig felt the underlying issue CC:DA needs to resolve is whether common usage should be the primary factor in determining the allowable terms in the SMD. If CC:DA supports common usage in the SMD that has certain implications; if CC:DA does not support common usage in the SMD, CC:DA would be opposing the current feeling of the JSC. Beacom restated the issue — CC:DA needs to make a decision on using terms in common usage or not and needs to consider the implications of that decision.

Woodley commented there are two issues: the use of common terminology and the level of terminology. She agreed with using terms users will understand and recognize, but disagreed with lengthy and small distinctions. Users only need to know what kind of drive is needed to use a resource; a descriptive note would be the place to put specific information. Beacom said that it may be that too much information is being forced into the SMD. Ed Glazier noted that for VHS and Beta video-recordings the SMD was not revised. Whether the video-recording was VHS and Beta was not allowed in the physical description. That information was included in a note, but the notes were re-sequenced so the information would be near the top of the description.

Arakawa supported the MLA proposal as an improvement in service to the user. This solves a number of problems, and the more general term for the SMD and the type of encoding are included. Wise countered that the SMD in the MLA proposal does not include the sensory mode; it should be something like “1 sound CD.” Attig suggested that if the concept of sound is in the GMD, the absence of the concept in the SMD is not critical.

Beacom asked if CC:DA supported the MLA proposal. Wise stated there was an error in one of the examples in the MLA proposal and there were some editorial corrections needed. The Committee decided the revisions in the MLA proposal needed to be in place before more discussion on that proposal could take place. The Committee will make a decision by August 11, 2003.

7.5B1 conventional terminology

Arakawa suggested the moving image cataloging community may want to use the MLA approach. Attig reported that OLAC did not think there is clear warrant to declare the terms in this proposal as conventional terminology. Most of the terms indicate types of encoding. “Laserdisc” and “Laser videodisc” are different names for the same technology. Attig felt this proposal has the same problems as those in the earlier SMD discussions.

Beacom suggested the Committee address the issues of SMDs in chapters 6 and 7 together and possibly tie in the issues with those from chapter 9. Attig commented that the chapter 7 proposal hasn’t been reviewed by the impacted cataloging communities and if that is needed, more time will be required. If the problems are structural, the Committee may be able to deal with the problems. Beacom gave his thanks to OLAC and MLA for their comments and consultation. The deadline for action by CC:DA is August 11, 2003.

There was a motion to adjourn for the afternoon. The motion was seconded and approved.

Monday, June 23, 2003, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Westin Harbour Castle Hotel, Metro Ballroom East

830.   Welcome and opening remarks: Chair

Lindlan welcomed everyone back for the second day of the meeting.

831.   Report from the CC:DA/MARBI Program Planning Committee for 2004 Preconference: Chair

Lindlan reported the preconference in on track. The anticipated cost is about $250 for a 1½ day preconference.

832.   Report of the Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes: Whitacre

Cynthia Whitacre reported the Task Force took the comments of the Committee from the Midwinter Meeting and modified the document. The Task Force did not have the time to address the issue of when to create a new series authority record but suggests adding it to a later edition. Kate Harcourt commented that Judy Kuhagen already has written a document about when to create a series authority record. With Kuhagen’s permission, Cornell has it on its Web site; there is no need to recreate the wheel.

Arakawa asked if multiple minor changes equals a major change. Whitacre responded the Task Force did not think so. Lindlan suggested the Task Force state this explicitly in the document.

With regard to multipart monographs and area 6, the document states in B6c “a difference in parallel title(s) on the same part is MAJOR.” Arakawa disagreed that this should be a major change since the publisher might change the parallel title on different printings of the same part. Whitacre responded the consensus of the Task Force was that would be a major change, but once the document is used in practice, this decision may need to be revisited.

McGarry asked if the Task Force meant to leave in area 3 for electronic resources. Whitacre responded the Task Force has left it in until the rules are changed officially.

Arakawa asked, on p. 15, is a change in publication place between parts a major change? An audience member and David Van Hoy commented that this would not be grounds for a new record in serials cataloging.

Fletcher asked if C1c should be phrased as in C1a — shouldn’t it be “simultaneous iterations” rather than “same iteration.” Whitacre agreed that Fletcher was correct. She discussed the difficulties the Task Force had with the semantics of integrating resources. Lindlan added that the phrase “same iteration” in C1b should be “simultaneous iterations.” The Task Force will review the integrating resources section carefully before the document is published.

Wise moved the document be approved as amended. Harcourt seconded the motion and it was approved.

Whitacre then discussed the Task Force’s recommendation that the document be published on the Web and be freely available. She will take the recommendation to the CCS Executive Committee.

Lindlan officially discharged the Task Force. There was a discussion about a mechanism for receiving and dealing with feedback on the document. Since the Task Force is discharged, perhaps feedback on the document should be sent to the Chair of CC:DA.

833.   Rule revision proposal from Croissant: John Hostage

John Hostage stated that there has been spelling reform in Germany regarding capitalization and this proposal contains revisions to appendix A so that it conforms to the spelling reform. Wise commented that examples in the entire code will need to be reviewed to make sure the examples conform too. The Committee decided that the proposal looked fine beyond the exclusion of the examples. It would like the proposal to come back to the Committee once the examples in the code are reviewed.

834.   Rule revision proposal from CC:AAM: Lin (for Deng)

Selina Lin reported that Shi Deng has contacted the Turkish National Library regarding this proposal. Lin suggested the Committee delay action on the proposal until a response is received. Wise stated the proposal should also include a review of all the examples in the code. The question in the proposal about the list “Initial Definite and Indefinite Articles” in MARC 21 was answered as follows: if the proposal is eventually approved by the JSC, the MARC list will be changed according to the changes in appendix E of AACR2.

This proposal will be resubmitted to the Committee at the Midwinter Meeting; it will include the response from the Turkish National Library and revised examples as necessary.

835.   Rule revision proposal from Schiff: Schiff

Adam Schiff stated the proposal was modified based on comments and concerns of the law cataloging community. Kathy Winzer stated the proposal is improved as modified, but reiterated the concern of law libraries: electronic resources are lumped with loose-leafs in the proposal, but loose-leafs need to be treated like monographs. There is a fear that loose-leafs will be treated like serials and important information will be omitted from the bibliographic record. The Committee discussed several options to ensure the wording in the proposal would make it clear the other title information should always be transcribed in the three cases listed. The consensus of the Committee was to replace the phrase “in addition” with the word “always.”

Hostage stated he would like an example included in the proposal that shows what is not transcribed for a serial. The Committee discussed the tradition of this type of example; the decision on what is not important is one of cataloger’s judgment.

Attig moved the Committee approve the proposal with substitution of the word “always” for the phrase “in addition” and the inclusion of an example of what not to transcribe for a serial. The motion was seconded and approved 7 to 1. The whole document will be forwarded to the JSC.

836.   Report from the Task Force on Rule 21.0D: Jennifer Bowen (for Caldwell)

Jennifer Bowen reported that the Task Force did not complete the charge by the deadlines given, but the Task Force has developed a plan to meet a charge with an extension of six months. Attig commented this would require a modification of the Task Force’s charge since the deadlines were built into the charge; he asked if the Task Force had other recommendations regarding changes to the charge. Bowen stated she would like to discuss this with Ann Caldwell and then get back to the Chair.

837.   Report of the Task Force on the Reconceptualization of Chapter 9: Chopey

Chopey stated the document was written as rule proposals, but the Task Force knows that it cannot be approved until all ISBD areas are worked out. The Task Force would like to know from the JSC whether the Task Force should move forward with this approach. Chopey continued with a review of the document including the change of the title of chapter 2 to “Texts,” the change of the title of chapter 9, and that games may need to be included in chapter 10. Attig noted glossary terms may need to be updated, deleted, or added. There was a discussion regarding the last sentence in 2.0A1 regarding whether it should read “see also chapter 12” or “see chapter 12.”

Daniel Starr voiced concern with the title “Texts” for chapter 2, since art libraries use chapter 2 for books that are not texts. The Committee discussed possible resolutions to this problem, including the use of the glossary to define “texts” and bringing the printed concept back into the title of the chapter.

Robert Maxwell asked why microforms were not included in chapter 2 or why chapter 11 is not included in the reconceptualization. Chopey responded that the Task Force did not want to address the issue without expertise or examples of digitization of microforms. Mangan stated it is fairly common to create digital maps from microforms rather than from original maps. A discussion ensued about addressing the issue of reproductions, as microforms and beyond microforms. Beacom suggested the Task Force examine this issue. Chopey thought it may be beyond the scope of the Task Force. Beacom suggested the Task Force could at least identify it as an issue.

Beacom suggested that the report be forwarded to the JSC as a discussion paper with the caveat that it is a discussion paper even if it looks like a set of rule revision proposals. He offered to work with Chopey to write an overview for the JSC.

Attig moved the document be forwarded to the JSC with an appropriate executive summary. Arakawa seconded the motion. The motion was approved.

Lindlan ended the discussion indicating the charge for the Task Force needs to be revisited and extended.

838.   Reading of Plaque Given to John Attig in honor of his ALCTS President’s Award

Lindlan read the plaque given to Attig by the ALCTS president. The ALCTS Presidential Citation Award was given to Attig in recognition of his significant contributions in automating a tedious, labor-intensive document distribution process for AACR2 rule revision and standardizing the format for rule revision proposals.

839.   Rule revision proposal from Attig: Attig

Attig moved the third option in the proposal, which removes the definition from the glossary, be approved. Arakawa seconded the motion. Maxwell commented that without a definition in the glossary there will be inconsistency in descriptions. For example, is an item that is printed in red ink a colored illustration? Attig countered that a cataloger’s first impression is good enough, but he did agree that usage of “col. ill.” will be inconsistent. Starr commented that art libraries agree with option 3. The Committee approved the motion.

840.   Report of the Task Force on Consistency across Part 1 of AACR: Attig

Attig prefaced the discussion of the area reports by saying the Task Force followed the guidance of the JSC to include general rules in chapter 1. This resulted in long rules such as that shown on p. 16.

CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 4/3

The first item discussed was the issue of the rules for unpublished materials outlined on p. 3: “The Task Force is evenly divided over whether the distinction between published and unpublished material, and the rules that make that distinction, are sufficiently consistent to be given only in chapter 1.” The discussion revolved around the issue that the rules are not linear even though they must be presented linearly. There were also comments defining chapters 2 through 12 as chapters with “additional rules for this format beyond those in chapter 1.” The consensus of the Committee appeared to be to leave the rules in chapter 1 and not to refer back to chapter 1 in the other chapters.

The Task Force will most likely use the term “bibliographic resource” in place of the term “item.”

The Task Force made the deliberate decision to be inconsistent regarding manufacture. In several chapters manufacture is primarily a question of printing and therefore the Task Force used “manufacture or printing” or whatever word applies in the appropriate chapter.

Specific corrections were noted:

  • 1.4C5, on p. 17 do not strike out “Buckinghamshire”.
  • whether to put the footnote on p. 17 in the glossary will be investigated by the Task Force.
  • 2.16D, p. 25, change “are given” to “appear” and “identification of the item” to “identification”.
  • p. 35, the phrase “see 7.4F1 for an optional regarding” should be “see 7.4F1 for an option regarding”.
  • 7.4F1, p. 42, “of a published item” should be “of published material.”

Attig moved the Committee approve CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 4/3 as amended. The motion was seconded and approved.

CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 6/3

Specific corrections were noted:

  • 1.6J1, on p. 17 delete the second series statement, including its explanation, from the second example at the top of the page and then move the remainder of the example to 1.6G3.
  • 1.6K1, add the phrase “of a series statement”.

Attig moved the Committee approve CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 6/3 as amended. The motion was seconded and approved.

CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 2/3/Rev

Attig asked if the addendum to this document should be included in the proposal to the JSC. Beacom stated the it should not be included since it hasn’t be discussed by CC:DA; it needs to be sent by another method. Attig said he would send the addendum to CC:DA as a response to the FRBR document and then it could be sent to the JSC.

Specific corrections were noted:

  • 1.2B4, on p. 20 change the phrase “rather than edition” to “rather than edition information”.
  • 1.2B8, p. 27, change the phrase “multiple physical parts” to “multiple issues or parts”.
  • 1.2D1, on p. 32 the third example should read “2nd ed., Corr. 6th print.”
  • 1.2D3, p. 33, change “important” back to “of particular importance to the cataloguing agency”.
  • 1.2E2, p. 36, change the phrase “if a resource” to “if a bibliographic resource”.
  • 4.2A1, p. 47, change the phrase “versions of manuscript works existing in two or more versions” to “versions of works existing in two or more manuscript versions”.

Attig moved the Committee approve CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 2/3/Rev as amended. Chopey seconded the motion; the motion was approved.

CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 3/3/Rev

Specific corrections were noted:

  • 1.3A1, p. 11, change “Feb. 28-Mar. 6, 1983-Nov. 12-18, 1984” to “Feb. 28/Mar. 6, 1983-Nov. 12/18, 1984”.
  • possibly change “cartographic item” to “cartographic resource”. Attig also had some questions regarding the usage the words “map” and “chart”; should they be replaced with “cartographic resource”? Mangan asked for time to look at proposed wording to make sure it would be correct. Attig will send Mangan the marked up copy so she can review it before it is sent to the JSC.

Attig moved the Committee approve CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 3/3/Rev as amended. Chopey seconded the motion; the motion was approved.

Attig ended his report by stating that the Task Force will move on to areas 1 and 7.

841.   Report from the MARBI Representative: Attig (for Allgood)

MARBI had only one meeting during this conference. The 024 proposal was approved. There was no action on the DP-04. Proposals 2003-03, 2002-14/9R, and 2003-05 were approved.

842.   Report from CC:DA Webmaster: Attig

Attig reported that there is one CC:DA page on the ALA Web site and it points to the CC:DA information on the Penn State server. He will be receiving training on the content management software used by ALA. He would like help determining how the CC:DA Website is used and the requirements of the Website. Chopey moved that CC:DA form a Task Force to investigate how the Website is used and institutionalizing the position of webmaster. McGarry seconded the motion. Harcourt noted that at the program planning meeting the ALCTS Publications Committee representative said many groups are having trouble with ALA’s content management system; perhaps there would be some benefit in joining forces. The motion was approved.

843.   Other new business, reports from the floor, announcement of next meeting, and adjournment : Chair

Lindlan announced that the next meeting will be in San Diego and this was her last meeting as chair. She thanked everyone, especially Beacom and Attig for their help and guidance. Attig is stepping down as a voting member so that Mary Larsgaard may join the Committee. Larsgaard will be the new Chair.

Beacom offered the following resolution:

Whereas, Kristin Lindlan has led CC:DA as Chair for two terms, from 2001-2003;

and whereas, Kristin has had the wisdom to listen to past chairs and not serve a third term;

and whereas, Kristin has witnessed both the beginning and the end of the Task Force on the Appendix of Major and Minor Changes, having been the first chair for the Task Force while serving as CC:DA intern;

and whereas, Kristin has charged many other task forces in response to a “proactive” JSC;

and whereas, Kristin has led CC:DA to engage, endure, or embrace new ideas and new ways — FRBR, continuous online meetings, happy hour;

be it resolved that CC:DA enthusiastically thanks Kristin Lindlan for her leadership and that the Committee welcomes Kristin to the table as a voting member for two more years.

The resolution passed by affirmation.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Cheri Folkner, CC:DA Intern
with much thanks to Barbara Rudich for all her help
at the meeting and for her good note-taking.
Her assistance was invaluable.