CC:DA/M/453-475

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Frank E. Sadowski, Jr., Chair
Nancy A. Davey
Ann Fiegen
Lynne C. Howarth
Ingrid Mifflin
Joan Swanekamp
Mark Watson
Martha Yee
Brad Young
Jo Lynne Byrd, Intern
Patrick J. Stevens, Intern

Ex-officio representatives (those present are named)

Janet Swan Hill, JSC
Barbara Tillett, LC
Glenn Patton, OCLC
Ed Glazier, RLG

ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Jean Hudgins (Monday only), ALCTS/AS
Eric Childress, ALCTS/AV
James Maccafferri, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM
Matthew Wise, ALCTS/CMDS
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Jean Altschuler, ALCTS/SS
Cliff Glaviano (Saturday only), ALCTS/TSM
Catherine Gerhart, ALCTS/LITA/RASD/MARBI
Marie Morgan (Saturday only), ALA/ACRL
Rhonda Marker, ALA/GODORT
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
Brad Eden, ALA/LITA
Janet Swan Hill (for Elizabeth Mangan), ALA/MAGERT
Hiroko Aikawa (for Margaret Shen, Monday), ALA/PLA
Noelle Van Pulis, ALA/RASD
Sherry Kelley, ALCTS/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Ann Sitkin, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Daniel Kinney, ARSC
Sally Berlowitz, ATLA
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST
Steve Squires, MedLA
Philip Schreur, MusLA
Adam Schiff, SLA

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 voted are advisory and are not binding upon the Committee. Where no vote totals are recorded, but a CC:DA position is stated, the position has been determined by consensus.

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

5. Abbreviations used in these minutes include:
   AACR2R = Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, 1988 revision
   AALL = American Association of Law Libraries
   AASL = American Association of School Librarians
   ACRL = Association of College and Research Libraries
   ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
   ANSI = American National Standards Institute
   ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange
   ASIS = American Society for Information Science
   CCC = Canadian Committee on Cataloguing
   CCS = ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section
   CETH = Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities
   CNI = Coalition for Networked Information
   CPSO = Library of Congress, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
   HTML = HyperText Markup Language
   IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
   IFLA = International Federation of Library Associations
   ISBD = International Standard for Bibliographic Description
   JSC = Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR
   LC = Library of Congress
   MARC = Machine-Readable Cataloging
   MLA = Music Library Association
   NISO = National Information Standards Organization
   RLG = Research Libraries Group
   SGML = Standard Generalized Markup Language
   SLA = Special Libraries Association
   TEI = Text Encoding Initiative
   URL = Universal Resource Locator

The first meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 2:04 p.m. in the Philadelphia Convention Center, Room 201C. The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming Committee members and audience observers. The roster was circulated to the Committee, and an attendance sheet to the audience.

454. Agenda item 2. Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives (Group)

CC:DA/Roster/1995 January

The Chair, voting members, liaisons, and representatives introduced themselves.

455. Agenda item 3. Adoption of agenda (Chair)

CC:DA/A/31

The agenda was unanimously adopted.

456. Agenda item 4. Correction and approval of minutes of meetings held at the 1994 Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL, June 25 and 27, 1994 (Chair)

CC:DA/M/429-452

The minutes were unanimously approved with the following corrections:

• Minute 438, agenda item 10, last sentence: add "handling" before "arrearage control".
• Minute 449, agenda item 18.2, third paragraph: "Duke replied that CETH would probably welcome the scrutiny" should read "Duke replied that TEI would probably welcome the scrutiny".

457. Agenda item 5. Report from the Chair (Chair)

CC:DA/TF/CONF PROCP/6
CC:DA/Z39.41
CC:DA/Z39.14

The Chair reported that there are still some problems with the mail reflector, although the situation has been greatly improved. CC:DA is now wholly on the ALA mail reflector, but the Chair is still unable to make changes to the reflector, which has resulted in bounced mail and other complications.

The Chair announced that, since the annual conference, two task forces were formed to review and report on ANSI/NISO documents. Both task forces were chaired by Bruce Johnson, and both had short deadlines, which they met. Their reports were distributed to CC:DA members electronically prior to the conference. Johnson would report on these task forces later in the meeting.

Two additional ANSI/NISO documents were forwarded to CC:DA on which the Chair decided to vote to abstain. The Chair deemed the first, Z39.41 (Titles on Spines), to be marginal to CC:DA's charge. The second, Z39.14 (Writing Abstracts), was totally outside of CC:DA's charge.

The Chair also noted that he had distributed the final report of the Joint ALA/CCS/ CC:DA-ACRL/STS Subcommittee to Plan a Preconference on the Bibliographic Control of Conference Proceedings to CC:DA. In the final report are several proposals for CC:DA's consideration, to be discussed later in the meeting.

The Chair reported that he had received a communication from Johanna Bowen regarding source of access points for videos, especially when lacking special equipment needed to access the material. After consulting with Eric Childress, the Chair forwarded Bowen's communication to ALCTS-AV, who will be discussing it. Later in the meeting, Childress announced that, in response to Bowen's suggestion and in consultation with the Chair of ALCTS-AV, he had drafted a proposal making the source of title for video-recordings a mandatory note. This draft proposal will be circulated to OLAC and ALCTS-AV, and if the response is favorable, the proposal will ultimately come to CC:DA. In the meanwhile, copies are available for any interested members of CC:DA.

458. Agenda item 6. Old business: Contact with the Text Encoding Initiative about the TEI header (Chair)

The Chair reminded CC:DA that there had been some discussion at the annual conference on contacting the Text Encoding Initiative regarding the TEI header. The Chair felt the situation had changed so much since the summer that CC:DA first needed to discuss what kind of input or suggestions CC:DA would like to make. In particular, it seemed unclear whether a task force should be appointed, and what the charge to this task force might be.

A general discussion followed. Mifflin expressed her belief that CC:DA should get involved from the beginning to make sure that the TEI header is useful for catalogers. Swanekamp agreed, noting that many people currently working with SGML markup are putting bibliographic information into the header. Swanekamp stated that she was not certain what the issues are, and therefore not certain what the charge to a task force would be. Young suggested that it might be appropriate to have the task force attempt to articulate what the issues are.

Jizba put forward the idea that a task force might work on mapping MARC to the TEI header. Swanekamp suggested that, before creating a task force, it might be useful to appoint one or two people to write a position paper for CC:DA to react to at the summer meeting. The Chair responded that the position paper sounded like a good approach. The Chair also reminded the committee that MARC is not within the purview of CC:DA. Fiegen felt that there is precedent for CC:DA to be involved with the TEI header, recalling John Duke's presentation on SGML made to CC:DA last year. Kelley stated that she liked the idea of the position paper, and thought that the TEI header definitely presented content issues, aside from MARC issues, appropriate for CC:DA to explore. Jizba noted that she had used the word MARC loosely, intending to mean the content of the bibliographic record. Watson suggested that CC:DA might look at the content of the TEI header, compare it to AACR2R, and see where one agrees with the other and what possible discrepancies exist.

The Chair asked for a volunteer to work on writing a position paper. Eden and Kelley volunteered to collaborate. Swanekamp suggested that there may also be others outside CC:DA to consult with, and particularly mentioned Ed Gaynor of the University of Virginia, who has his catalogers creating headers as part of their cataloging. The Chair suggested that Jizba could also serve as a consultant and provide some guidance for the writing of the position paper.

459. Agenda item 7. Old business: Cross-references for legal documents and headings (Sitkin)

CC:DA/3JSC/LC/13/rev./final/2

Sitkin stated that the document before CC:DA was essentially the same document as the one seen at the summer meeting, except that it now included an introduction which discusses the history of the proposal and the reasons why it is felt that the rules need some change, plus the final examples. Sitkin expressed the hope that CC:DA would give final approval of the document and go forward with these alternative rules as proposed.

Watson moved that CC:DA accept CC:DA/3JSC/LC/13/rev./final/2, and forward it to the Joint Steering Committee. Yee seconded the motion. The motion passed, with 8 in favor, 0 opposed.

460. Agenda item 8. Report from the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Hill)

Hill noted that she had passed out two documents to CC:DA at the beginning of the meeting which were just for the committee's information: 3JSC/ALA/20/ALA follow-up, and 3JSC/LC/20/CCC Response/ALA Response.

With regard to 3JSC/ALA/22, Hill has received a correction from Sherman Clarke to change the word "variance" to "variation."

Hill discussed 3JSC/ALA/23 and the related responses. The first question to be resolved was whether angle brackets were a necessary part of the note. CC:DA agreed that angle brackets should not be used.

The next question was whether the location of the resource should be included in the note after the mode of access. CC:DA quickly decided that the location/address should be included. Jizba drew attention to Ann Sandberg-Fox's memo to the Chair proposing an additional example showing a URL address. Watson suggested having both the example with the "Host" address, and one with the "URL" address, as in Sandberg-Fox's memo. Schiff recommended some typographical corrections to the "URL" example. Watson moved that CC:DA support the original proposal, with the addition of the URL example, as corrected, to the rules. Howarth seconded the proposal. The result of the vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed.

The final question was whether to make the introductory terminology "Mode of access:" standard, by prescribing it in the rules, or whether simply to use this term in the examples and therefore allow for other terms to be used. Childress, having previously discussed this issue with OLAC and other computer files catalogers, spoke in favor of prescribing the use of "Mode of access:" to precede each such note, likening this to the "System requirements:" note already in place. Davey moved that "mode of access:" be written into the rules as the prescribed introductory phrase for the note. Howarth seconded the motion. In the subsequent discussion, Yee spoke against prescribing any particular language in this note area, which she felt would be so subject to change. Mifflin agreed, expressing her desire that the cataloger be given some room for judgement in the note area. Howarth countered that she felt the cataloger would appreciate being given some guidance, and that the language "Mode of access:" was somewhat general in nature, and not tied too closely to technology. Fiegen also liked having structure in this note. Discussion was closed, and the motion brought to a vote. The result of the vote was 4 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstaining. It was agreed that the precise language for the revised proposal would be worked out with Hill after the meeting.

Hill reviewed 3JSC/ALA/25. Both LC and the British Library believe that the proposed third example for 9.5D1 actually illustrates 9.5D2 instead. The British Library is also uncomfortable with making the merely cosmetic change from "5 1/4 in." to "3 1/2 in." in the first example. Childress agreed that we had submitted one example for the wrong rule. CC:DA decided that no additional example is needed for 9.5D2, and the proposed example should be withdrawn. After some discussion, there was also no support for continuing to propose the cosmetic change in disk sizes.

Hill discussed 3JSC/ALA/26, noting the proposed changes in language made by the British Library. Schreur, speaking for the Music Library Association, responded that they had no problem with the British Library's proposed revision to the final sentence of 25.30D2. However, they felt that the British Library proposals for the initial phrases of 25.30D1 and 25.30D2 would introduce confusion to the only part of these rules which do not currently cause confusion. The Music Library Association is reluctant to make any changes to the first sentences of these rules; if it is felt that if a change must be made, they would support the proposed addition of dates. They would not support the inclusion of publication criteria in the rules, since publication dates are not a reliable means of dating a composition. Young and Swanekamp both stated their belief that the first sentences should not be changed at all, and Schreur reiterated that that would be the Music Library Association's strong preference. CC:DA concurred with the Music Library Association's position. In response to the British Library's objection to the proposed Reizenstein example, because it contained explanatory wording, Schreur said that he would find a different example to use, and submit this to the CC:DA mail reflector.

There was an extended discussion of 3JSC/Aus/6/rev/Aus follow-up, and the LC and British Library responses, centering on concerns about the recently approved example for 9.3B2a using "gb" as an abbreviation for gigabytes. After some confusion, Tillett realized that Hill had not received the most recent communication from the Australians withdrawing the use of the abbreviation in favor of the spelled out form. This rendered the discussion moot.

Finally, there was additional discussion related to 3JSC/ALA/25, about the proposed addition of explanatory text to follow the term "computer disk" in 9.5B1. The British Library, in its response, had stated that they would prefer the addition of definitions to the glossary. Jizba said she felt that the explanatory text would be a great help to the cataloger, clearing up the confusion between the use of "disk" and "disc" without sending the cataloger to the glossary; however she would find the glossary solution acceptable. Jizba further stated that she would prefer both explanatory text and glossary definitions, and that there are definitions in the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia which could be used in the AACR2R glossary. Childress concurred, and also noted that the British proposed language for the explanatory text, which employs the imperative form, would be entirely acceptable. Hill wondered whether the glossary definitions were really appropriate, when the real issue seemed not to be the definition, but rather the two spellings, "disk" and "disc." However, she agreed to take forward the proposal for explanatory text and glossary definitions both. Tillett noted that the Australians are also supporting both explanatory text and glossary definitions.

461. Agenda item 9. Report of the Task Force to Review Proposed American National Standard ANSI/NISO/ISO 3166 (Codes for the Representation of Names of Countries), and Report of the Task Force to Review Proposed NISO Standard Z39.18 (Scientific and technical reports -- elements, organization, and design) (Johnson)

CC:DA/TF/ANSI 3166/6 and 6s
CC:DA/TF/Z39.18/4 and 4s

Johnson summarized the work of the two task forces, each of which he had chaired. ANSI/NISO/ISO 3166 contained many editorial inconsistencies, such as incomplete and confusing cross reference structure, and inconsistency in the presentation of headings (some were in direct order, some in inverted form). This was the English language version of the list (there is also a French version); the headings were supposed to be politically neutral, nevertheless there were some problematic headings, such as "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" and "Taiwan (Province of China)." Overall, however, the Task Force felt that the list was good enough to vote Yes on, with some suggestions for editorial changes.

It was felt that Z39.18 was a good standard, but could be better. If publishers universally applied the standard, many of the challenges catalogers now face with technical reports would be alleviated. However, the Task Force identified several areas of the standard which it felt needed improvement: the concept of authorship employed by the standard did not correspond to the definition of authorship in AACR2R; the handling of series was inadequate; and there seemed to be confusion between what the standard described as notices, and what catalogers interpret as editions. The Task Force recommended that the Chair vote Yes on the standard, "with comments".

The Chair thanked the task forces, and added particular thanks to Johnson for all his hard work completed in a very short time frame.

462. Agenda item 10. Report from the Task Force on Communication and Outreach (Fiegen)

CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/6
CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/7
CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/8

Fiegen first noted that the members of the Task Force are currently Jizba, Leighton, Watson, and herself as chair. In response to the discussion at the last two CC:DA meetings, the Task Force has worked on developing a single pamphlet intended for both non-library and library communities. This pamphlet describes general cataloging to non-library communities, and provides support to cataloging communities by giving access to CC:DA and what CC:DA does. Fiegen reviewed the existing components of the draft pamphlet. In the Task Force meeting the previous day, the members decided that the pamphlet could use some more text discussing cataloging in general for the non-library community.

The Task Force is anxious to have feedback on the content of the pamphlet, and urges members to write, call, or send e-mail to the members of the Task Force. Fiegen mentioned editorial comments already received from the Library of Congress: that in the first column, first paragraph, the second sentence should read "The Committee's representative works with representatives from the Library of Congress, the British Library, and British, Canadian, and Australian ..."; and that ALCTS should be spelled out.

Watson presented the draft document "How to Submit a Rule Change to CC:DA." He noted that the aim of the document was to clarify the process so that one could approach CC:DA with a proposal which has a good chance of receiving discussion without being rejected for lack of content, stylistic problems, or other types of mistakes which could delay CC:DA consideration for up to a year.

Watson highlighted the document's focus on the possibility of submitting rule change proposals electronically. Although one would still need to submit a paper version of a rule change proposal, the ability to submit an electronic version as well would allow for speeding up the process. The document assumes the lowest common denominator of electronic submission, plain ASCII text via e-mail over the Internet, and prescribes how to indicate such traditional print conventions as bold and italic typeface. The conventions the Task Force decided on resemble HTML specification one conventions.

The Chair began the comments by noting that the title of the document should read "How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA." Swanekamp encouraged mentioning that those submitting rule change proposals containing foreign language examples should follow up with the paper version as soon as possible, since ASCII mangles foreign language diacritics and characters. Altschuler asked for clarification: would the paper version contain actual bold and italic typeface, so that two different versions of the proposal would have to be created? Jizba responded yes. Hill spoke to the need for JSC members to receive paper versions, both because not all members have equal electronic access, and because of the difficulty in making sense of some of these documents in electronic form. John Attig asked for clarification as to how deletions are to be indicated. It was agreed that although there is an example of a deletion in the document, specific instruction is needed.

Fiegen then reviewed the distribution plan outlined in CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/8. Hill interjected that in thinking about distribution of the pamphlet she was bothered by the title; she felt a catchier title is needed in order for the recipients to understand why the pamphlet is relevant to them. The Task Force agreed to work on "other title" or "at head of title" information. It was also noted that the Coalition for Networked Information was to be moved from the paper distribution list to the electronic distribution list.

Watson asked CC:DA's permission for the Task Force to experiment with providing access to the Task Force's documents via a World Wide Web server at the University of Oregon. CC:DA could take a look at the documents marked up with HTML. The Task Force hopes to mark up rule revision proposals in a way which would preserve the stylistic components that one loses with ASCII text. Watson indicated that this might be a way of handling rule revision proposals in the future. The Task Force will supply the URL of this experimental site to CC:DA via the mail reflector.

Finally, Fiegen moved that there be a revision to the charge to the Task Force, extending the Task Force until the 1995 Annual Conference in order to complete its work. The result of the vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed.

Fiegen then moved that CC:DA accept the document CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/7, with the editorial changes which had been discussed. The result of the vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed.

463. Agenda item 11. New Business: Music Library Association proposal on the cataloging of videorecordings that include musical elements (Schreur)

CC:DA/MuLA/1995/1

Schreur discussed the background to the proposal, and stated his belief that the two questions are: should a task force be formed to deal with this issue, and could the discussion by the task force be limited to videorecordings containing musical elements? Swanekamp worried about limiting the discussion to videorecordings with musical elements, noting that as we move forward with interactive multimedia we will encounter the problem again, since a significant number of these are based on musical works. Swanekamp felt that if CC:DA is to take up this issue, we need to reexamine the definition of a work and how it relates to all the formats.

Young pointed out that AACR2 contains a fundamental theoretical conflict in the way sound recordings are treated, and that we are experiencing additional conflict because we have no tradition to fall back on as new technologies develop. He believed that it would be shortsighted to deal exclusively with videorecordings containing musical elements. He noted, however, that if we really examined the issue we might determine that we have never understood what constitutes a work well enough to consistently organize library catalogs. He stated that we have relied on working consensuses to deal with different types of materials, and that if a task force truly examined the concept of authorship and the concept of a work, the implications for change would probably be too big to be acceptable. Young suggested that the charge to the task force might be to consider what are the issues which can be usefully addressed at this point. Several members reminded CC:DA of what had happened with the discussion of multiple versions, which had similarly suggested changes too large to be made.

Yee suggested that the real problem was that the concept of mixed authorship is not fully developed in AACR2R. The question of whether there are predominant forms of authorship under mixed authorship conditions is a huge one, and therefore Yee was not certain that CC:DA wanted to deal with this issue now. Bruce Johnson said Yee's point was a good one, and citing Ben Tucker, observed that there are times when one must take a practical rather than a principled approach. Jizba wondered if CC:DA needed to do anything, since the audiovisual catalogers are happy with the rule, and the music catalogers are split. Young noted that the music catalogers are not presenting any actual rule change proposals.

Watson expressed discomfort with doing nothing. Squires also supported taking some action, and pointed out that the work of a task force might at least aid those who will be rethinking the cataloging code. The Chair stated that he was not certain what the charge would be to such a task force. After some continued discussion, it became clear that CC:DA supported forming a task force. Young volunteered to work on a charge, in consultation with CC:DA members over the mail reflector. It was decided that formation of the task force would wait until the charge was finalized.

464. Agenda item 13. Adjournment for the day (Chair)

The Chair adjourned the meeting for the day, reminding the members and liaisons of the room and time of the next meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Lynne Byrd**

The second meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Philadelphia Convention Center, Room 201B. The Chair asked that the audience attendance sheet and the official roster be circulated.

466. Agenda item 15. Report from the Task Force on a Forum on Natural History Cataloging Issues (Jizba)

Jizba reported that the Task Force spent time discussing authority control in their meeting on Friday, and concluded a discussion started in Miami. They agreed that forum topics must have considerable and sustained interest for both the museum and library communities. Plans call for a small forum (25-40 persons) largely made up of natural history curators. Featured speakers were also under discussion. Since the Task Force advises Dr. James Beach, they are now awaiting a report from Dr. Beach on his meetings with the National Science Foundation next week.

There are three new task force members: Sherman Clarke from the Amon Carter Museum Library, and Lynn El-Hoshy and John Mitchell, both from the Library of Congress.

467. Agenda item 17. Report from the MARBI Representative (Gerhart)

MARBI has met twice already, and will meet again Monday afternoon. It has already discussed Discussion Paper 80, defining a component item entry field, which was initiated by RLG and others. It explores possible coding of component parts. In particular, this paper looks at one way to link an item contained in a collection to the actual object by describing the item in the component part field within the record for the collection.

Discussion paper 45, written in 1991, followed a similar approach, using AACR2 rule 13.6A, but the current paper varies from this rule. MARBI seems to be moving slowly on this and would like to see another discussion paper brought to Chicago, one that embodies a more up-to-date definition of "component item."

Another proposal, to be reviewed this afternoon, is 95-6, linking code for reproduction of information in bibliographic format (through a linking subfield 8 for an applicable 533 field). Glazier (RLG representative) pointed out that this proposal does not refer to linked fields in the same bibliographic record, as different records are required, and also expressed surprise at the claim that this proposal follows on the earlier work of a CC:DA task force.

468. Agenda item 16. Machine-readable AACR (Duke)

The markup for the primary machine-readable file of AACR (the 1988 AACR2) was completed in the summer of 1994. PostScript formatted pages of it are now under review through an ALA-contracted editor. Several true automated conversion process errors have been corrected, and several problems resulting from the formatting process were detected. Part 1 has been sent back to John Duke, and he anticipates the return of part 2 in about a week's time.

The amendments package in machine-readable format, received shortly before Christmas 1994, was corrected with integrated amendments by New Year's Day 1995. A number of errors were discovered in the text as received, with many of these in the formatting and typesetting domains. Duke will give a list of the errors to CC:DA.

Errors turned up as well in the revision packet. There was also one instance of something appearing on the printed page without residing in the machine-readable file. Finally, there were some true errors, e.g. in the index, line references, etc. Very fast scans of rules and antecedents are now possible.

David Epstein of ALA Publishing then expressed his own and the publishers' appreciation for Duke's exceptionally clean SGML file version of AACR (1988) and the revisions. The entire book, as a set of PostScript files, has now been proofread by a legal proofreader (who was also once a part-time law librarian at the University of Chicago). Five or six errors were found, a very impressive return on this text. Duke had also found other, previous errors due to the typesetting. Epstein will now be sending chapters 21 through 26 and the appendices to Duke.

Duke has incorporated the 1993 amendments into the main file, but in such a manner that the 1988 text remains accessible as a shadow file. This entire document will next go to JSC for proofreading as well as to publishers in the United Kingdom and Canada. Don Chatham, Associate Executive Editor for publishing at ALA, will negotiate publication, with Epstein as technical advisor. Options will be presented for marketing and licensing. The work may be marketed as an unadorned SGML set of files or, perhaps, as software for Folio Infobases (used on catalogers' desktops at LC). However, Epstein was not sure which direction marketing would take. It is nonetheless the publishers' consensus that this package should be easy to integrate with current cataloging software and other electronic cataloging tools.

John Attig (in the audience) wanted to know when this file would be available. Epstein replied that as little as five or six months would suffice from the technical perspective, but that the real timing factor attaches to marketing.

The Chair offered CC:DA's warm thanks to John Duke for his excellent work. There was sustained applause, with several CC:DA members and liaisons standing.

469. Agenda item 20. Report from the Library of Congress representative (Tillett)

Much is happening at the Library of Congress, with progress to report in the following:

LC Rule Interpretations are under review by a Cooperative Cataloging Council/Cataloging Policy and Support Office Task Group. The emphases were on reduction, clarification, and forwarding some reformulations for consideration as rule revisions. The Task Group has looked at chapters O, 1, and 12 to date. A revised LCRI for 21.30J will be issued as a model for a new structural format for LCRIs, subject to comment. In addition, a list of the latest changes to LCRIs was suggested and is now available to facilitate interleaving of current documentation. Some examples of changes are:

• 020 (ISBN) field: Catalogers are no longer required to transcribe price or terms of availability.
• Catalogers are to add, as a qualifier to the name of a religious building, the place wherein it is located. However, a reference from the place followed by the name of a religious building will not be made (by LC). (Although there was some support for retaining such references, they were felt to be redundant in the contemporary online search environment.)

In format integration, LC has conducted train-the-trainer classes. Information on these classes is available on LC Marvel. (This applies particularly to phase two of format integration.)

As a result of last autumn's decision by LC, series authority work and access are to continue as part of LC cataloging. While the arrearage elimination deadline of the year 2000 along with the cataloging of current receipts and the attrition of cataloging staff make this proposition difficult, continued provision of series access by LC is "in the spirit of cooperative cataloging." Considerable feedback in favor of series access retention, national and international, played a role in this decision. LC is now contemplating technical advances, e.g. machine-based generation of authority records, that should expedite workflow.

As of Thursday of this conference, the Cooperative Cataloging Council (CCC) passed the torch on to the new Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). Several task groups have completed their work and others are continuing, as does the LCRI Task Group. Two CCC Task Groups dealing with authority records recommended simplification of the authority record's 670, so as to establish an order of precedence but to allow flexibility in use of abbreviations, etc., with an emphasis on clarity.

CCC/CPSO's "Division of the World" Task Group looked at separation of name and subject authority files, ways to determine which headings go in which files, and future possibilities of merging files. A new PCC task group chaired by Mark Ziomek will carry forward in this work on the basis of recommendations made last summer by the earlier task group.

Barbara Tillett also heads another CCC-PCC Task Group on AACR revisions, scheduled to meet today, to which a number of other LCRIs have been forwarded. This task group was to meet later Monday to clarify its charge and to determine appropriate directions to take in its work.

In automated systems at LC, the Global Update Advisory Committee has forwarded desiderata (requirements for global updating in MUMS) to the programmers of the Information Service Technology Unit. Working with these programmers, who are responsible for MUMS software, the committee completed its recommendations in December, and the programmers started work. However, since automation priorities have shifted again, global updating is delayed in its initial functionality until about 1997. These priorities are still being negotiated by the concerned parties. There is likewise a desire to automate the shelflist by 1997, given that some twelve million cards are manually updated. Tillett chairs a library-wide Shelflist Task Group that hopes to complete its charge by the first week of April to come up with a budget proposal for this automation. One of the options being examined is creation of an image database of the existing shelflist, somehow linking this database with an ongoing, machine-readable shelflisting system.

Eight romanization tables are now outstanding and waiting for comment. Some special characters will present problems to express in a machine-readable format with graphic capabilities, however. Pending timely resolution of these problems, the updated versions should be available this year.

LC classification schedules are being converted into machine-readable form and complete conversion is expected by the end of summer 1995. Schedules M and N have been completed ahead of schedule. The law of France schedule, as yet unassigned, is expected to be completed by late summer 1995 as well. It remains, of course, to proofread printed versions of the machine-readable format. The Cataloging Distribution Service is making available print versions of these schedules as well as versions for the Cataloger's Desktop. They will be sent out as they are completed.

LC is also making available a form for LCSH proposals online for external organizations through LC Marvel (and internally as well for LC catalogers). The monthly cumulation of the weekly subject headings list, available heretofore from CDS, has been discontinued and is now available weekly online through LC Marvel.

At this point, Sadowski mentioned that, after consulting with his staff, he would like to see LC classification schedules on the Catalogers' Desktop. Bruce Johnson (in the audience) stated that the current publication plan is close to that: a separate product (referred to generically as the CD-Class product) incorporating LCSH and as many classification schedules as available, with extensive hypertext linkage between the two. The linkage is part of a necessary interface between two very differently structured files. In addition, unlike most CDS cataloging products, this package will be several hundred megabytes' worth. Sadowski remarked that CD-ROM drive availability was an inhibiting factor in the use of CD-based packages. Johnson suggested that the CD-ROM contents could be placed on a hard disk. Most clients have apparently been placing the contents of the Cataloger's desktop CD-ROM on hard disks, with the ancillary benefit of markedly improved reading time.

John Attig (in the audience) wanted to know if the classification schemes would be available on the national database utilities. Johnson replied that there may be some technical difficulties. The USMARC formatted LC schedules now converted currently reside in Minaret software. Kelley wanted to ascertain that the schedules as an electronic product were to be distributed through CDS. Tillett replied in the affirmative and added that the distributions would be more frequent (owing to new distributions whenever more schedules were completed). Johnson interjected that the CDS distributions would include only the classification schedules that had won final approval. But these would appear separately and as components, along with LCSH on the Cataloger's Desktop-like product anticipated to be available later in 1995.

470. Agenda item 18. Report from the IFLA representative

CC:DA/IFLA/16

The Chair announced that the IFLA representative, Olivia Madison, was unable to be present at the ALA Conference, but that the IFLA report had been distributed in the last mailing.

471. Agenda item 19. New Business: Recommendations from the Joint ALA/CCS/CC:DA-ACRL/STS Subcommittee to Plan a Preconference on the Bibliographic Control of Conference Proceedings (Sarah Shatford Layne)

CC:DA/TF/ConfProcp/7

Sarah Shatford Layne asked if all had seen the recommendations from the Preconference Subcommittee. The Chair mentioned that these had been distributed electronically as CC:DA/TF/Conf Procp/7 and were handed out in a slightly different form on Saturday as well. Layne mentioned that item number one should read "initiate a review of U.S. standards for cataloging conference proceedings". Layne went on to describe two recent developments. First, CONSER has its own task force reviewing the cataloging of conference proceedings. The second, one that Layne would have wanted to incorporate into the document handed out, is that she had just become aware of LC's CIP publishing manual which addresses (albeit briefly) the publication of conference proceedings. Layne hoped for some coordination to be found between the LC guidelines and the more extensive ACRL Science and Technology Section guidelines for publishers. Speaking for himself, Sadowski asked for a brief summary of these recommendations.

Layne replied that the ACRL STS recommendations are about 2.5 pages long, and basically state that the name of the conference, if it has one, should appear on the title page, and that the bibliographic title be clearly identified and be consistent on the title page and on the cover. The CIP guidelines are very brief and deal more with the CIP data sheet than with the publication itself.

The Chair wanted to know, in view of the recommendation that CC:DA involve itself in this issue, if points 2 and 3 seemed good enough to work with as they were. It seemed clear that point 1 would require some task force work. Similarly, a joint task force with ACRL STS on point 4 seemed desirable. Young remarked that, he does not see a change in the cataloging standard here, but rather more guidelines for publishers to provide the information necessary for good cataloging. The Chair replied that this is in our area of interest because of an indicated possible rule revision proposal.

Watson, said that the creation of a task force might be timely, and asked if the possible rule changes had been identified. Layne replied in the affirmative. Watson suggested that, given the body of knowledge accumulated, a task force could take a look at AACR2R on description and access for conference proceedings, coordinate with the CONSER task force, and take the recommendations of the Preconference Subcommittee into account in reporting back to CC:DA a proposed revision for conference cataloging rules. Mifflin saw the title page/cover information problems as the same in both conferences and technical reports. Thus it would behoove both publication types to achieve consistency and to work on strong guidelines to make requisite information for cataloging very clear and well-coordinated.

Howarth concurred with Watson about the need to identify, extract, and assess implications of rule revisions. Yee suggested that there was some confusion on the part of CC:DA. Rule problems did emerge in this matter, and there was also ongoing concern regarding clear information from publishers. But these are two distinct topics. It is fairly clear that part 1 of the document concerns rules and not publisher practices.

Young wanted to know if CC:DA could have a report of the specific rule revisions as a basis for charging a task force. The Chair replied that the basis of a task force charge had been sketched out. [As of this writing, the plans are for the task force charge to be sent out electronically at a later date.]

The Chair then asked for a motion to set up a task force. Howarth moved that a task force be set up and charged per the Chair's wording of such. Yee seconded. The Chair asked for discussion. There being none, the matter was put to a vote, with eight voting members affirming, none opposed and no abstentions.

After a break, the Chair announced that he was circulating a signup sheet for volunteers for the newly established Task Force to Review the Rules for the Cataloging of Conference Proceedings.

472. Agenda item 21. New Business: ALCTS/AV and OLAC/CAPC proposal for improved wording and examples in AACR2r 7.7B2 (closed caption moving image materials and the related categories: open-signed and audio described) (Childress)

CC:DA/AV/7.7B2/1

Eric Childress stated that some 900 audiovisual catalogers were in OLAC, one unit of which is the Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC). He then turned the floor over to Patricia Thompson, audience observer for OLAC and member of CAPC, who spoke on the proposed rule change to AACR2R 7.7B2 and OLAC's proposed revisions to that document. As this rule change proposal remains unpublished, CAPC is suggesting some further refinements to the rule. CC:DA/AV/7.7B2/1 was originated by Diane Boehr, and co-authored by Ms. Boehr and Ms. Thompson. The document makes two particular points: (1) As language enhancements have evolved, so has the technology of their delivery, e.g. modification of sound tracks originally for description of a video segment to the visually challenged. Adding the term "audio-described" to the language enhancement note examples would improve and clarify the rule's intent. (2) Describing the appropriate audience for using hand signs is the second aspect of the CAPC proposal, which would like to delete the phrase "for the hearing-impaired" from the rule and the example because it is unnecessarily limiting and restrictive. Captioning has achieved a broader use, of which Thompson offered several examples. The new audio captioning has also been found to be of use for children with attention deficit problems. Thompson stated that from a cataloging perspective, it was more appropriate to be descriptive rather than prescriptive of a given item.

There is no generic terminology yet for this new technology. The main producer of these videos, DVS (Described Video Services), calls its products described videos. CAPC has learned from the National Library Association of the Blind and Physically Handicapped that the latter intends to use the term "audio-described". It encouraged CAPC's collaboration in standardizing this term.

The Chair asked if there were questions from CC:DA members. Hill saw no problem with deleting "for the hearing impaired" from the note; this term initially gave JSC some pause as well. She also indicated that "language-based enhancements" would appear to be without substantive meaning unless there were accompanying examples (e.g., "Close-captioned for the hearing impaired."). Childress replied that "language- based enhancements" was the best term that CAPC could come up with, since no generic term exists yet. Hill asked if it was possible to forward the proposal to JSC with a note indicating lack of total happiness with "language-based enhancements." Childress agreed.

Sadowski asked about the possibility of a note saying simply "Indicate enhancements such as closed-captioning." Childress replied that this would be clear since a language enhancement would be implied.

Then the Chair asked if CC:DA could vote on the need for improved wording. Hill replied in the affirmative ("in a sense"), but stated that JSC preferred rule language in a ready state. Nonetheless, there are precedents for attaching a note saying that the language formulated was the best that could be devised.

Yee wanted to know if the language-based enhancements are all in the language of the item itself. Would things be made clearer by indicating the language of the enhancement? Hill said that a political problem did exist: is Ameslan English? Thompson pointed out that the reason for mentioning language-based enhancements was to distinguish them from other audio enhancements (e.g., volume).

Hill then asked about "enhancements to the language content" as a possible note. Childress pointed out, however that the language describes visual content. Glazier (RLG) concurred with Sadowski on just the term "enhancements."

The Chair asked if there was a motion to accept the AV OLAC/CAPC rule change proposal with the change to "indicate enhancements such as closed captioning." Swanekamp so moved, and Mifflin seconded. The vote was taken, with eight voting members affirming, none opposed, and no abstentions.

473. Agenda item 22. New Business: CC:DA input into future updates of Names of Persons (Tillett/Chair)

CC:DA/LC/1995/1

Tillett indicated that IFLA had sent LC a request for their assistance in the update of Names of Persons, something they do on a regular basis. Since this time they had a very brief turnaround time, LC had to proceed without the assistance of CC:DA. She requested that CC:DA look into the national practices with respect to Francophone African and American Indian names and consider preparing text for future editions of Names of Persons. The Chair asked if CC:DA would like to explore this via a task force.

Swanekamp asked when a report would be required. Tillett replied that a report within a year would be good. Maccaferri stated that this matter is pertinent to the charge of the Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials. The Chair concurred, and referred the Francophone African names issue to CC:AAM. Both Sadowski and Yee spoke to having some Amerindian contacts. Fiegen offered to investigate through the numerous reservations in Arizona. She wanted to know, however, if a task force was actually contemplated at this point. The Chair replied that this was more a query for expertise and for identification of the problem, but that formation of a task force would likely result.

Hill wanted to know if there is a group in ALA for Amerindian concerns. The Chair expressed ignorance on this point. Kelley offered to take this matter to the Social Responsibilities Round Table, and asked for a copy of the page with Amerindian names attached to Tillett's letter to the Chair (Tillett will send this). Both Hill and Schiff thought that there must be some Amerindian professional association, even if not affiliated with ALA. Maccaferi stated that there is, he believed, an Amerindian librarians' group. The Chair spoke of the need to investigate farther.

The Chair indicated that, having several CC:DA names accumulated for purposes of expertise, a task force could be formed later via e-mail. Jizba found the date of December 1994 on the IFLA document confusing. The Chair replied that this was the previous update's deadline, and that LC (through Tillett) was merely looking ahead to potential future updates by bringing the matter to CC:DA now.

Marker found within the ALA directory, under ALA committees: "American Indians, Library Service for (subcommittee), chair, Lisa A. Mitten," who is also president of the (also ALA-affiliated) American Indian Library Association. The Chair, in closing on this issue, stated that he will contact Ms. Mitten before going ahead with CC:DA exploration of the issue.

474. Agenda item 12. New Business: Committee to Study Serials Cataloging proposal to modify AACR2r 12.3D1 (Altschuler)

C:DA/Serials Cat./1995/1

Jean Altschuler indicated that this proposal, regarding AACR2r rule 12.3D1, was to change the word "numbering" to "designation" and to add two examples. Tillett relayed Judy Kuhagen's response that LC would not oppose this change if the ALA JSC representative would transmit it. Tillett went on to say that LC felt this change to be unnecessary, since the definition of "numbering" in ISBD(S) specifically included the date. The Chair pointed out, however, that AACR2 does not address that.

Altschuler asked if the emphasis of the letter from LC on numbering implied the cataloging of unnumbered series as serials. Tillett indicated that this was not the case.

Hill remarked that she could carry this proposal forward to JSC, but that the latter would consider this change "emphatically cosmetic." The Chair then asked if there was interest on the committee's part in forwarding this proposal. CC:DA members indicated a lack of interest, with the implication that CC:DA agreed with LC that the change was unnecessary.

475. Agenda item 23. Reports from the floor, Announcement of next meeting and Adjournment (Chair)

Jizba, acting as Chair of the CCS 1995 Interactive Multimedia Cataloging Preconference Planning Committee, announced an all-day preconference to be held Friday, 23 June at DePaul University in downtown Chicago. The meeting will concentrate on interactive multimedia cataloging guidelines, and will include hands-on sessions. The organizers of the preconference anticipate some underwriting. Five faculty will be present to host five separate sessions. There will also be ten teaching assistants in addition to the faculty in order to facilitate individual instruction. In addition to other goals, the committee hopes the preconference will be able to provide CC:DA with additional feedback on the guidelines. The Chair then announced that another preconference, entitled AACR2000, will be held on Thursday, 22 June, and that persons wishing to attend both preconferences would receive a discount.

Squires asked for the name of the new JSC representative to CC:DA. The Chair replied that this appointment had not been announced. However, Johnson (in the audience) stated that the appointment had been announced at the CCS and ALCTS board meetings, and that Brian Schottlaender will be the new JSC representative.

Squires then asked if action on a task force [re: Agenda item 11] had been taken. The Chair replied that Brad Young had volunteered to write a charge, with the rest of the organizational details to be handled through the mail reflector.

The Chair announced that the next meeting of CC:DA would be in June, in Chicago. He then adjourned the meeting at 11:42 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Patrick J. Stevens***
Edited by Frank Sadowski*