ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services

CC:DA/M/870-888

June 2004

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Minutes of the meeting held at the
2004 Annual Conference in Orlando, FL
June 26 and 28, 2004


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


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

Lynnette M. Fields, Intern
Cheri A. Folkner, Intern

Ex-officio representatives present:

Matthew Beacom, ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee
Barbara Tillett, Library of Congress
Glenn Patton, OCLC

ALA Liaisons present:

Louise Sevold, ALCTS/AS
Keiko Suzuki, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM
Kay E. Lowell, ALCTS/CCS/CCMC
Everett Allgood, ALCTS/LITA/RUSA MARBI
Mary Woodley, ALCTS/NRMC
David Van Hoy, ALCTS/SS
Robert L. Maxwell, ALA/ACRL
Rebecca Culbertson, ALA/GODORT
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
Shelby E. Harken, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Kevin A. Furniss, ALA/NMRT
Robert Hall, ALA/PLA
Noelle Van Pulis, ALA/RUSA
Cynthia Whitacre, ALA/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons present:

Kathy Winzer, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Laurel Jizba, ARSC
Gertrude Koh, CLA
Karleen Darr, MedLA
Kathy Glennan, MusLA
Paul Weiss, PCC (absent 6/28)

CC:DA Webmaster:

John Attig

Notes:

  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 & Technical Services
    AMAM2 = Archival and Moving Image Materials, 2nd ed.
    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
    CCMC = Cataloging of Children’s Materials Committee
    CCS = ALCTS/Cataloging and Classification Section
    CDS = LC, Cataloging Distribution Service
    CILIP = Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
    CJK = Chinese, Japanese, Korean
    CoP = Committee of Principals for AACR
    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
    DCRB = Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books
    DCRM(B) = Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books)
    FRANAR = Functional Requirements and Numbering for Authority Records (IFLA Working Group)
    FRBR = IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
    GMD = General material designation
    Hallam = Cataloging rules for the description of looseleaf publications: with special emphasis on legal materials
    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(G) = General International Standard Bibliographic Description
    ISBD(M) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Monographic Publications
    ISBD(NBM) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Non-Book Materials
    ISBN = International Standard Book Number
    ISO = International Organization for Standardization
    ISSN = International Standard Serial Number
    JSC = Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
    LC = Library of Congress
    LCCN = Library of Congress Control Number
    LCSH = Library of Congress Subject Headings
    LRTS = Library Resources & Technical Services (ALCTS official journal)
    MAGERT = ALA/Map and Geography Round Table
    MARC = Machine-Readable Cataloging
    NISO = National Information Standards Organization (U.S.A.)
    NRMC = ALCTS/Networked Resources and Metadata Committee
    OLAC = Online Audiovisual Catalogers
    PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
    SAC = ALCTS/CCS/Subject Analysis Committee
    SCCTP = Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (CONSER)
    VRA = Visual Resources Association


Minutes

Saturday, June 26, 2004, 2:00 – 5:30 p.m.
Orange County Convention Center, Room 206 A/B



870.   Welcome and opening remarks: Chair

Mary Larsgaard opened the meeting and welcomed the Committee members, liaisons, representatives, and visitors.

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

    [CC:DA/Roster/2003 July/Rev]

Committee members, liaisons, and representatives introduced themselves.

872.   Adoption of agenda: Chair

Larsgaard announced two minor changes to the agenda: Matthew Beacom will present the report of the CC:DA/MARBI Program Planning Committee for the 2004 Preconference for Susan Hayes and the report from the Task Force on Consistency Across Part I of AACR2 will be allotted thirty minutes rather than fifteen minutes. Matthew Wise moved that the agenda be adopted. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

873.   Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2003 Midwinter Meeting, San Diego, CA, January 10 and 12, 2004: Chair

Two minor corrections to the minutes were noted: Gertrude Koh was represented by Mary Woodley on Monday, Jan. 12; and, on p. 14 in the second paragraph of the section on CC:DA/TF/Consistency/Area 4/3/Rev it should read “moved from 6.4D2 to 1.4D4” not “moved from 1.4D4 to 1.4D5.”

Kate Harcourt moved that the minutes be accepted as amended; Peter Fletcher seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

874.   Report from the Chair: Chair

Larsgaard reviewed her written report, highlighting those sections where extensive discussion took place and where task forces were formed. Those items were:

Motions and Votes

  • Incorporating FRBR terminology in AACR appendices
    CC:DA voted in favor of sending to the JSC an ALA response that would incorporate: FRBR Task Force’s comments on definitions; the comments made on this matter at Midwinter 2004 CC:DA meetings; and the email discussion. Larsgaard thanked Steven Arakawa for his work in making this task manageable.

  • Incorporation of authority control in AACR
    CC:DA voted in favor of sending to the JSC an overview and summary of CC:DA’s discussion on part 3, authority control. CC:DA agreed that authority control should be incorporated into AACR and on notes in authority records, but there was not a clear consensus as to how that should be done. This issue will be visited again.

  • Orientation Document for New Members and Liaisons
    CC:DA approved placing the revised document on the CC:DA webpage. Two new representatives have reviewed the document and have found it helpful. Larsgaard thanked John Attig, Matthew Beacom, and Kristin Lindlan for their work on the document.

Other Discussions and Actions

  • Task forces
    Three task forces approved at the Midwinter Meeting were formed and charged. Larsgaard used sign-up lists from Midwinter as well as other volunteers for the pool from which to select task force members.

  • 2003/2004 CCS Committee Charge Review
    CCS Executive Committee will review the report on Sunday, June 27, 2004.

  • ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on Cataloging Rules for Early Printed Monographs
    Jennifer Bowen, chair of CCS Executive Committee, will take the request for the formation of this joint committee to ALCTS.

After Larsgaard concluded the review of the Chair’s report, Betsy Mangan asked what “#2.11” (on p. 3 in the paragraph on 3.1.2. under I.I of the Chair’s Report) referenced. Both Attig and Beacom confirmed this referred to the 2.11 in the original task force document. Attig will correct this in the online Chair.s report.

Larsgaard asked for a motion to reaffirm the votes and actions taken by the Committee since the 2004 Midwinter Meeting. Wise so moved. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

875.   Report from the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett

Barbara Tillett reviewed her written report. Some of the items she highlighted are listed below:

  • Personnel changes and additions. There will be some reorganization with the creation of five directorates. An acquisitions and bibliographic access directorate will be formed that will include both acquisitions and cataloging functions and will have a staff of approximately 900.

  • LCRI 25.5B on uniform titles for motion pictures, television programs, and radio programs. Although LC uses AMIM2 to catalog moving images, a revision of LCRI 25.5B has been drafted for the use of PCC libraries.

  • Workbook of CJK AACR2 and LCRI examples. Five chapters of the Descriptive cataloging of East Asian material: CJK examples of AACR2 and Library of Congress Rule Interpretations have been posted on CPSO’s web site. This is a work in progress and examples for the remaining chapters will be posted when available.

  • Unicode planning and multi-script decisions for cataloging policy. Unicode implementation at LC is delayed for probably another year, but LC is participating in testing the early release version of Voyager with Unicode.

  • G Schedule. The maps that appear in the printed G schedule are now accessible through Classification Web as well. The Geographic Cutter Numbers (Tables G1548-G9804) are freely available as a PDF file on the CPSO web site.

  • UPCs for scores. LC will be adding universal product codes (UPCs) to bibliographic records for scores. This follows the successful application of UPCs and EANs to bibliographic records for sound recordings.

  • MARC Distribution Services in MARC XML. It is now possible to get all of CDS’s MARC Distribution Services (MDS) in MARC XML.

Paul Weiss brought up that the 020 $a is being made repeatable with the implementation of the 13-digit ISBN, but that OCLC will be putting the 13-digit ISBN in the 024. Glenn Patton responded that initially both forms of the ISBN will be included in the record during the transition period and that OCLC has one standard index for all numbers, including the 020 and the 024 fields.

876.   Report from the Task Force on Early Printed Monographs: Maxwell

Robert Maxwell reported that this task force was formed to address questions regarding early printed monographs raised by the Task Force on Consistency across Part 1 of AACR:

  • Are the special rules needed in AACR?
  • If so, what should be the scope of the rules?
  • Should such rules conform to either DCRM(B) or ISBD(A)?
  • What principles should inform such rules?

After the task force was formed in February 2004, it surveyed members of several cataloging related listservs to find out who uses rules 2.12–2.18 in AACR2. A more detailed survey was sent to those who do use rules 2.12–2.18 for cataloging early printed monographs; the majority of the respondents work in libraries that do not have many rare books.

The task force has reached consensus regarding answers to the questions in the charge. The special rules in AACR are needed and should conform to DCRM(B). The scope should be about the same as it is currently although it may need to be reviewed to include more than monographs.

The task force plans to stay in existence until at least the 2005 Midwinter Meeting in order to respond to any comments from the JSC. There has been some talk of a program at ALA 2006. The task force is willing to work on rule revision proposals if the JSC so desires. Beacom stated that if rule revision proposals aren’t received by the JSC by September, the proposals would be considered for AACR3.

Larsgaard commented that she would like all of the task forces that came into existence at the request of the JSC to remain in place until at least January 15, 2005 to see what happens with the JSC. She also noted that only two members of this task force are CC:DA members; most of the task force members are from the rare book community.

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

Beacom characterized his report as mostly informational since only 1 or 2 actions are required of CC:DA today.

Capitalisation of single letters used to represent words (and also multiple letter prefixes in compound terms)

Beacom stated that this proposal is limited to corporate names and does not apply to personal names. He asked that CC:DA respond to 4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev immediately so the revision can be included in the 2005 amendments package. Wise moved that ALA support 4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev. Fletcher seconded the motion and it was approved 8 to 0.

AACR2 2004 revision package

The revision package should be published and in the warehouse in July. Some of the changes in the package include: changes in the rules on the transcription of inaccuracies in series titles, consolidation of the rules on sources of information in 1.0A, removal of area 3 from chapter 9, addition of an option for physical description of electronic resources in chapter 9, addition of an option to use terms in common usage for SMDs in chapters 6 and 7, removal of predominance as the basis of description for multipart monographs, and an addition of an instruction to 21.29 regarding serials, multipart monographs, and integrating resources.

AACR2 2005 revision package

This revision is proceeding and will be the last update to AACR2. It could include: capitalisation of single letters; the revision of the definition of coloured illustration; rule A.40, German orthography; deletion of the Turkish word “bir” from appendix E; and designations of function, 21.0D. After this package is finalized, the focus of the JSC and its constituent groups should be AACR3.

Concise AACR2

Concise AACR2 is scheduled for a summer release date and that will be the last until the publication of AACR3.

AACR3: resource description and access

The JSC has proposed that work on this begin immediately and the CoP has agreed. Barbara Tillett has developed a PowerPoint presentation on the rationale for AACR3 which is up on the public JSC web site. Both the slides and the notes are available. This presentation will be updated as the project proceeds.

The general editor is not yet in place, but the hope is the editor will be in place by July. One consequence of not having an editor in place on June 1 is the increased difficulty for a draft of part I to be ready in time to be reviewed at the October JSC meeting. Missing a deadline could result in a delay of 6 months because of set meeting dates and will delay the timeline of implementation. Attig suggested CC:DA continue to plan its schedule of work as if the draft for part I will meet the September 15 deadline.

Weiss questioned the timing of the release of AACR3 with relation to the final release of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. He was concerned that AACR3 may not include the principles in the final release of the statement. Beacom responded that the principles should be incorporated because the statement is available publicly and the JSC and CC:DA will be able to see the direction it is going. Tillett stated that since cataloging rule makers are located mostly in AACR2 countries, Europe, and Asia, most of the cataloging rule makers will have had input after the Asia meeting in 2006. Attig added that the introduction section of AACR3 will be most affected by the statement and that section will be drafted last.

Beacom outlined the plan for completing AACR3. The editor will write a draft which will then go to the JSC. The JSC will make comments and send the draft back to the editor. The editor will make changes and then the draft will go to the constituencies for comments. Those comments will go back to the JSC and the editor. This is a reversal of the process that has been used for rule proposals where the proposals came from the constituencies to the JSC. Beacom expects that after AACR3 is published the process will revert back to past practice.

Weiss asked if AACR2 used the same editorial model that will be used for AACR3. Tillett answered that for AACR2, there were two editors, Michael Gorman and Paul Winkler, and each worked on a section; there was no JSC at that time. Beacom stated the JSC wanted to include the knowledge of the constituencies in the creation of AACR3.

Beacom continued with a discussion of the organization of AACR3. The fundamental change in part I is that the general rules will be applied universally and there will be supplemental rules to bring out specific aspects of a resource. The general chapter will expand the current chapter 1. Supplemental chapters will be referenced from this chapter. The tentative table of contents for part I is outlined in Beacom’s report CC:DA/JSC Rep/MLB/2004/1. Part II will include the current chapter 21, plus more, focusing on the choice of the access points. Part III will contain authority control principles and practice including the form of the access points. Successively issued parts will be investigated further and may mean re-thinking seriality. There will be a new approach to the concept of collections and the uniform title.

Maxwell relayed a question from the Task Force on Early Printed Monographs regarding what happens to the current chapter 4, Manuscripts (Including Manuscript Collections), in AACR3. Beacom responded that there are questions that will need to be addressed regarding published and unpublished materials along with the question of collections. Maxwell asked if there would be another section. Beacom thought there could be a section on issuance — published and unpublished. Attig commented that the mode of release might be the focus rather than focusing narrowly on type of issuance. Manuscript items could be folded into other chapters. Rules for early printed materials could be a separate chapter or could be included within a more general category.

Weiss voiced concern that AACR3 is not trying to keep terms in sync with FRBR terminology. Tillett explained that the plan is to try and keep the terminology in sync, but the editorial board will keep an open mind. If some better terminology is found, it will be suggested to IFLA. Weiss then asked if parts II and III will be general enough for form/genre access. Beacom didn’t think either part would include form/genre.

David Van Hoy asked if Beacom could say more about the re-thinking of seriality. Beacom responded that the current continuing resources chapter includes references to materials that are finite resources. One area to examine is the three different sources of information for monographs, continuing resources, and multiparts. Another issue to investigate is the nature and question of mode of issuance. The idea is to look at how to describe these things, possibly from another non-traditional perspective.

Everett Allgood asked for clarification about the editorial process. Beacom stated that the editor will write the draft and send it to the members of the JSC who will do a first read of the draft. The JSC will send comments on the draft to the editor who will then write a second draft. At that point something will go out to the constituents for comments. It might be a good idea for the constituents to have focus groups or individuals prepared and ready to respond.

Harcourt asked if there would be questions asked of CC:DA before September. Beacom didn’t think so although the editor might decide to work with expertise groups or focus groups before then.

Michael Chopey asked if the principle of linking to ISBD will be included. Beacom replied that although it might be harder to see than in the current rules, the universal rules will be organized by ISBD. Chopey then asked if the editor will look at the ISBDs. Beacom affirmed the editor would look at the ISBDs and continued by stating that the ISBD/AACR relationship is dynamic with ends that are similar and they need to work together.

Larsgaard asked that everyone be prepared to discuss ways to review and respond to the documents that the JSC will be sending forth. She anticipates seeing the first of the AACR3 documents in November and so would like to see a plan in place by the end of September. Attig commented that CC:DA would have about three months to put together responses.

Beacom stated that the Format Variation Working Group has been disbanded and the work will be continued in AACR3.

Attig reviewed the program of work. He commented that Jennifer Bowen will be revising the proposal on 21.0D and that it needs to be submitted by August 9.

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

Don Chatham reported that the 2004 update of AACR2 is at the printers and should be available by mid- or late July. It will be 200+ pages. The text should be in issue 3 of Cataloger’s Desktop, but the index will be in the following issue.

The Infobase was reviewed by the JSC in Ottawa. It allows copy and paste functionality into Word for editing purposes. The release should be available to the JSC soon and administrative rights will be arranged.

The public web site for AACR2 is up. It is primarily a marketing site with product and ordering information. The URL is www.aacr2.org.

Concise AACR2 is in the first pass stages. Changes from the JSC are currently being incorporated. He expects an early fall publication date.

879.   International Cataloguing Code: Tillett

Tillett reported on the First IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC) held in Frankfurt, Germany July 28-30, 2003. The meeting was the first in a series to develop an International Cataloguing Code. The idea was initiated by Natalia Kasparova on the 40th anniversary of the Paris Principles. The focus of the code is the cataloging needs of libraries, but needs of other cataloging agencies such as archives and museums will be considered. The text of Tillett’s presentation is contained in full in the link above.

The Frankfurt meeting gathered 54 cataloging experts from 32 European countries. These cataloging rule makers were asked to examine their cataloging codes with respect to the Paris Principles in the areas of personal names, corporate body names, seriality, uniform titles/GMDs, and multipart structures. At the meeting the experts divided into working groups that examined each of those areas and then made recommendations. The working group examining personal names found that the codes differed regarding the concept of bibliographic identity — impacting how pseudonyms are handled — and on rules for additions to names. The seriality working group reinforced the use of ISBD(CR) and coordination with the ISSN centers; the group agreed that harmonization was a good thing. The draft of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles was reviewed on the final day of the meeting and agreed to by the participants through electronic means in Dec. 2003. It will remain a draft until all the worldwide meetings are completed in 2007.

Woodley, who attends Dublin Core meetings, asked if the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) discussed at the meeting would be available to the public, maintained regularly, and registered as a schema. A VIAF would be useful for harvesting purposes. Tillett responded that the VIAF is a proof of concept project and part of the project’s memorandum of understanding is that it will be freely available. The second part of the project is the infrastructure for updating the VIAF using open archive initiative protocol. She continued by stating there would be a unique identifier for each entity on the central server.

Laurel Jizba asked if MulDiCat, the glossary of terms and concepts listed in the next steps, would be in English only. Tillett stated it will be in every language and is a separate project sponsored by the IFLA Cataloguing Section and it will be an online product only.

Larsgaard adjourned the meeting for the afternoon at 5:25 p.m.


Monday, June 28, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Orange County Convention Center, Room 206 A/B


880.   Welcome and opening remarks: Chair

Larsgaard welcomed everyone back for the second day of the meeting and passed around the roster and the visitor sign-up sheet.

881.   NISO standards update: Landesman

Betty Landesman gave a brief update on the standards she had reviewed with CC:DA at Midwinter. She stated that there were two NISO standards up for five-year review: Z39.20 (Criteria for print indexes for print materials) and Z39.71 (Holdings statements for bibliographic items). She stated that there are only three options for voting: yes, no, and abstain. Given that a vote to reaffirm and revise was not an option, ALA voted to reaffirm, even though CC:DA had concerns with the Z39.71 standard.

Since Midwinter two NISO standards and an ISO standard came up for vote: Z39.88 (The OpenURL framework for context-sensitive services), Z39.7 (Library statistics), and ISO 2108 (ISBN). The ISO-ISBN recommendation was to change the ISBN from 10 digits to 13 digits. ALA voted yes on all three. Landesman is not sure of the status of these; they are still listed as being at ballot.

Landesman reported that there was a first application for a NISO registration for MODS. She added that the ISO standard for the ISSN was not reaffirmed because it does not meet the current needs for title and format.

The options under consideration for the revised ISSN standard are:

  • Assigning an ISSN to a medium (e.g., paper, electronic), but not each format (e.g., HTML, PDF).
  • Assigning an ISSN at the title level to cover all versions. This would make it a “work identifier.”
  • Assigning a base ISSN at the title level, and then adding a suffix for the medium.
  • Assigning a master ISSN at the title level, and assigning secondary ISSNs for each medium.

A telephone survey indicated that none of the above scenarios look workable.

NISO is currently working on ONIX (ONline Information eXchange) for serials. Three ONIX message formats have been developed: SOH (Serials Online Holdings) format, SPS (Serials Products and Subscription) format, and SRN (Serials Release Notification) format.

There is also a group working on the Metasearch initiative, and three subcommittees have been formed. One will look at access management, one will look at collection descriptions via Dublin Core, and one will look at search and retrieval.

Allgood asked if there was a way to revise the holdings standard. Landesman answered that it can only be reaffirmed with comments. She added that reaffirming a current standard was different than affirming a new standard. She thought the only way an existing standard gets revised is if there are problems as serious as those encountered with the ISSN standard. Allgood inquired about the difference between the holdings standard and the ISSN standard and if the ISSN standard had been withdrawn. Landesman replied that the ISSN standard was not withdrawn, it was to be used as is until its revision.

Van Hoy asked if there was a mechanism for making changes to standards, since ALA had significant comments on the holdings standard. Landesman did not believe there was a mechanism for revision of an existing standard. She added that there was a strong push to reaffirm the standard. In order for the standard to be revised a new committee must be convened to start over.

882.   Report from the CC:DA/MARBI Program Planning Committee for 2004 Preconference: Beacom

Beacom reported that the FRBR preconference was very successful and had 165 paying attendees, 5 members of the program committee, and 10 speakers, for a total of 180 total attendees. Of the 101 evaluations returned, most were favorable. Most of the complaints were about mechanical things. Some of the negative comments were that each speaker should have had handouts and that the size of the font on the screen was too small. Some attendees thought the preconference was too long, and some thought it was too short. The content, presenters, and practical applications all were highly rated.

Attig asked if there were plans for publishing the papers. Beacom answered that the PowerPoint presentation will be put on the ALCTS website. ALCTS staff will email the URL to all the attendees. LRTS will have a special issue on some of the presentations. Attig asked why only attendees will get the URL. Beacom replied that it might also be posted on the CC:DA website. Beacom thanked the program planning committee: Susan Hayes (Chair), Richard Greene, Kate Harcourt, Chris Oliver, and Marc Truitt. Larsgaard also thanked the planning committee and discharged it.

883.   Rule revision proposal from MAGERT: Mangan

Mangan began by stating that these issues arose during the editing of Cartographic Materials. She wanted to withdraw proposal 1.0C1, but suggested a definition for prescribed punctuation be added to the glossary. Attig thought it needed to be clarified, but he did not think it was really prescribed punctuation that was being addressed. Larsgaard agreed that it would be best to withdraw the proposal.

Mangan stated that the reason for proposal 1.1C1 was that when the GMD was changed from “relief model” to “model” there was nothing that stated that the GMD should be “cartographic material” for cartographic models. Arakawa suggested that the instruction “Use cartographic material for cartographic models, not model” could be combined with the instruction “Use cartographic material for cartographic charts, not chart.” Mangan suggested the two instructions could be listed consecutively. Lindlan agreed with Arakawa that the instructions could be combined. Chopey suggested rephrasing the first instruction to combine both ideas. Mangan replied that she had tried to not change the JSC wording, but she didn’t have strong feeling either way.

McGarry moved to forward a revised version of 1.1C1 to the JSC. She recommended “Use cartographic material, not model, for cartographic models,” and adding the instruction as 2.2 to follow the instruction regarding cartographic charts. The motion was seconded and passed.

Mangan stated that the goal of 3.0D was to add the data type in first level descriptions. Mangan also suggested a change to the proposal as written: “Additionally, in a first-level description include the scale and, for an electronic resource, the data type (see 3.3E1) in the mathematical and other material specific details area, and, in a second-level description, include the mathematical data and other material specific details specified in 3.3A-3.3E.”

McGarry moved to accept the proposed revision to 3.0D and forward it to the JSC. The motion was seconded by Wise and approved.

Proposal 3.3B7 is a correction to a typographical error. McGarry moved to accept the proposal and forward it to the JSC. The motion was seconded by Harcourt and approved.

Attig will revise the proposals and forward them to Bowen.

884.   Report from the MARBI Representative: Allgood

Allgood summarized the actions taken by MARBI on Saturday and Sunday.

  • Proposal no. 2004-06 – approved with editorial changes.

  • Proposal no. 2004-05 – approved with editorial changes. Some of the subfields will be further defined.

  • Proposal no. 2004-07 – approved 6XX for subject content parallel with field 752. MARBI asked LC to take this back to see if any of the subfields need to be revised. This will be revisited at Midwinter.

  • Proposal no. 2004-08 – approved.

  • Discussion Paper 2004-DP04 – This paper discusses the use of ISBNs and LCCNs in systems and the problems when ISBNs or LCCNs are recorded in the bibliographic record for a manifestation other than the one being cataloged. A straw poll of the room favored defining a new $y for an inappropriate ISBN/LCCN in fields 020 and 010. The presenters were asked to bring back a proposal that included revised definitions of the current subfields in the 020, 010, and 022.

MARBI also continued a discussion from the 2004 Midwinter Conference of a report entitled “Assessment of options for handling full Unicode character encodings in MARC21 at Midwinter.” Allgood reported that only three automation vendors are Unicode compliant. There is no perfect translation between Unicode and non-Unicode files.

At the MARBI business meeting Sally McCallum announced that the Metadata Authority Description Schema (MADS) is available for review.

There also was a discussion on the 13-digit ISBN. Sally McCallum will post a paper on the MARC site soon about making the 020 $a repeatable. LC would like comments on whether to have the 020 $a repeatable or have a repeatable 020. A decision has not yet been made, but it is hoped there will be a decision October 2004.

Allgood announced that the incoming chair of MARBI is Adam Schiff.

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

Attig reported that this task force has been taken over by the JSC. In Ottawa it was decided to focus on area 5. A report will be submitted near the end of July. The proposal will contain the rules for area 5 and related notes for the general chapter.

The task force has been working from a strawman proposal developed by Tom Delsey. Significant changes have been suggested. The current suggestion is complicated, but some current practices will be preserved. Supplemental chapters on physical carriers will include extent and dimensions.

The set of supplemental chapters based on physical carrier are:

  • Books, atlases, albums, portfolios (bound)
  • Sheets (not bound)
  • Photographs, postcards, miscellaneous graphic materials
  • Slides and transparencies – need to be projected – single frame
  • Three-dimensional materials – models, structures
  • Filmstrips, film-reels – frames are in a group
  • Discs and cylinders – information integral to the physical format
  • Reel, cartridges – information separate from the carrier
  • Chips, optical cards
  • No carrier – remote access

A second set of supplemental chapter are based on medium:

  • Print and opaque graphics
  • Micrographic media
  • Tactile media
  • Three-dimensional media
  • Projected graphics – still and moving – single frames
  • Sound media
  • Digital media

Attig reported that the task force had originally focused only on medium, but there were problems. This proposal will go to the JSC at the end of July and then to the editor to incorporate into the draft of part I of AACR3.

Woodley stated that she was confused about the type of carrier and asked if slides and transparencies are in a different supplemental chapter than filmstrips. Attig replied that they were because of single frames vs. aggregate frames aspects. Arakawa asked in which category loose-leafs would be. Attig answered that it hadn’t been worked out yet, but he thought they would be in category 1 – books, atlases, albums, and portfolios.

Daniel Starr asked Attig to elaborate on category 3, since photographs are usually on paper, but could be bound, and are sometimes negatives. Attig replied that this is just a first attempt, but it does look like photographic prints would be in a different supplemental chapter than negatives. The task force has not looked at definitions yet.

Wise noted that the list seems to be arbitrary and only captures large categories of materials. He deals with materials that would fall through the cracks, for example, a three-dimensional score. He stated there might be materials that would combine all the categories into one. He added that the proposal should be looked at by catalogers who deal with the “weird stuff.” Attig stated that he thought scores would be in category 1, along with books and atlases. Catalogers should start with the general rules and then go to the supplemental chapters. He added that it was very important to distinguish the physical carrier (the object) from the content. Mangan mentioned that in the cartographic world there are fiche that deal with only one image.

Larsgaard stated that she would like to brainstorm on methods of dealing with the documents that will be coming from the JSC. Around July 15th she will send something out on the list to firm this up. She would like something in place by late September. If the process doesn’t work, it will be changed as needed. The goal is to make sure every cataloging community has a chance to respond to the proposals. Suggestions from the Task Force on Consistency were to have the task force be the lead document writer and/or have a groupware site for CC:DA members. The document could be divided into small sections and CC:DA could edit online. Larsgaard has received permission for the University of California, Santa Barbara to host the groupware site and has the required programming time scheduled.

Wise asked Beacom in what form the JSC wanted responses. Beacom replied that a mix of commentary and revised text would be appropriate. Mangan stated that the expertise of the existing task forces on SMDs, FRBR, and early printed monographs should be used. Attig added that the membership of the Task Force on Consistency should be refreshed.

Harcourt liked the idea of isolating the documents, but she was concerned about password protection to the website with regards to access for non CC:DA members. Larsgaard stated that JSC policy has been to restrict JSC documents to the JSC and CC:DA. Maxwell stated that he didn’t think he could get comments from his constituency if there wasn’t access to the documents. Beacom answered that these drafts may be more widely disseminated so that all the constituencies have access to them. He added that it may be that there will be public display of the documents, but editing would be limited to CC:DA.

McGarry recommended that the documents come to CC:DA early enough so there is time for the full Committee to comment before the document has to go back to the JSC. Arakawa noted that if the comments were made on a groupware site the results would be a list of comments, and someone would have to synthesize the comments for consensus. Attig thought the synthesis would be the responsibility of the Chair and the JSC representative. Larsgaard added that she was planning on working with Jennifer Bowen and John Attig on the synthesis. Attig predicted that February through March would probably be the busiest time. He added that there might be some issues that were better dealt with face to face.

Larsgaard mentioned that people might want to carve out some time, and to think about which issues should be discussed at Midwinter. Kevin Randall asked how many pages the proposal would be. Attig answered that he thought at least 200. Chopey asked if examples would be included. Attig replied that the straw man included examples.

886.   Report from CC:DA Webmaster: Attig

Attig noted that he has had some discussions with the CCS executive committee, but nothing is ready to report. Larsgaard thanked Attig for all his hard work.

887.   CC:DA Task Force on SMDs: Larsgaard

Larsgaard recommended that the task force stay in existence through Midwinter and as long as the work on AACR3 continues.

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

Larsgaard congratulated Barbara Tillett who received the Margaret Mann award, and Mathew Beacom who received the ALCTS Presidential Citation.

Program for 2005 on Cataloging Cultural Objects

Beacom reported there will be a program on cataloging cultural objects at Annual 2005. The Visual Resources Association has been interested in metadata for cultural objects and the association has put together a guide on cataloging cultural objects to be published by ALA in 2005. This is an attempt at a content standard for metadata for digital surrogates of cultural objects. One of the editors, Murtha Baca from the Getty Institute, will speak at the program. VRA has talked with ALA, Society of American Archivists (SAA), and American Association of Museums (AAM) and there was a vote to co-sponsor a program with CC:DA. The program will raise awareness of the issues addressed in the publication. SAA and AAM would also like a program at their conferences.

Judith Hopkins asked Beacom to define cultural objects. Beacom defined cultural objects as the digital images that archivists are making of their collections, and the digital images of things that are in their collections. Libraries also collect cultural objects such as digitized images of pamphlets, letters, scores, etc.

Maxwell asked if CC:DA should comment on the publication, if it is being treated as a standard. Beacom answered that it is a content standard similar to AACR. It is not prescriptive, but is intended as a guide. He had not considered that CC:DA, as a group, would comment on it.

Woodley commented that she supported the program. VRA is asking for comments on the publication, but they are due by July 31st. Starr questioned CC:DA co-sponsoring a program on a set of rules that CC:DA has not reviewed. He thinks AACR3 will address cultural objects.

Bruce Johnson stated that CC:DA has had an interest in filling the gap between communities. Co-sponsoring a program would help to build a dialog. Woodley added that VRA is interested in librarians’ responses to the standard. Beacom noted that this would be an opportunity to discover what this is about and engage in a dialog. Lindlan added that she would like to know more about this.

Kathryn Steffens from the audience stated that any dialog between the archives and music communities would be appreciated. She asked about the authorization of the document. Beacom replied that the copyright of the document is held by VRA. There are four editors: Murtha Baca, Patricia Harpring, Elisa Lanzi, and Linda McRae.

A motion was made by Lindlan and seconded by Arakawa to form a task force to look at co-sponsoring a program on cataloging cultural objects. The motion was approved.

Larsgaard asked if CC:DA wanted to make a formal response to the document. If so, a task force must be formed and work very quickly. Attig stated that there is a tradition to do that, and it would be appropriate. Beacom stated that although it would be good to respond, the short time frame would not allow for a thoughtful, effective response. Attig commented that the alternative would be for individuals to make comments. Woodley agreed it would be difficult for CC:DA to respond due to the shortness of time and the other responsibilities of CC:DA, but she urged individuals to make comments. McGarry added that if individuals reading it saw something of particular concern to CC:DA, the individual could alert Larsgaard to the fact, and she could inform CC:DA. Larsgaard added that she would send a message to Autocat asking people to send comments to her or Woodley.

Larsgaard sent around a sign-up sheet for volunteers to be on a task force to develop a program on AACR3 to be held at Annual 2005.

CCS review of CC:DA

Larsgaard reported on the CCS review of CC:DA. She got the response back from Diane Casey. There was extensive discussion Sunday at the CCS Committee meeting. She will forward all relevant documents to CC:DA.

Some of the recommendations were:

  • All relevant cataloging communities should be represented on CC:DA.
  • The CC:DA chair should have authority to grant provisional representation.
  • Potential members of CC:DA should be alerted to the heavy workload.
  • The Listserv should be open to all who are affected.
  • CC:DA should receive organizational assistance from ALCTS.

The first two recommendations would require a change to CCS policy and may not happen. There is some thought at ALCTS that the membership should only come from the ALA community.

Larsgaard thought that the listserv should not be open to observers. The JSC password is sent out over the list. She will talk to Charles Wilt about this. Beacom added that passwords could be handled a different way, maybe by direct email. He felt it is important to have open meetings, and, since much of CC:DA business is now handled over email, the list should be opened. Some things could be handled in executive session.

Hopkins, a list-owner of Autocat, stated that it might be possible to distribute things through Autocat, but Autocat does not accept attachments.

Wise added that the majority of CC:DA discussion is about JSC documents. Woodley stated that she thought Autocat had too much traffic and suggested parallel lists. Beacom stated that CC:DA does comment on more than just JSC documents. The proposals for AACR3 will probably go out to everyone.

Lindlan questioned who would collate all the comments. Larsgaard replied that she would talk to Wilt about this. It is CC:DA’s responsibility to comment on these things, but everyone in the United States who catalogs with AACR will be affected.

Arakawa asked if a parallel list would be restricted to U.S. catalogers. Larsgaard replied that it wouldn’t have to be.

McGarry stated that CC:DA members would be reading all the comments and could keep them in mind when responding, and then someone would not have to compile all the comments. Kathy Winzer commented that many universities have a person who monitors a list, so it wouldn’t necessarily have to be the Chair who compiles the comments. Beacom added that as AACR3 moves forward, the compilation of the comments will not be important. The important thing will be for CC:DA to make decisions; decisions are what the JSC needs to move forward. Larsgaard commented that using groupware is a step in the right direction.

Jizba asked if straw polls will be restricted to CC:DA. Larsgaard replied that would be decided when it came up. The last recommendation to be discussed was that CC:DA receive organizational assistance from ALCTS. There is a task force on CC:DA’s web presence. Larsgaard sent an email to the task force asking for a report to CC:DA by July 30.

Other announcements

Larsgaard reported she had received thanks from CC:AAM to Michael Chopey for his help with the rule change to delete the Turkish word “bir” from Appendix E. Chopey thanked Glenn Patton and John Byrum.

Larsgaard reported on the change in CC:DA membership. Beacom will be leaving as the ALA Representative to the JSC and will be replaced by Jennifer Bowen. Three voting members are leaving: Steven Arakawa, Kate Harcourt, and Matthew Wise. Larsgaard thanked them for their service. Two interns are leaving: Lynnette Fields and Cheri Folkner. The new voting members of CC:DA will be John Attig, Cheri Folkner, and Betsy Mangan. The new interns will be Laura Smart and Patricia Thurston.

There was no new business from the floor.

The next meeting will be at Midwinter in Boston Saturday afternoon and Monday morning. An announcement will be sent out about the rooms.

Larsgaard adjourned the meeting at 11:25 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Cheri Folkner, CC:DA Intern
Lynnette Fields, CC:DA Intern



Addendum to the Minutes: Official Resolution of Thanks to Matthew Beacom

On September 14, 2004, the following resolution was approved by CC:DA:

Official CC:DA Resolution

Whereas Matthew Beacom, alias Matthew Beacon, has served this committee well for eight years, 1996-2000 as voting member and 2001-2004 as ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee (including serving as chair of that body for the past year);

And whereas he has asked not to serve a second three-year term as ALA Representative to the JSC in order to devote more time to his job and family;

Whereas he has been recognized for his service by receiving an ALCTS Presidential Citation;

Whereas Matthew signed on for eight task forces during his eight-year stay: on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules; on the Review of the IFLA Guidelines for OPAC Displays; on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) and AACR2; on Metadata; on Recommendation 2 in 4JSC/ALA/30; on the Review of the Draft Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early-Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM); and on Uniform Resource Identifiers and AACR2;

Whereas he brought us to the realization that a conversation, a program, and a pre-conference on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records were in order and volunteered to serve on those program planning task forces and to follow those up with chairing a program planning task force on AACR3 for next year;

Whereas he served us well with clarifications and excellent advice during our “continuous meetings” on innumerable proposals and amendments, including consistency across Part I of AACR, FRBR terminology, multipart items, the inclusion of authority control in AACR2, specific characteristics of electronic resources, and the minute distinctions involved in the definition of a coloured illustration;

And whereas Matthew suggested that CC:DA start a new tradition of a drink or two with committee members after Saturday’s CC:DA meeting;

Therefore be it resolved that CC:DA gives him a toast and our thanks for his many years of hard work and contributions to CC:DA as the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee and wishes him well in all his future endeavors.

Voted by (virtual) acclamation this fourteenth day of September, 2004.

Mary Lynnette Larsgaard, chair
ALA/ALCTS/CCS Committee on
Cataloging: Description and Access


www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/min0406.html