CC:DA/M/498-521

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Joan Swanekamp, Chair
Jo Lynne Byrd
Ann Fiegen
Lynn Howarth
Frank Sadowski
Mitch Turitz
Mark Watson
Martha Yee
Brad Young
John A. Richardson, Intern
Carol Walton Hixson, Intern

Ex-officio representatives (those present are named)

Brian Schottlaender, JSC
Barbara Tillett, LC
Glenn Patton, OCLC
Ed Glazier, RLG

ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Mary Beth Fecko, ALCTS/AV
Matthew Wise, ALCTS/CMDS
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Marguerite E. Horn, ALCTS/SS
Victoria Mills, ALCTS/TSM
Catherine Gerhart, ALCTS/LITA/RASD/MARBI
Rhonda Marker, ALA/GODORT
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
Brad Eden, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Jimmie Lundgren, ALA/NMRT
Margaret Shen, 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
Lorena Boylan (for Tina-Karen Forman), CLA
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST
Steve Squires, MedLA
Philip Schreur, MusLA
Michael Fox, SAA
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
   ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
   ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange
   ASIS = American Society for Information Science
   CC:AAM = Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials
   CCC = Canadian Committee on Cataloguing
   CCS = ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section
   CPSO = Library of Congress, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
   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
   PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
   RLG = Research Libraries Group
   SAC = Subject Analysis Committee
   SGML = Standard Generalized Markup Language
   TEI = Text Encoding Initiative
   URL = Universal Resource Locator
   URN = Universal Resource Number

The first meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Marriott Riverwalk Salon E/F. The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming Committee members and audience observers. The roster was circulated to the Committee for corrections, and an attendance sheet was passed to the audience.

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

CC:DA/Roster/1996 January

The Chair, voting members, and representatives introduced themselves. Lorena Boylan, representing CLA, substituted for Tina-Karen Forman.

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

CC:DA/A/33

The agenda was corrected to reflect the location of the meeting on Saturday and Monday from the Marriott Rivercenter to the Marriott Riverwalk. The time of Monday's meeting was corrected from p.m. to a.m. Item 11 was corrected to reflect Tillett as the Library of Congress representative, rather than the ALA representative. The agenda was unanimously adopted with corrections.

501. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meetings held at 1995 Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 24 and 26 (Chair)

CC:DA/M/475-497

The Chair has received a correction via e-mail from Barbara Tillett. The correction was to item 492, the fourth paragraph from the end. "Tillett cautioned that another two years of work would then be required during which a combined index would be prepared and the schedule proofread." The minutes were unanimously approved with corrections.

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

The Chair and Frank Sadowski attended the CCC:CCS Executive Committee meeting on Friday night. The report of the Task Force on Outreach report was discussed. Two documents, the first a pamphlet on CC:DA and what it does, and the second, a four page sheet on how to propose a rule change, were reviewed. In regards to the pamphlet, Paul Weiss will gather comments from CCS Executive Committee members and compile them. The deadline for comments is January 31, 1996. The intent is to try to publish the electronic version before the Annual meeting. The other document, since it is a working document of CC:DA might possibly be put up on the ALA website. We would still want to review it. In regards to a paper version, it might be printed in the ALCTS newsletter. Since it will not be going through ALCTS Publications Committee, posting it on the website should suffice. The Chair requested volunteers to take the comments of the Executive Committee and to make the revisions. Ann Fiegen and Mark Watson will do so.

The Chair received a copy of the Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM) Technical Report 13, "The Care and Handling of Active Microform Files", which has been renamed "Guidelines for Preservation of Microforms in an Active Environment." The Chair would like to respond that it is out of the scope of this Committee. Mitch Turitz suggested that it should be referred to TESLA (Technical Standards for Library Automation). The Chair will follow up on this suggestion. The Chair has reserved some time at the end of Monday's meeting to discuss the question of the cataloging of digital materials. MARBI, PARS Intellectual Access Committee, and ALCTS Task Force to Define Bibliographic Access in the Electronic Environment are all involved in similar discussions. This Committee needs to coordinate with the other groups so that we do not all cover the same territory.

503. Agenda item 6. Old Business (Jizba/Turitz)

Laurel Jizba reviewed the history of the document Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia, published by ALA in June 1994. Although these are strictly guidelines, five bibliographic utilities use them: OCLC, RLIN, WLN, the Australian and Canadian networks are using them. LC is also testing them. Informal reporting on experience with the guidelines has been positive but has not been extensive. The Chair has asked Laurel to collect and synthesize all comments It was noted that the guidelines are out of synch with the general material designator (GMD) as defined in the International Standards for Bibliographic Description of Computer Files (ISBD (CF)). Jizba will prepare a comparison chart of the differences.

Brian Schottlaender asked if it was our intention to forward the revisions to the JSC. Jizba reported that the housekeeping revisions have been forwarded and approved by the JSC.

Mitch Turitz reported that comments on the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Reproductions, published in 1995, have amounted to a handful of letters and e-mail communications. Many of them question "How do we apply the guidelines to MARC tags?" This was not our charge. CONSER's guidelines are to link all electronic versions with multiple 856 fields to the bibliographic record for the original version. MARBI has approved the use of a subfield 8 in tags 776, some 553s, and 830s to link information about the specific version and not the original title.

Elizabeth Mangan commented that MARBI proposal 95-6 was limited to microforms only. Turitz responded that many institutions are using it already for other forms. The original proposal was for use with any reproduction. Swanekamp emphasized that digital reproductions are of great concern.

Cathy Gerhart sees no conflict with Turitz's comments. MARBI came up with three solutions: The first is a general principle for sharing records, based on the single record for each form of reproduction. The other models are essentially one record for the original and the use of multiple 856s and 533s. However, MARBI was unwilling to extend the concepts to electronic versions as yet.

504. Agenda item 7. Report from the ALCTS Task Force to Define Bibliographic Access in the Electronic Environment (Younger)

Jennifer Younger listed the Task Force members and their charge -- Lead the way in defining access and bibliographic control mechanisms for information in electronic form and communicating that mechanism to the users of the electronic information. There were many questions about the meaning of the charge. The Task Force time table is to issue a preliminary report to ALCTS at the Annual meeting in New York and to have a final report for Midwinter 1997.

Four outcomes are intended:

• The first is to explore the relationship between bibliographic description and the information which might accompany an object.
• The second is to define bibliographic mechanisms and develop guidelines for a variety of materials.
• The third is to write for policy makers who decide on allocation of resources to result in a redirection of these resources in a positive way.
• Fourth is to identify the relationships which need to me made in order to go beyond the library community.

Some assumptions on the part of the Task Force: Multiple methods for bibliographic access and control; a networked environment, rather that one dominated by stand alone systems; that objects and their description would be networked; that the cost of computer communications would not be an obstacle; that there would be seamless intellectual relationships between descriptions of objects and how to get those objects; that bibliographic control will change; that bibliographic control or resource description will start at the point of document construction.; that information will be in a standardized form to create a self-indexing document (Stuart Weibel calls it Metadata); that some descriptive elements will form the basis of an enhanced bibliographic record; that search engines are important; that the internet will continue to evolve; that there is a separation between data mechanisms and delivery mechanisms; that user habits will change due to technology; that users are not under our control; that library cataloging does add value to the information.

Finally, Younger reported that the work of the Task Force would be available through its web page. The address is http://www.lib.virginia.edu/alcts/. Lynne Howarth questioned if it would be OK for library schools and other institutions with cataloging instructions to link to the web page. Younger thought it would be useful. There will be a link from ALA's web page. The final report cannot be put on the page because of ALA copyright regulations.

Brad Young expressed the desire that the Task Force provide "vision" to the library committee. The Chair expressed a concern over what this will mean relative to the traditional method of cataloging. Younger reported that the Task Force assumed that although cataloging is expensive, it adds value to a document for information retrieval purposes. Are there acceptable substitutes? Will self-describing documents replace traditional methods? The assumption is that computer-generated access is useful.

Schottlaender emphasized that phrases like "substitutes for" really should refer to adjuncts to, not replacements for cataloging. Younger responded that if basic elements for identification are included in the creation process, we would be adding value to the documents also. These elements could form the basis of what we have used for traditional access today. Other points were: Would this form of description and access serve as a substitute for items which we do not want to catalog? If these elements were coded, could they be copied into catalog records? The problem is that our catalog records a built within an environment which uses a controlled vocabulary. Other points to consider: Are commercially produced tools a substitute for cataloging?

Schottlaender encouraged the Task Force to cut through the duplication of effort which is being conducted in examining the situation. Brad Young emphasized that our (library) descriptions have provided the basic unit for classification and for form. Younger felt that if we move towards construction of new description and access methods, that it was the library community which should help design the construction of these elements to that we would be able to re-use them in our present method of information retrieval.

505. Agenda item 8. Report from the MARBI Representative (Gerhart)

MARBI Proposal 93-4
MARBI Proposal 95-6
MARBI Discussion Paper 92

Gerhart reported that MARBI Proposal 93-4 was discussed and that the elements of the proposal dealing with field 256 were the purview of CC:DA and therefore, those elements were dropped from the proposal. The proposal to add additional codes to field 008/26 was approved. Mark Watson questioned if CC:DA had a Task Force to examine these issues?

Glenn Patton stated that the list of things proposed in 93-4 came from the first version of OCLC's Internet Cataloging Project guidelines. MARBI discussion resulted in a decision not to make changes to Area 3. As a result, OCLC had revised its guidelines to use Area 3 as stated in AACR2R. In light of ISBD (CF) discussions now going on, he felt we should wait to see what ISBD (CF) recommends, since the proposal is a compromise and since ISBD is really the basis of AACR2R. The Chair reported that the ISBD review will be finished in a few months and that it would come to the Committee. For the time being, the Chair asked the Committee members and any members of the audience who had comments and/or questions about the ISBD (CF) to address them to Lynne Howarth the Chair of CC:DA Task Force to Review ISBD (CF). Because of time constraints, it would be best to send them via e-mail. Lynne's address is howarth@fis.utoronto.ca. Laurel Jizba felt that they could also be posted on the listserv for wider distribution.

In regards to Discussion paper 92, MARBI felt that the issues were very important and that they would not have enough time to explore all points. They will not discuss it at their next meeting, but will wait until the Annual Meeting in New York to continue. Therefore, Gerhart felt there might be another discussion paper later, but no definite proposals for some time.

Ed Glazier felt that it was out of the scope of MARBI to slip in a change in the concept of content vs. carrier by changing the definition of a code in the Leader. Until the major issue is resolved, it is premature of MARBI to propose a redefinition. The Chair felt it is an urgent issue, involved with the question of multiple versions also. Mark Stiger felt that when Discussion paper 92 and Proposal 95-6 are compared, there seem to be two solutions going off in separate directions.

Gerhart explained that the original intent of Discussion paper 92 originated because users of Leader byte 06 for computer files were losing the "content" of a computer file map by strictly placing the focus on the computer file aspects of the item. Brad Young felt it was the responsibility of the users to know that they can lose "content" elements by limiting by "carrier" elements. Gerhart said we cannot expect our users to be sophisticated enough to deal with the difference between the two concepts. If content is important, how do we deal with carrier?

Brian Schottlaender contends that it might be premature rather than inappropriate for MARBI to be discussing this issue since the whole question of content vs. carrier as primary has yet to be decided.

Gerhart responded that MARBI's interest is how such a change would affect the cataloging community as well as the systems community.

The Chair pointed out that we might view Discussion paper 92 as a starting point but that our view is of a much broader issue.

506. Agenda item 9. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Schottlaender)

CC:DA/JSC rep./BECS/1995/1
CC:DA/JSC rep./BECS/1995/2
3JSC/ALA/19/follow-up/2/CCC response/BL response
3JSC/ALA/20/ALA followup/BL response/2
3JSC/ALA/20/ALA follow-up/2/BL response
3JSC/M/180/207
3JSC/Mailing List/11
3JSC/Rules Revision/2/Consolidated/2

Brian Schottlaender spoke in regards to the first document, CC:DA/JSC rep./BECS/1995/1 and suggested that the members hold discussion since we will be getting a report on AACR2E on Monday.

Document 2, CC:DA/JSC rep./BECS/1995/2, dealing with the JSC's proposed Conference of Cataloging Experts in 1997, stands on its own. Brian can add only that the JSC is discussing electronically how to proceed.

Since the issuance of the third document, 3JSC/ALA/19/follow-up/2/CCC response/BL response, ACOC, BL, CCC, and LC have all endorsed revision of 2.5C2 to make it optional, and concomitant revisions to 2.5C1 and 2.5C5 (formerly 2.5C6). The document currently on the table that most completely represents these proposed revisions is 3JSC/ALA/19/follow-up/2/CCC response. That document has, in turn, had two friendly revisions suggested to it by LC and BL respectively. Since the issue has been under discussion for three years, Schottlaender asked the Committee members if there was any problem with rules 2.5C1, 2.5C2 and 2.5C5 being revised to be optional?

Mark Stiger recollected that Janet Swan Hill expressed her agreement and that the Committee agreed. Schottlaender has not had that opinion conveyed to him but that now he would consider that CC:DA had no opposition.

In regards to LC's "friendly amendment" to the CCC proposal, LC asked that the example "147 p. : computer drawings" be added back to the CCC proposed revision to 2.5C2. CCC's example had a non-prescribed term in it, to make the point that if one wished to use a non-prescribed term, it was permissible. LC wants their original example included.

Ed Glazier doesn't object to CCC's example, but wants LC's original example there. Mitch Turitz suggested having both, and Schottlaender favored this approach. Glazier asked for clarification about having specific illustrations as optionally included. Where would one find an appropriate list of illustrations? The CCC's revision allowed the use of the list and any other appropriate terms which adequately describe the illustrations.

Schottlaender asked if it was the feeling of the committee to recommend the use of both illustrations. Since there were no objections, he will write the JSC response.

In regard to the next two documents, 3JSC/ALA/20/ALA follow-up/BL response/2; 3JSC/ALA20/ALA follow-up/2/BL response: Originally, 3JSC/LC/13 was proposed. 3JSC/ALA/20 was a follow-up to this document and was extremely complicated. ALA's follow-up was a more modest proposal. Since then, the British Library and ALA have been haggling over fine points, as recorded in 3JSC/ALA20/ALA follow-up/BL response/2 and CC:DA/3JSC/ALA/20/ALA follow-up/BL response. The Australian Committee on Cataloging has responded to ALAfollow-up/2 which has proposed a set of alternative rules. ACOC supports the proposal, the British Library is strongly opposed and the Canadian Committee on Cataloging and the Library of Congress have not responded. There is also the document, 3JSC/ALA/20/ALA follow-up/BL response/AALL response which we have received today from Ann Sitkin. Schottlaender noted that the numbering of the document should have has CC:DA as the first element of the numbering since this was not a 3JSC original document. In addition, there is a second document, labeled 3JSC/ALA20/ALA follow-up/Aus response/AALL response. It too had mislabeling and should have read 3JSC/ALA20/ALA follow-up/2/Aus response/AALL response since it was a response to ALA follow-up/2. Schottlaender asked what are the Committee's instructions for him to proceed?

The Chair asked Ann Sitkin to comment. Sitkin's recollection was that CC:DA did accept the proposed alternative rules. She explained another problem: the example of the treaty cited in the revision was questioned as to whether it was among three equal signers or whether it was between two signers on one hand and one on the other.

Barbara Tillett explained that LC's rule interpretation indicates use of a cross-reference, rather than use two entries under separate jurisdictions. The decision to follow the alternative rule proposal was a corporate decision at the Library of Congress.

Schottlaender agreed with the use of the alternative rules and stated that CC:DA's approval of the use of alternative rules was because it was completely different from the first proposal. He suggested that CC:DA propose that ALA withdraw the initial proposal, and the follow-up/2 and do a follow-up/3 or that ALA go with a new number completely. Ann Sitkin agreed to propose that ALA discard ALA/20 altogether and to prepare a new proposal.

Schottlaender then reviewed the next document: 3JSC/M/180-207. He reported on items which need ALA action.

• p. 2. 183.2: Item 166.2: Janet Swan Hill has given him the Task Force Report on Chief Source of Information for Computer Files. He will forward them to the JSC.
• p. 2. 183.2. Item 174.2: The charge of the JSC is incorrect and needs to be revised. JSC wants him to draft the revision. He plans to alert ALCTS, via CCS Executive Committee, of the needed revision, since this has to go through Elizabeth Martinez's office. He will draft the revision.
• p. 2. 183.2 Item 177.3: Brian will suggest that the JSC Secretary should go through the minutes of past meetings to pull out policy or procedural issues, rather than the ALA representative.
• p.6. 191.4: In reference to the ALA glossary definitions, ALA has not proposed glossary definitions as suggested in ALA/25/ALA. Laurel Jizba reported that she had not followed through on reviewing this document for a CC:DA response to ALA. The Chair instructed her to post her review on the listserv for future discussion.
• p. 7. 194.2: Janet Swan Hill will prepare the "clean copy" with CC:DA's permission. The Committee agreed.
• p. 8. 197.3: Janet Swan Hill has brought the problem to the attention of ALA.
• p. 10. 204.3: Schottlaender has contacted Don Chatham, who will be coming to our meeting on Monday.

Schottlaender reported that he has John Duke's memos, etc. dealing with errors he discovered while working on AACR2E. He also has Martha Yee's review of these memos which notes additional errors in John's memos. He will integrate all this data and follow up with a document for transmission to JSC. After discussion, the Chair asked him to pass a copy of the document as submitted to JSC.

507. Agenda item 10. Report from the OCLC Representative (Patton)

CC:DA/OCLC/1995-96/1
CC:DA/OCLC1995-96/2

Glenn Patton distributed two documents, the first which reported on the "Reuse" Project and the second which reported on the Internet OCLC Cataloging Resources Project. Patton essentially added updated information on both projects which was not reported in the documents he distributed.

It seems that two possible outcomes of the Reuse Project might be that Germany may move closer towards AACR2 cataloging practice and towards the USMARC Format. Barbara Tillett's help has been invaluable to the project in the area of analyzing documents mechanically. She will be one of the speakers at an international conference which may facilitate the process in which RAK rules can come closer to AACR2.

In terms of the OCLC Internet Cataloging Project, Patton wanted to mention some key issues which appeared on the Intercat listserv. These were:

• Issues relating to descriptive cataloging to make Area 3 more expressive of what the materials are.
• Some discussion about note order, resulting from confusion over the rules and from what local systems do with these notes.
• Subject subdivision practice.
• Problems with forms of names, particularly since web page construction is so bad.
• Problems with multiple versions and simultaneously issued multiple electronic formats.
• Loose-leaf publications -- monographs which are continuously updated rather than serial in character.

Funding will cease at the end of March, but the Intercat web database version will be kept after the project ends. The Chair asked if there will be revisions to the guidelines? Patton responded probably. Participants in the Project will be asked to comment on their experiences in using the guidelines. OCLC will summarize their responses and issue a final report.

508. Agenda item 11. Report from the LC Representative (Tillett)

During the past several weeks, the Library of Congress has weathered both natural and political storms. At least eight workdays were lost earlier this month when the Library had to close during the record-setting East Coast Blizzard of '96, and in mid-November when the budget impasse shut down most of the federal government. On November 19th, President Clinton signed the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, which included the Library's budget for the 1996 fiscal year. Operating under this appropriation, the Library was not involved in the second government shutdown that began on December 16th and continued over the holidays. The Library received a small increase over its FY95 budget but will not be ahead during 1996, because it has to absorb an estimated $15.6 million in mandatory pay and price level increases.

At Congressional oversight hearings that began in November 1995 and are scheduled to continue this year, Librarian of Congress, Dr. Billington, testified on the Library's efforts to tackle the critical issue of collections security, to create new financial management and personnel systems, and to reduce the backlog of uncataloged materials as it explores new technology and new ways to bring the Library's resources and services into the 21st century with the National Digital Library Program. The Library is also currently undergoing an audit of its collections management and security, human resources, and financial management systems by the General Accounting Office and will have to absorb the cost of that audit, (over $1 million).

In mid-November, the Library restructured its organization to achieve efficiencies and better accountability as it faces more austere budget years ahead. Three existing service units -- Collections Services, Constituent Services, and Cultural Affairs -- were combined into one new unit, Library Services, under the direction of Associate Librarian Winston Tabb. The new unit consists of approximately 2,500 staff in six directorates: Acquisitions and Support Services, Area Studies Collections, Cataloging, National Services, Preservation, and Public Service Collections. It includes the divisions responsible for processing the Library's collections and for providing reference services exclusive of those for Congress and the Law Library. From now until spring, additional restructuring will occur at the divisional level. Acquisitions and Support Services is reorganizing its acquisitions units along geographic lines. The existing divisions of the Cataloging Directorate remain intact. Sarah Thomas serves as Acting Director for Public Services Collections while Beacher Wiggins continues as Acting Director for Cataloging.

In the Cataloging Policy and Support Office, we have very good personnel news. Thompson Yee joined CPSO as the permanent Assistant Chief at the end of November. Tom came to LC over 20 years ago as an intern and brings to his new position a wealth of experience in subject cataloging, the cataloging of humanities material, automation, and successful supervision. He will be representing LC on two new SAC Subcommittees on Form Headings/Subdivisions Implementation and Subject Authority File Recommendations.

LC's Midwinter exhibit booth is #821. There you will find information about the National Digital Library Program, new Library publications, the latest development from the Center for the Book's reading promotion programs, new traveling exhibits that are available for booking to libraries nationwide, and new products from the Cataloging Distribution Services, such as Classification Plus and the new edition of the Thesaurus for Graphic Materials. LC staff will again be demonstrating LC's Internet services, including LC MARVEL and LC's World Wide Web resources. Library-related products from LC's retail sales shop are newly featured at the booth this year.

During 1995 I led an almost year-long investigation of quality in cataloging. From April through June the Quality Task Group, which I chaired, held five public focus group sessions to solicit staff input on defining elements of quality in various aspects of cataloging and identifying positive action items for assuring quality at LC. In August, the group prepared a final report summarizing the discussions, suggestions, and recommendations from the sessions. We also polled LC cataloging staff for their opinions on a list of basic assumptions regarding the elements that form the basis of a quality cataloging operation as well as action items for improving or maintaining the quality of LC's cataloging products. The tabulated results were then submitted to the Cataloging Management Team. Beacher Wiggins recently reported to LC staff on the Management Team's resulting decisions regarding the quality action items. The Task Group's definition of quality in cataloging is "accurate bibliographic and authority information that is as complete as is appropriate, and is consistent according to standard practices and policies, and is available in a timely fashion." They also affirmed that an essential element in assuring quality in cataloging is accountability.

The LC-Cooperative Cataloging Discussion Group meets Sunday night from 7-9 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Riverwalk North -- Rio Grande Ballroom. Sarah Thomas, Chair of the Executive Council of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), will give an update on the activities of the PCC and its three components, NACO for name authorities, SACO for subject authorities, and BIBCO for bibliographic records. NACO is undergoing an expansion with a new decentralized training program following a successful "Training the NACO Trainers" course held at LC last May. The PCC is actively recruiting new NACO members with an emphasis on public libraries, special libraries, museums, and archives. As you recall last year they focused on academic libraries. Libraries participating in SACO contributed 1,954 new subject headings to LCSH during FY95, an increase of 113% over the previous year. At the same time, contributions to the Library of Congress Classification nearly doubled from 115 to 206. At the close of the fiscal year, the ten National Coordinated Cataloging Program (NCCP) libraries became the first participants in BIBCO. A "Training the BIBCO Trainer" session took place at LC in September that focused on the concepts of the core level bibliographic record and the values and decision-making skills necessary for catalogers to produce quality cataloging data.

Revisions are nearly completed for the Descriptive Cataloging Manual Z1 pages to update them regarding the 670 field in authority records, confirming the importance of the 670 fields in shared resource authority files for both names and subjects, and stressing the flexibility in recording data in the field to primarily assure that the information is clear and understandable to other catalogers that will use the record.

Judy Kuhagen of CPSO conducted NACO series institutes in July and October of 1995 and a next one is planned for April 1996. We are conducting ongoing series training for our own catalogers at LC and hope to have a series authority manual this summer. We also have been working on a major project dealing with the headings and authority records for World Bank already correcting over 200 names and series authority records and monitoring changes to nearly 1,000 bibliographic records.

As for AACR2 activities, we have forwarded a rule revision proposal regarding Vietnamese names on behalf of CORMOSEA and other East Asian libraries groups. The rule revision is for deletion of the comma between surname and forename in Vietnamese personal names. Revisions of Chapter 1 and Chapter 12 LCRIs went forward this past year -- we had 3 new, 38 revised, and 4 deleted RIs -- in part due to the considerable work on the CPSO/PCC Task Group on LCRIs, chaired by Kay Guiles. We are working on a discussion paper for JSC to look at the GMDs to sort out what role GMDs intended to perform, and perhaps revise the GMD lists to avoid the current mix of modes of expression and physical formats.

During 1995 LC began work to provide the conceptual foundations for cataloging digital/on-line materials. We had many internal meetings with interested staff and invited Tom Delsey from the National Library of Canada to work with us over an intensive two and a half-day period to outline the issues and problems. The notes from those meetings will be distributed to LC staff by early February, and we hope to have a document on conceptual foundations for cataloging digital/on-line materials by April for wide distribution and comment. We have already distributed several documents of interim guidelines, but look forward to having a basic statement to guide future policy decisions related to these materials.

LC submitted responses to the draft ISBD(CF) this past year. On Dec. 14, 1995, representatives from the British Library, the National Library of Canada, and the Library of Congress agreed to standardize on a single version of the MARC format for the distribution of their bibliographic and authority records. There is an ambitious timetable for community approval and implementation, with NLC and LC targeting January 1998 for convergence of their versions. For more information contact Sally McCallum, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, LC.

Regarding the AAAF, after several years of discussion, a Cataloging Policy Convergence Agreement, starting with authority practices, has been accepted, and we hope will soon be signed. The agreement outlines which areas will be aligned (e.g., many areas where BL agreed to follow LC practice), areas which we will continue to go our own ways (e.g., non-roman languages due to different romanization tables; uniform title practices; and some abbreviations, such as Dept. -- LC will need to continue to use abbreviated Dept. rather than implement following AACR2 and BL's practice of spelling that out in full -- until we have global update capability), and areas where we reached a compromise (e.g., LC will respect BL's use of the abbreviated St. in their place name headings but continue our practice for establishing non-UK place names). The draft rule revisions related to these negotiations were distributed for comment during 1995 and have now gone to press and will be in the next LCRI update with the exception of those relating to conferences, which we need to rethink and pending results of various ALA and other professional group deliberations on this topic.

BL plans to load the LC NAF as a resource file on its own WLN system in March and plans to begin actual contributions to the NAF in fall 1996.

The British Library is also working with the Library of Congress to examine converging descriptive cataloging practices as they develop a cataloging manual.

Just quickly an update for those of you interested in the on-line conversion of LC Classification schedules, we still have small portions of the BQ and G schedules and some of the K tables to convert to USMARC Classification format. We hope to finish them in the next couple of months. They are then loaded into LC's internal database and sent to our Cataloging Distribution Service to process for products. We proof each schedule, make the needed corrections, and get print copy to edit before print publication or machine-readable distribution. Our plan is to update all of the schedules to incorporate all of the additions and changes since they were last printed. We also have plans for revising some schedules.

With regard to format integration planning, the next phase is to be implemented in March 1996. The major changes are in the 006, 007, and 008:

• 006 control field -- additional material characteristics -- LC does not plan to use 006 for books' records except in unusual circumstances
• 007 physical description fixed field -- LC does not intend to expand its use of this field beyond current practice for microforms, sound recordings, and some cartographic materials)
• 008 -- intellectual level -- FI allows more categories for juvenile levels; but LC will restrict adding the additional information to materials cataloged in the Children's Literature Cataloging Team
• 008 -- dates -- missing digits in dates will now be represented by u's instead of giving a range and using a date type of "q" -- use of code "s" will increase and the treatment of dates with missing digits is simplified.

And finally, just a quick update on automation related activities. During 1995 I led a library-wide Shelflist Task Group that submitted recommendations to the LC Management Team for automating the existing shelflist, providing on-line support for shelflisting and inventory control and item tracking, and for integrating these modules with other existing LC functions in the future. The Task Group also presented a series of briefings for LC staff on the project and prepared at FY97 budget proposal for conversion of the 12 million card LC shelflist. Currently the Task Group is sponsoring vendor presentations of integrated library systems that would support LC serials management, acquisitions, shelflisting, inventory control, circulation, bindery, OPAC, and other such applications. As an informal request, if any of you have "requests for proposals" (RFPs) or requirements you have prepared regarding your integrated library system needs, and you are able to share those with us, I would very much appreciate having them sent to me.

509. Agenda item 12. Adjournment for the day (Chair)

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and reminded everyone that the meeting would continue on Monday, January 22, 1966 at the Marriott Riverwalk, Alamo Salon D at 8:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
John A. Richardson**

The second meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 8:32 a.m. in the Marriott Rivercenter Alamo Salon D. The Chair welcomed the audience and committee members and circulated the audience attendance sheet and the official roster.

511. Agenda item 14. Report from the Task Force on Cataloging Conference Proceedings (Watson)

The Task Force met at 8:30 on Saturday January 20 in the Marriott Rivercenter. The Task Force members are: Mark Watson, Jo Lynne Byrd, Jean Altschuler, Daniel Kinney, Rhonda Marker, Sara Shatford Layne, Ingrid Mifflin and Frank Sadowski. In addition to all Task Force members, seven observers came and made valuable contributions to the discussions.

Copies of CC:DA/TF/Conference Proceedings/1/rev. were distributed. The charge of the Task Force was modified to extend the timeframe. The final report will be due at the 1997 midwinter meeting in Washington, D.C. Interim reports will be made at this meeting and at the annual meeting in New York.

The NISO Task Force to draft standards for the title pages of conference proceedings has been approved but it has not actually been formed so it is not certain how much interaction this task force will be able to have with that group. The CONSER Task Force, however, is scheduled to submit its final report in New York and this group will have a chance to review the CONSER Task Force report and decide if they need to take any action resulting from it in the event that it does come up with any rule revision proposals. There has already been a lot of interaction between the two groups.

CC:DA/TF/Conference Proceedings/3 was distributed for information and summarizes what the Task Force has accomplished so far. They met for the first time in Chicago and have been working via email in the intervening months. They spent the summer and fall in doing background reading and going over the papers that had been presented at the pre-conference in Miami. They tried to identify the issues and problems related to the cataloging of conference proceedings so that they could focus on those issues needing rule revisions.

The Task Force sees its primary role as defining what a conference name is and how a conference is to be entered. There are a lot of issues relating to serials but they are waiting for the CONSER Task Force report. They identified two areas so far where they believe that rule revisions might be useful. In Rule 21.1B2, Category D they see the use of the word "prominently" as being problematic and making the rules overly restrictive. They plan to work on a proposal to change that wording to make it less restrictive. If the word "prominently" is taken out of the rule, one also needs to know what constitutes a named conference. The Task Force believes that catalogers need more help than what the rules currently provide them in identifying a named conference. They would like to craft some language that would identify some major categories of problem areas and nudge the rules in the direction of helpfulness. They have set the goal slightly below solving all of the problems and will focus on trying to be more helpful. They will be looking at AACR1, the rules now, the LCRIs, and the proposed revisions and see if they can't come up with some better language and possibly extend the footnote to 21.1B1 and also possibly make some connections to Type 3 and Type 6 in 24.13. The Task Force would be happy to receive suggestions.

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

This is the final update. The Committee first met in Chicago June 1995. Committee members were: Laurel Jizba, Ingrid Mifflin, Sherman Clarke, Daniel Pitti, Adam Schiff, Patricia Vanderburg, Dr. James Beach, John Mitchell, and Lynn El-Hoshy. Dr. Beach left Berkeley to become an NSF funding administrator and because of that, he would be in a conflict of interest position if the Task Force submitted a funding request. They agreed to add to Dr. Stan Bloom, who was the Biological Collections Informatics Specialist at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at UC-Berkeley, as Dr. Beach's replacement. Dr. Bloom drafted a lengthy and detailed proposal for the forum which changed the focus slightly and related to more issues related to subject terminology and the infrastructure for authority control. However, this fall Dr. Bloom left Berkeley and they have lost contact with him. Without a contact person from the Natural History community who would be able to submit a proposal for a cataloging forum on the issues the task force can proceed no further. They propose that the task force be dissolved. Dr. Beach left them with a letter indicating that he thought such cross-community collaboration was fundable through NSF. Jizba noted that, in the future, it may be worthwhile exploring such a project again provided a contact person from the Natural History community can be identified. After determining that there were no questions for Jizba, the Chair of CC:DA declared the Task Force on Natural History Cataloging Issues to be dissolved.

513. Agenda item 16. Report from the Task Force to Review ISBD(CF) (Howarth)

ISBD(CF)

Howarth reported that the entire Task Force met Friday evening and a subsection met Sunday. The members are: Lynne Howarth (chair), Glenn Patton, Cecilia Sercan, Patricia Vanderburg, and Laurel Jizba, serving as a consultant to the committee. They will be approaching others to help as required. The Task Force has been charged to review ISBD(CF) and to comment on details and concepts. They are working under a very short time frame -- the final report is to be delivered April 1, 1996. The Task Force decided to divide up responsibilities. One of their major concerns is to be able to get as wide feedback as possible. They are counting on the fact that all members of CC:DA were given copies and they encourage everyone to approach their constituencies and elicit comments.

There is some concern by the publishers of the document that it might be circulated too widely and that practitioners might start applying the guidelines before they have actually been approved. There are additional copies available from IFLA. Individuals on the Task Force will take responsibility for reviewing AACR and other guidelines relative to ISBD(CF). Those other guidelines include the OCLC Guidelines for Cataloging Internet Resources, the Interactive Multimedia Guidelines, those dealing with reproductions, rules for archival description and, as appropriate, CONSER guidelines.

They have received permission from John Byrum to summarize the major changes and revisions and to quote from specific parts of the guidelines up to ten pages worth. The Task Force members agreed that the major areas where they particularly want feedback are those dealing with source of information, GMD, statement of responsibility, some changes in edition area (what exactly is an edition relative to a computer file), Area Three dealing with file characteristics, and parts of the notes area, particularly systems requirements and mode of access.

They also had extensive discussion about the glossary and various definitions and about the need for examples. It appears that practitioners rely quite heavily on examples. From conversations with Ann Fox, it seems that the IFLA committee is quite open to suggestions about ISBD(CF).

The mechanics of how they will proceed with getting comments are: the Task Force members will prepare summaries for whatever section was assigned to them and they will highlight differences between ISBD(CF) and AACR and other relevant guidelines. Task Force members have been encouraged to have those summaries to Howarth by late February. The summaries will be circulated via the reflector to members of CC:DA and they would also like to circulate them via Autocat and Intercat lists. Howarth will take the responses and incorporate those into a draft report that she hopes to circulate by the second week in March to CC:DA for additional comments. Those additional comments will be incorporated into a final report which she hopes to have to the Chair of CC:DA by April 1.

Swanekamp asked if anyone foresaw a problem in posting the summaries to Autocat and Intercat as long as they were clearly labelled as drafts.

Turitz noted that Autocat has been reluctant to post large files and, instead, is willing to archive larger documents and encourage people to access the archives. Howarth noted that she didn't expect the individual documents to be large. She indicated that the exact mechanism they would employ for sharing information and gathering responses would depend upon the extent of the responses that they get.

Swanekamp reminded the group that there are changes to Area Three that are in ISBD(CF) and that everyone should take a look at them. Howarth asked people to send comments directly to her. Jizba noted that the ISBD(CF) Review Group will accept additional terms, different terms or deletion of terms in the file characteristics Area Three.

Swanekamp raised the issue that it is hard for people to determine what is a stand-alone CD-ROM versus what becomes a networked or online resource where, very often, catalogers never even see a disk that is received. The cataloger's access is often only through the online connection, even though it comes off of a CD-ROM. People who catalog these resources from the outside often catalog them as a Web site because that's their access to it. The distinctions in the document seem very black and white but practitioners often do not find it so black and white. She noted that it would help a lot of people to have a little more guidance in this area.

Sadowski brought up a related point about the fuzziness that occurs when resources are issued as a CD-ROM but then are downloaded to a personal computer's hard drive. What is it then?

Howarth requested that she be informed of other groups who need to be involved in this discussion.

514. Agenda item 17. Report from the Task Force on Rules for Music Moving Image Materials (Kinney)

Kinney noted that the Task Force met for the first time Sunday morning. The members are: Daniel Kinney, Mary Beth Fecko, Ingrid Mifflin, Catherine Gerhart, Steven Squires, Matthew Wise, and Philip Schreur. He also invited Lowell Ashley, who is the editor of the Music Library Association's Guidelines on Cataloging Music Videos, to participate.

Kinney first gave some historical background on the problem. This Task Force was formed as a result of a document that Philip Schreur submitted to CC:DA as MLA liaison containing two position papers on main entry for music videos. One paper presented the case for composer main entry the other for main entry under title. MLA requested that CC:DA examine the issues and provide some guidance. The position papers were written by Grace Fitzgerald and David Thomas. They were members of a MLA working group established by their Bibliographic Control Committee to look at this problem. In 1993 the MLA working group issued a set of guidelines which in some cases applied 21.23 (the rule for entry of sound recordings). They were reviewed by the AV cataloging community and they supported the application of 21.23 to recitals but did not agree with the wording that diminished the significance of the visual element. ALCTS AV and the Association of Moving Image Archivists supported main entry under title for all moving image materials (almost all). All three groups maintained that moving image materials were works of mixed responsibility. Now MLA is about to publish the final version of these guidelines.

In the late 1980's, LC issued a rule interpretation which instructed catalogers to apply 21.23C1 and 21.23D1, which are the rules for entry under principal performer, to music videos and popular music folios. Many music catalogers believe that the intent was largely for the MTV type of video where the visual element is quite elaborate. However, there is nothing in the LCRI to prevent a cataloger from applying these also to videos of concerts and recitals.

The CC:DA Task Force is charged with reviewing the rules for music moving image materials and therein lies the problem because there are no specific rules dealing with moving image materials at all. Grace Fitzgerald, the author of the position paper in favor of composer main entry noted that there is a need for provision under title main entry for new works of diffuse, mixed responsibility. The Task Force was given all the documents and the responses of all the various groups to MLA guidelines, as well as the final revision that is about to be published. They were unable to devise a working consensus in their first one-hour meeting.

One of the problems is that they kept coming up against theoretical problems - what is the nature of a work intended for performance? Is a written work the same as its realization? They also encountered problems with the structure of chapter 21 and the concept of authorship. These issues seem to be unavoidable even though they were instructed not to deal with them. What do they need to do in order to fulfill their charge by June? Kinney asked all Task Force members to write up ideas they came up with yesterday and to identify specific areas of AACR2 that give rise to conflicting interpretations by March 15. Kinney will try to collocate these responses into one document for CC:DA. There's not a great deal of enthusiasm for proposing rule changes. The MLA draft may come closest to a working consensus.

Swanekamp wondered if we would ever be able to say to MLA that this is what the rules say. Kinney indicated that it would probably be too murky.

Young commented that if it proves to be the case that the rules now written do not seem to easily support consistent cataloging of this range of materials then the recommendation should be that the rules need to be changed in some way. If the underlying conceptual framework seems to be the problem, then that needs to be changed. However, it is not up to this Task Force to come up with the changes, merely to indicate that such changes are needed.

Swanekamp noted that the work of this Task Force will feed into the work of Martha Yee's Task Force (Works Intended for Performance).

515. Agenda item 18. Report from the Task Force on Works Intended for Performance (Yee)

Yee noted that they were constituted so late that they won't even be able to meet until the annual conference and they would like to have their reporting date moved back from the annual meeting to the next midwinter. They have had some preliminary email discussions where they are uncovering some holes in the rules and the conceptual underpinnings.

The voting members of CC:DA approved an extension so that the Task Force will provide an interim report at annual in New York and the final report at next midwinter.

Sadowski offered a general suggestion that we are still hitting up against the old view of cataloging, we're still thinking cards and we should kill the concept of main entry. In a computer it doesn't make any difference.

Yee noted that there are still a considerable number of people who see a strong need for main entry even in online systems, especially when you're arranging large displays. It is in the back of their minds and it is a concern.

Jizba noted that they dealt with this issue for both of these task forces in Interactive Media Guidelines and they came up with what they considered a fairly clean solution which mostly emphasizes title for works of mixed responsibility but also allows for main entry where there's clearly intellectual responsibility.

Tillett noted that the IFLA study group looking at the functional requirements of the bibliographic record is getting to some of the conceptual ideas behind all of this. Some of the thinking there is to avoid the term "main entry" and instead identify what we're trying to do with it -- which is attribute primary responsibility to help you organize.

Swanekamp added that works "realized through performance" and works "intended for performance" are sometimes very different -- works intended for performance are not always realized through performance.

516. Agenda item 21. Report from MARBI Representative (Gerhart)

Gerhart reported that MARBI has approved a field for uncontrolled generic author -- proposal 96-2. The need for this field came out of work for metadata. Many distinctions that we routinely make will not be made because the work will often not be done by librarians and the groups doing the work will not be using cataloging rules. The field tag for this data will be 720. The indicators will be very simplistic. They considered two options -- the first option being to have no indicators. The second option, which they went with, uses one indicator -- blank is not specified, 1 is a personal name, and a 2 is something other than a personal name. They decided that most people could decide if they had a personal name or not. This field could also be used in acquisitions records where pieces were often not in hand.

Swanekamp wondered if this was at all controversial. Gerhart noted that people see the need for authors of metadata to put the information in, even if it's not a standard form. It will at least be in a field that we can segregate. The form of the name can be inverted or not. OCLC is not promising to implement this field. Gerhart noted that this field will probably be in records that will come to us to catalog, for instance already embedded in an Internet resource. Many feel that we can take this generic record and build on it for more standard cataloging.

MARBI also approved Proposal 96-3 which simplifies the coding of indicators in the 100 field. This proposal has come about because of plans to have British Library submit headings through NACO and the need to have the coding match. This would make value 2 obsolete and rename value 1 "surname". This is just one step in the attempts to harmonize USMARC, UKMARC, and CANMARC. Discussion paper 93 lists a number of changes that USMARC might make to align with CANMARC. They're beginning to work on the harmonization of USMARC and CANMARC first because they are already more similar and harmonizing with UKMARC will be more difficult.

Swanekamp asked if this work focuses on the bibliographic or the authorities format. Gerhart noted that it was for both. There will be further reporting on implementation at the annual meeting but LC will be working with RLIN and OCLC to implement this. The only system that seems to be doing anything with the indicator 2 is WLN -- no one else has ever done anything with it.

There were three proposals that fine-tuned the community information format and there was a discussion paper concerning the need for a flag in the authorities format if the record was created or modified by machine. The authorities discussion paper was sent from the PCC (the name was clarified by Schottlaender) and there was no one at the MARBI meeting who could answer the questions that arose from it. The proposal said CCC on it but it has changed its name to the PCC.

517. Agenda item 22. Review new Task Force Charges (Swanekamp)

Swanekamp noted that on Saturday Frank Sadowski handed out a charge (CC:DA/TF/TEI Header/1) for a TEI Task Force that CC:DA had talked about last summer. A task force on the TEI header presented a position paper that was approved. Swanekamp noted that it's time to get going on appointing the task force and begin by making some revisions to the charge to include some areas that the task force indicated would be important for them to cover, specifically to: 1) investigate ways that CC:DA and the editors of the TEI might collaborate on implementation and development of header data elements, 2) consider amending AACR2 to instruct catalogers in the use TEI headers as title page substitutes, and 3) investigate possible collaboration with MARBI and other organizations to standardize encoding conventions in support of reversible mapping between MARC and SGML or to support seamless integration of TEI-conformant headers into MARC databases. CC:DA would be concerned with the appropriate definition of data content, not data encoding.

Swanekamp wondered if that still seemed like a reasonable charge for this group. Kelley and Eden indicated that it was. The Chair routed around the sign-up sheet for the task force again and noted that she would make the appointment within the next week and will redo the charge to include the items mentioned in the original task force report.

Swanekamp introduced for discussion the continued use of the CC:DA Web site, including the implications of putting documents up. In the meantime, there has been a revision to the ALCTS policy manual that seems to answer some of their earlier concerns. There was initially some concern from the ALCTS office when Mark Watson put together a CC:DA Web page because people would have access to draft documents. Since then, ALA has developed its own Web site and Karen Muller has asked for the URL for the CC:DA site so she could link to it. When Swanekamp got a copy of the ALCTS policy manual she found that it had a May 1995 draft revision that seems to permit CC:DA having its own Web page. It considers distribution by electronic means to be publication. That said, it then goes on to give draft guidelines for computer communication within ALCTS. Committees and discussion groups are free to set up electronic forums to discuss issues and to disseminate documents. Such forums need not be established on the ALA server but the ALCTS Executive Director must be informed. The guidelines indicate that they should be operated as open forums with people able to subscribe and unsubscribe at will, they may be moderated or unmoderated at the discretion of discussion group chairs. It gives some guidance on display of copyright notices and cautions against disseminating, even in draft form, documents which are intended for later publication. This is an area where we might need to be more careful. Documents posted should contain the title, date, and status (draft, etc.) for proper citation.

Schottlaender asked if there was explanation on the site on what CC:DA is, how rule revisions are proposed, what the role of CC:DA vis-a-vis the JSC is. Swanekamp noted that the instructions for how to propose rule revisions are already on the Web site. One of the issues is whether we should continue our Web site at the University of Oregon or whether we should pursue the use of the ALA Web site. If we had to depend on ALA to put our documents up we would need to know if they could do it in a timely fashion. Mark Watson has volunteered to maintain the Web site at Oregon even if he goes off the committee.

Schottlaender clarified his question by noting the concern that was noted by Lynne Howarth in the report on the ISBD(CF) Review Task Force that the documentation not be too widely distributed lest implementation of it take place before final approval. The JSC is very concerned that the same thing not take place with rule revisions and CC:DA does need to be very careful to make clear the status of things on the Web site.

Bruce Johnson reported that the ALCTS board adopted an interim policy on the establishment of Web sites at the last conference. It was intended to run for six months and then be evaluated. It appears that CC:DA is entitled to have a Web page and make it generally available. On a broader note, on the issue of electronic dissemination of documents, ALCTS is about to establish a Task Force to establish a policy on that subject. CCS Executive Committee is also considering establishing a Web site. He confirmed that we are not obligated to use ALA's server but ALA would like to be able to link to our site. Longer term, the intention is to put them on the ALA server but ALA is not yet prepared to support that model. CC:DA should factor in how much control it wants to have for updating information on the Web site as to whether it wants to keep a separate site or do it through the ALA server.

Yee proposed the development of some language that would be required in every document to make the status of it clear to address the concerns that Schottlaender raised. The language would have to make it very clear that a document was not yet intended to be put into practice. Swanekamp indicated that she would still like to see a Task Force to address these issues and also look at what CC:DA wanted to maintain on its site. She noted another use for the site that occurred to her during Schottlaender's earlier JSC report would be to archive documents in one place.

Ralph Manning, the JSC representative from Canada, noted from the audience that the JSC does have a policy which forbids making its documents publicly available. To put JSC documents up on the CC:DA Web site would require a change in JSC policy. Howarth noted that there is a dilemma between the need to get information out and get feedback from practitioners and the concern that even with a caveat explaining that something was in draft practitioners would still be likely to begin to apply draft guidelines because they had read them on a site. She supported the concept of a task force to look into these issues.

Eden noted that another potential problem with Web sites is that material becomes outdated and people can be led to think that outdated documents or guidelines are still in effect. For this reason, he supported keeping the CC:DA Web site under the committee's control so that updating could occur in a timely fashion.

Young addressed the issue of uncontrolled distribution of documents of all kinds is that people gain access to them too late in the drafting process. He proposed that the deadlines for receipt of comments should be made clear in the documents. Glazier agreed with the need for a deadline but noted that referral to appropriate groups now is much better than it used to be. Swanekamp noted that another advantage to posting documents is that more people could be aware of the issues before the committee met and could come and participate. Schiff noted that it would be helpful to be able to inform people what documents they needed to look at. Currently, the ALA liaisons don't always get the documents in time to be able to solicit comments from their groups. Eden expressed the opinion that the timely announcement of these documents on various listservs with an indication of where they were available was the best way to generate input, rather than simply putting them up on a Web site.

Jizba noted that there is a danger that someone could take a document and post it to a listserv without permission. There needs to be an additional statement that this is not to be reposted anywhere without permission. Swanekamp asked the liaisons if it would make things easier for them to be able to refer their groups to the Web site without having to worry about reproducing documents and distributing them. Eden noted that CC:DA needed to put together an authorized list of listservs for posting of announcements. Schreur indicated that it would be useful but expressed the concern that a lot of the documentation is not always clear by itself and it might be necessary to add explanations. Eden suggested that the appropriate wording be put together for these kinds of things so that we could approve it at the next annual meeting.

Yee moved that we form a Task Force to draw up guidelines for creating (and maintaining) a CC:DA Web site. Turitz seconded it. Sadowski commented that he thought that we already had a CC:DA Web site and he didn't understand the purpose of this. Swanekamp noted that we have an unofficial Web site at this point. Sadowski wanted to have it understood that making the unofficial Web site the official Web site would allow him to go along with the motion. Eden asked for clarification, noting that he thought the committee was addressing guidelines for posting documents on listservs. Swanekamp noted that would be part of it but her understanding was that documents would be posted on the Web site and references to the documents would be posted to the listservs.

Watson noted that CC:DA has an unofficial Web site and that any efforts to this point have been just to see if it might be useful. It grew out of the work of the Task Force on communication and outreach. Initially, it was the Web page for that Task Force. They knew that it would need to be formalized at some point. Their main focus was to try it out and to do a better job of reaching out and doing a better job of communicating with cataloging communities. Watson distributed a sheet outlining the document hierarchy on the CC:DA Web site to explain how things are currently organized. He doesn't have any JSC documents up currently. When we talk about maintenance, it would be very difficult to get someone who was not on the committee to get interested enough to keep the site up for the committee.

Sadowski noted that Mark Watson has done a remarkable job. He proposed a friendly amendment to change "create" to "formalize". Swanekamp rephrased the motion to read: that "CC:DA create a task force to develop guidelines for formalizing and maintaining a CC:DA Web site." She noted that CC:DA might also have guidelines for additional postings that go to various listservs. Fiegen asked if we would also be adding clarification of the ALCTS procedures and Swanekamp noted that we would. The motion was seconded and passed.

Swanekamp then passed around the volunteer sheet for the Task Force again. In the meantime, CC:DA will continue to use the unofficial Web site at Oregon.

518. Agenda item 19. Report from IFLA Representative (Madison)

Madison reported that she and Barbara Tillett had written a report on the IFLA Section on Cataloging from the Istanbul conference in August 1995 that were distributed. She reported on several updates to items in the report. K.G.Sauer has agreed to publish the papers that were presented at the workshop on multi-lingual, multi-script, multi-character issues for the online environment. John Byrum, from the Library of Congress, was the moderator of the workshop. Byrum and Madison will be the co-editors of the conference workshop papers which should be part of the 1996 publication list.

Madison next reported on the functional requirements study that she had reported on for several years. They are much closer to the schedule that was laid out at the last meeting. The consultants and the study group have continued to work on the report. They have finished the format-specific testing and some in the room have volunteered to participate in the testing.

They are in the process of formalizing the functional requirements for bibliographic records that are created by national bibliographic agencies. They are looking at those requirements in terms of three levels of attributes: 1) works, 2) expressions, and, 3) the manifestations. These levels are coming into play for the surrogates (the bibliographic records) of the manifestations. The schedule is that the worldwide review will begin in April 1996. The report will be distributed very early in April. It is a six month review. She recommended that a Task Force be in place by April to begin reviewing that document. The worldwide review should be completed in October 96. Following that, the working group will review all comments and in February 1997 finalize its report and submit it to the Standing Committee on Cataloging which will be reviewing it at the Copenhagen conference in August 1997. If the review goes well, the document will be presented at the International Conference of Bibliographic Agencies to be held in Copenhagen in November 1997.

She offered her thanks to the consultants who had been doing a great deal of work and anyone in the room who had been helping with the format testing.

Swanekamp asked if there were agreement that CC:DA should appoint a task force to review the report the functional specifications for bibliographic records. The motion was made, seconded, and passed and a sign-up sheet was passed around. She indicated that she would also try to set up a meeting for that group.

519. Agenda item 20. Report from ALA Publishing on the Electronic AACR2R (Epstein, Chatham)

David Epstein from ALA Publishing provided a status update on the electronic version of AACR2. The technical work by John Duke is completed with a few finishing details. What they have been working on since summer conference is developing drafts of licensing agreements for publishers to negotiate with developers and solidifying the choice of software. He had previously mentioned that they had wanted to use FolioViews 3.1 software both because LC had led the way with Catalogers' Desktop with that software and also because after a survey of several similar software packages they felt that Folio was the best choice. That does not mean that would be the only or ultimate choice but it would be the choice at this point. They are waiting on confirmation from the Library Association of the UK that they're comfortable with that choice in England and their other territories. They have a vendor ready to proceed with the software development.

The Chair had asked him to address a concern that by putting out the Folio version on CD-ROM that they might be compromising the portability of the SGML files. Epstein emphasized that the Folio version would just be one version. They do plan to open up discussions with other vendors who would interested in developing other versions. The intention is that the SGML version will be the basal, archival version and that it will be kept up to date by ALA. They have also made this promise to the JSC.

Epstein also addressed testing -- in general and in relation to the University of Michigan. U. of Michigan is only one of 15 or 16 institutions that were asked to do various forms of testing with the SGML files to help develop and validate the SGML coding. The sites were selected based on adequate technical resources and knowledgeable of SGML and the software for working with SGML. The nature of the testing was to validate the implementation of SGML in various operating environments. The University of Michigan was simply one site. They took on a particular assignment which was to see whether they could develop a usable and practical WorldWideWeb interface based on SGML coding. That's why they were permitted to mount prototype files on the Web. This permission was limited only to experimental work with the files. It prohibited development, distribution or publication. It was not a product but was rather a test -- even though it did get on to a visible site.

Epstein introduced Don Chatham, the Associate Director of Publishing at ALA. They wanted to announce that the publishers are committed to there being at least one electronic product of AACR2 by the end of 1996. Epstein noted that various interfaces are expected.

Sadowski noted that there is considerable interest in getting this product and there is a very large contingent of people who want it to be available in the Catalogers' Desktop. Sadowski wanted to make sure that it is made available to all vendors at the same time. Epstein noted that ALA does not have preferred vendors. They have been talking more with LC than with anyone else. It is because they are taking pains to make sure that there is a level playing field that it is taking so long. There are no deals or negotiations even though they have been under pressure to negotiate. They chose FolioViews largely because it would be compatible with LC's Catalogers' Desktop.

Schiff wondered if we could expect a reprinting in paper of all the updates. Epstein responded that it was partly up to the JSC. Schottlaender noted that the JSC has deferred making a decision on whether and if so when to go forward with the incorporation of the second packet of amendments pending answers about AACR2 electronic. Schottlaender asked that Epstein reiterate what version of AACR2 the JSC would be receiving for its purposes -- SGML or FolioViews version? Epstein noted that, for purposes of review, it would be the Folio version. JSC is welcome to the SGML version but the thinking is that FolioViews would be much easier for them to work with.

Watson asked how the preservation of the basal, archival SGML version would be accomplished. Beyond that, he asked for clarification on how we can proceed if the JSC has not seen the electronic version yet. Epstein noted that Chatham had written to Pat Oddy, CLA, and the Library Association in which he informed them of the intention to have three states of the files that ALA publishing will be responsible for keeping in synch: 1) the archival version which would represent the latest approved JSC version. Currently, that would be the 88 edition plus the 93 amendment packets integrated into one file. That would be the archival file until superseded by a new set of JSC updates; 2) the JSC working files -- which would be the archival file and any amendments they were considering; and, 3) the distribution version which would be the latest JSC approved version either in Folio form or SGML version to vendors.

In response to a question from Schottlaender about what keeping the files in synch meant, Epstein noted that they would be keeping the SGML language version that would be updated. The archival version would be almost static and would only change when the JSC were to send forward a new batch of revisions. At that point, the entire archival version would be replaced by a new archival version. The JSC working copy will only be in synch until JSC starts to work on it. The distribution version will be in synch with the archival version. Schottlaender then wondered how those would synchronize with print products. Epstein noted that the SGML version would be sent to typesetters. The print version in the future would be an elaborate file output. The necessary technology is already in use among typesetters.

Marker requested that ALA Publishing consult with catalogers of computer files when devising the name and the version numbers. She also posed two: When will libraries be able to buy this product? What pricing models are being considered? Chatham noted that at this point their market testing indicates that there's a value in having an ALA version that they would sell, mainly to smaller libraries. The other version would be a licensed version that would go out to other vendors. The model would probably be on the LC model -- meaning that they would license it on an access point basis, for instance: one price for up to 5 simultaneous users, another for up to ten, etc. They haven't resolved the pricing issues. They want to price to the market. Schottlaender urged them to consider consortial licensing as well and they indicated that they would.

Chatham noted that they are trying to figure out how many print copies are likely to be displaced. They are trying to protect their revenue stream that is currently available through the print version. Sadowski noted that he would doubt that they would buy more than one print copy once the electronic version would be available. Kelley noted that it would be hard to think of just eliminating paper copies altogether or even narrowing it down to just a single copy. Paper copies would continue to have a place. Swanekamp added that until we have the opportunity to see the product and how the search engine works, she doesn't envision giving up any paper copies. Howarth noted as a library educator that she would stick with paper copies for students. Schottlaender, speaking as a library administrator, encouraged them to make sure that a tape version would be available. Jizba noted that she could not see them having just one print copy. Her greater concern is the hope that both the electronic version and the paper versions are in synch. At the same time, there will likely be the expectation that the electronic version will be updated faster and sooner.

Schottlaender noted that the JSC is very concerned with synchronicity and has a policy that all copies that are available need to be the same version.

Schiff responded from the point of view of a small library. He would unlikely be able to justify spending 800 dollars on a CD-ROM that only he would use. He further noted that there are many smaller libraries that don't even have the available technology to mount a CD-ROM. Epstein did not want any particular dollar figure to stick in anyone's mind. They do expect the electronic version to cost more but the cost should not be anywhere near 800 dollars. They will try to make it available in a variety of ways in a variety of formats.

Returning to the issue of synchronicity, the print version will come off of the same files as the electronic version and he noted that he expected that they would go out at the same time. Watson noted from a personal standpoint that earlier statements that ALA had no intention of developing a product seemed to have changed. He wanted to make certain that it did not become an ALA strategy to delay licensing to other vendors in order to beat other vendors to the punch. He would like to see multiple products by the end of 1996. Epstein noted that it would be an ALA/CLA/LA publication and that ALA had no intention on holding out on anybody until ALA had a product. They did not say that they would not develop their own product; they said that they would not try to develop a proprietary product.

In response to a question from Glazier, Epstein noted that the JSC has already authorized ALA to make the first electronic version an integration of the 1988 version plus the 1993 amendments. He expected that they would get the same approval for subsequent amendments. Up to now, the JSC policy has been that if there were a reprint ALA would not make any changes and would issue amendments as a separate package. Epstein felt that the publishers could handle it either way.

Jizba noted that it was important to issue the paper version differently from the way it has been so that everything is incorporated into one document. Sadowski noted that once the electronic version was working, they would use it. He noted that trying to put updates into multiple copies was a significant problem. He looked forward to being able to put the LCRIs and AACR2 side-by-side electronically.

Young noted that there is the expectation that searching and indexing will be better in online versions of various tools, particularly the ability to customize indexes and he encouraged ALA to work on better integration of a variety of tools. Byrd noted that another issue is the ease of navigating between different sessions. They have found locally that the manipulation of screens can be difficult. She expects that they will be taking a wait and see attitude.

Epstein noted that all the comments have been very helpful and suggested that people could email him with additional comments. He noted that the first version will certainly not be an integrated environment with all the other available tools. With Folio, we will be able to integrate some local files into pop-up notes windows. Schottlaender suggested that they get in touch with Michael Kaplan, chair of the PCC Standing Committee on Automation. He also indicated that JSC would welcome input from CC:DA on ways to deal with paper-based revision packets. Jizba commented that many catalogers consult the index to the LCRIs first before using AACR2's index. Swanekamp noted that the committee would be forwarding comments to ALA Publishing and asked for another update at the summer meeting.

520. Agenda item 23 (Swanekamp)

Swanekamp opened the discussion on the future focus of CC:DA by listing other groups that are looking at issues of concern to CC:DA. She posed the question of how best to coordinate with the activities of the other groups. She expressed the concern that if CC:DA were to drag out discussions of some issues too long that practitioners would simply accept de facto guidelines and that CC:DA could lose its leadership role.

Young indicated that CC:DA might need to move backward in order to move forward, by which he meant that philosophical discussions need to take place. He noted that we need a conceptual schema of AACR2 -- which concepts does it describe? We need research on bibliographic relationships. Yee noted some fundamental problems with AACR2, starting with the cardinal principle and the way the chapters are organized in 1-13. She wondered if we could do a cleaner analysis taking into account elements such as publication pattern, content, and physical format. Schottlaender felt that the idea of a schema of AACR2 was a good one and noted that there are certain questions/issues that have continually been posed in various forums, such as: what is a work? as well as an examination of the cardinal principle. He noted a need to identify 5 or 6 basic questions that warrant discussion and start working on them now because the summer of 97 with the international conference is just around the corner.

Turitz returned to an earlier point made by Sadowski to consider throwing out the concept of the main entry altogether. He noted that the rules were written for description on catalog cards, with no mention of tags or anything automated. The rules do spend a lot of time dealing with punctuation. In the long run, we should be aiming at integrating the rules with the MARC code.

Young noted that the code never addresses the sorting and filing; it never addresses relationships. However, there are a lot of assumptions about filing and relationships built into the rules that are never explicitly stated.

Yee noted that we lost control over the design of catalogs that we used to have. She felt that we could perhaps explore a way to affect the software underlying catalogs now and regain some of that control.

Kelley felt that there is the need for at least one task force to study this issue but wondered if there were a time frame. Would it be possible to have an open forum? Swanekamp felt that it was imperative to work as quickly as possible. We could use the CC:DA listserv more than we have in the past, noting that we need to have a lot done by the time we meet this summer. Jizba expressed a desire for multiple position papers that would allow us to explore the issues thoroughly. Sadowski was not happy with the idea of a single task force because its membership would be too small. He liked the idea of an open forum covering a topic and noted that a lot of groundwork could be done on the list ahead of time. Eden expressed the opinion that we needed to be exploiting both the CC:DA and other listservs more and to take the lead to get different groups together to discuss the issues. He suggested that CC:DA sponsor discussion forums with other groups. Glazier noted that it is probably too late to schedule an entirely new session for the summer meeting but suggested that we might use one of the regularly-scheduled CC:DA meeting times rather than have so many task force reports given.

Swanekamp asked for a straw poll on using some of the CC:DA regular meeting times at ALA to discuss broader issues and possibly to put task force reports on the list ahead of time to free up the necessary time for those discussions. There was general agreement for this approach. She then asked for volunteers to help moderate discussions on various issues. Brad Young volunteered to cite and summarize published reports of interest. Martha Yee and Jo Lynne Byrd also volunteered to help.

521. Agenda item 24. Report from the Chair, Announcement of next meeting, and Adjournment (Swanekamp)

Swanekamp noted that she had requested the same meeting times for the summer conference. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol Hixson***
Edited by Joan Swanekamp*