ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services


Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Minutes of the meeting held in New York, NY
July 6 and 8, 1996

Members present:
Joan Swanekamp, Chair
Jo Lynne Byrd
Ann Fiegen
Lynne Howarth
Frank Sadowski
Mitch Turitz
Mark Watson
Martha Yee
Brad Young
John A. Richardson, Intern
Carol 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
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
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST
Steve Squires, MedLA
Philip Schreur, MusLA
Michael Fox, SAA


  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

Minutes *

Saturday, July 6, 1996, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.**

520. Agenda item 1. Welcome and opening remarks (Chair)

The first meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Ballroom of the Doral Inn. 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. The procedures of the Committee were reviewed for the benefit of new members and guests.

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

    CC:DA/Roster/1996 July

The Chair, voting members, and representatives introduced themselves. The Chair instructed outgoing members to pass on files to their successors.

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

The agenda was unanimously adopted.

523. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meetings held at 1996 Midwinter Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, January 20 and 22 (Chair)

The Chair has received corrections from Glenn Patton and Barbara Tillett. Also, on page 5, paragraph 1, 7th line -- "553s" should be "533s". On a motion by M. Yee, seconded by A. Fiegen, the minutes were adopted unanimously.

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

The Chair has sent a letter to ALA editions regarding AACR2e. If anyone would like a copy, please contact her. No response has yet been received.

At the last meeting of the Committee, a Document Distribution Task Force was formed. A. Fiegen and M. Turitz have agreed to Co-Chair. The charge was omitted from the last mailing and will be included in the next one.

Regarding the status of the brochure on building an international database, the Chair reported on the CCS Executive Committee discussion last night. ALCTS Publications Committee has indicated an interest in publishing the brochure in the ALCTS Newsletter.

The other document, How to Submit a Rule Revision, prepared by the Committee on Outreach, was also reviewed and there was a general sense from the ALCTS Publications Committee, that it might be better to distribute it electronically, rather than go through the costly print publication process. A. Fiegen noted that there were some questions about the document, but that there was no substantive changes made. She plans to issue a response through the CC:DA listserv.

CC:DA was asked to review ANSI/NISO Z39.14 (Standard for Writing Abstracts) but the Chair felt it was out of the scope of CC:DA to review and declined.

The Chair discussed the pending document 3JSC/ALA/20 with B. Schottlaender, who also discussed it with Ann Sitkin, AALL representative. As a result, the proposal was withdrawn until a date after the "1997 Conference of Cataloging Experts."

Another document, 3JSC/LC/24, which deals with Vietnamese names was discussed electronically with voting members. Since there was no consensus, it will be taken up at this meeting.

The Chair plans to follow up with a report on our electronic discussion group which happened over the last six months.

The two new voting members added to the Committee after the annual meeting are Sherry Kelly and Matthew Beacon.

525. Agenda item 6. Old Business

L. Jizba reported on comments on the Guidelines for the Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia. Comments have been coming in slowly and there has been no official comments from the music library community, the ALCTS AV Committee, or the Music OCLC Users Group. It would be particularly useful to hear from groups who deal with videos and recordings. Primarily, comments have come from those who deal with CD-ROM technology. In November, there will be an institute on cataloging electronic multimedia sponsored by ALCTS and NELINET. It will be a good opportunity to seek additional comments on the guidelines. Please submit any additional comment to L. Jizba in writing or electronically. She will prepare a report before the Mid-Winter meeting.

M. Turitz reported that he had received no additional comments on the Guidelines for the Bibliographic Description of Reproductions since Mid-Winter. The Task Force responsible for the Guidelines for the Bibliographic Description of Reproductions was dismissed with the production of the report, since it had met its charge. There is no `group' charged with revising the guidelines. Once the MARBI proposals are approved relative to these guidelines there will be a need to revisit the guidelines. J. Attig felt that MARBI is not at a point of making a decision about the use of linkages between records. Mitch agreed to continue gathering comments but he feels that no one is presently interested in implementing a multiple versions system.

B. Tillett reminded the Committee that there was discussion at Mid-Winter about incorporating both sets of guidelines into Rule Revisions proposals. She questioned whether or not there was any effort in that direction. L. Jizba reported that the interactive multimedia Guidelines are tied in with the ISBD/CF, which is undergoing a second round of revision. She felt it seems logical to wait, although some issues in the Guidelines are not handled in ISBD/CF. B. Schottlaender added that it has always been the JSC's position not to follow guidelines external to Code. The Chair inquired if the group was comfortable with holding off on philosophical issues which would be addressed at the Annual Conference in 1997, and there seemed to be a consensus to wait. L. Jizba offered to prepare draft rule changes. B. Tillett asked it there were any comments about the use of "interactive multimedia" as a GMD. L. Jizba again stated that comments need to come from Music and AV cataloging groups. The Chair sent a request to the ALCTS AV Committee and she requested that M. Wise bring the request to the MLA. L. Jizba would like them by November.

M. Turitz reported on the Task Force to Review ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1991. The concept behind the standard would be to allow the use of a barcode for check-in purposes. The Task Force recommended to approve with minor revisions. The major concern is that there is no mechanism to enforce this standard. Even ISSNs are left off by publishers. To require a barcode which would change with each issue seems almost excessive. The standard has been approved.

The Chair distributed several documents from B. Schottlaender which he compiled just before the meeting. He reviewed what topics would be discussed at Monday's meeting. The document labeled CC:DA/JSC rep./BECS/1996/4 describes the issues for discussion.

526. Agenda item 7. Report from the Task Force on Cataloging Conference Proceedings (M. Watson)

The Task Force has completed its review and has some rule revisions in the works.

527. Agenda item 8. Report from the Task Force on Rules for Music Moving Image Materials (D. Kinney)

There are several layers to the problem presented by the original two position papers. There are no rules for music moving image materials. There is a consensus that these are works of mixed responsibility. Some people advocate using Rule 21.23 which results in composer or principal performer as the main entry. Catalogers entering these works under title base their decision on Rule 21.1C1A as well as Rule 21.6C2. However, none of these rules apply to works of mixed responsibility.

The next layer is caused by conflicting views about the authorship of these works. Those who enter them under composer feel that the composer has the principal responsibility for the work. Those who enter it under title view authorship under the rules cited above which do not apply to works of mixed authorship.

The third conflict is related to "work" vs. "manifestation". These are intertwined in AACR2 anyway. The Task Force found that the root of the problem is really with theoretical issues. Although there are definitions of shared responsibility and mixed responsibility, there are no definitions for principal responsibility, "work" or "manifestation". The Task Force supported recommendations based on composer main entry. Significant work needs to be done on chapter 21 to develop general and format independent rules. One possible approach would be to expand the scope of musical works to include all formats. Another quick fix would be to develop rules for videorecordings and to put them in the section under works of mixed responsibility.

The Chair thanked the Task Force for its report and for its clear delineation of the problems involved in this very complex issue. The Task Force is dismissed.

528. Agenda item 9. Report from the Task Force on Works Intended for Performance (M. Yee)

The Task Force has developed a draft recommendation for a new rule for the entry of new works of mixed responsibility. The Task Force recommends that such works be entered under title unless there are more specific rules that dictate otherwise. If the author or composer's work is a set of detailed /instructions for realization and they are closely followed, the performance is secondary and the choice of entry is the name of the author or composer. If there are no detailed instructions and/or not closely followed the performance should be considered a new work related to the original text. The new work should be entered under title unless more specific rules apply.

Some specific rules are already in place: i.e. if a work is considered music and text, music gets primary responsibility. These is the general rule that music alone (no text) should be entered under composer and that text alone (no music) should be entered under playwright. The key issue is whether or not the performance is a straight through performance, without adaptation. If so, enter under composer, playwright, etc. regardless of the format.

It is hoped that CC:DA would issue a recommendation, rather than a position paper. The Chair sought the opinion of the group as to whether or not a recommendation should be made. A straw poll of the group indicated that the consensus was to instruct the Task Force to proceed with the recommendations necessary, rather than to have more discussion on Monday.

529. Agenda Item 10. CC:DA Discussion with Other Groups on Areas of Mutual Interest

  1. Program for Cooperative Cataloging Task Group to Review AACR2 (Tillett)

    J. Swanekamp noted that a copy of the report of the Task Group and a discussion paper were distributed via e-mail and by paper mail. B. Tillett began with short history of the Task Group noting that the Group examined AACR2 and the LCRI's with the intent of formulating actual rule revisions. They examined the earlier recommendations of the Cooperative Cataloging Committee and found that the recommendations could not be fit into easily defined rule changes. The papers were actually looking at changes which would re-define the principles under which AACR2 was based. Other recommendations clearly had no single voice, since there were dissenting opinions expressed. The Task Group was unable to make rule revision recommendations and issued its report to the PCC Executive Board. They expect a response in August.

    The accompanying paper deals with Rule 0.24 for items "in hand". It is not a position paper, rather a discussion paper. It begins with the concept of a library acquiring a physical object with the intent of archiving it for future use by a patron. Other issues involved were selection policies and intrinsic value of the item. Today, many items are remotely accessed, not actually owned and a user with a PC can interlibrary loan right from home. The two basic rules for catalogs are finding and gathering, or collocating, materials owned by a library. Rules were based on carrier rather than content, even though carrier is really secondary to the issue. Removing the physical character of the item, we have to consider location since the item is not tangible in the case of electronic resources" As we all know, stability of location and stability of content in the electronic environment are real problems. Dynamic publications where content changes are handled as serials. This is another twist on the nature of electronic files. The paper looks at accommodating new types of materials by simply adding chapters and rules for this type of materials or by changing the rules already in chapters. It brings up the whole concept of multiple versions. It was pointed out that 0.24 is at the heart of the question of multiple versions. The group began discussion of the points of the report. J.L. Byrd suggested a radical rethinking of the rules since seriality has become an aspect rather than a central issue. F. Sadowski pointed out that since adoption of Format Integration, seriality has become an aspect of all types of materials. L. Jizba felt that ISBD/CF are arranged by format and that AACR2 could be revised to come more closely in line with ISBD.

  2. ALCTS/PARS Intellectual Access Committee (Wolven)

    The Committee has looked at the same questions as outlined by the previous discussion but with an approach focusing on the preservation issues. There is no position paper at this point, but lots of discussion. The Committee is dealing with reformatting issues, not concerned with the object in hand so much as where it came from. A digital reproduction of a microfiche of a print version cannot be handled by a multiple versions record. The history of the process has to be recorded, since what we wind up with is a combination of several formats. In terms of digital reformatting, how does the preservation of an object which can undergo many revisions over time get reflected in the bibliographic record? Over time, what version of an object should be preserved? There are issues with MARC., i.e. the 583 field dealing with action issues. Where does an object reside? What about an original versus a changed item?

    In response to Jizba's question about a definition of "digital" object, Wolven replied that they are focusing on the definition of "reformatting" and retaining the integrity of the object being reformatted. Schottlaender referred back to the concept of multi-generational versions or composite version as a useful concept. Swanekamp pointed out that many commercial publications are indeed composite publications. Schottlaender spoke about the possibility of composite digital sound recordings and Swanekamp pointed out that re-recorded integrated sound recordings do exist. Finally Swanekamp pointed out that the benefits of cooperative cataloging disappear when everyone has something different.

  3. MARBI (Gerhart and McCallum)

    Gerhart reported on the problem of "content" versus "carrier". McCallum pointed out the economic constraints involved. The other problem is that many groups use the MARC format and they are trying to keep it as open as possible. The discussion was postponed to permit J. Younger to deliver her report.

  4. ALCTS Task Force to Define Bibliographic Access in the Electronic Environment (Younger)

    Younger reported that the name has changed to the Task Force on Meta Access. They have a website: Younger reported on their discussions earlier in the day. Their assumptions were about models for the future of bibliographic control. There is a lot of experimentation with digital objects that have metadata elements embedded into them. How do you manage this data on a national scale? The WWW Consortia seem to shy away from a centralized database; they are into distributed information with local maintenance of records. What are the implications of research projects like the Berkeley Finding Aids, the Digital Imaging Project, etc. on mainstream cataloging. Should we learn from them or try to encourage our experience on them?

    The contact with the community outside the library world has been through Stu Weibel who has attended several meetings and conferences. The Dublin Core was the result of his participation. However, additional representation from the library community would be desirable. Another issue is that there are several metadata schemes being presented. Is AACR2 metadata? It is viewed by the library community as such. How do all these relate? Our expertise in the area of retrieval is essential. GILS (Government Information Locator Scheme) is also metadata as well as the TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) header. Jizba pointed out that the computer community sets up conferences very quickly and that the library community is slow to respond due to lack of funds.. She suggested that the Task Force could serve as a clearinghouse for the library community's involvement in these conferences.

    The relationship between AACR and other metadata schemes was discussed. Yee pointed out that it is important to have complex methods of organization if you want to have something around for any period of time. Schottlaender pointed out that the retrieval of information on the web is not what we provide through AACR. He cited searching the web for "relationships" and the result which in no way is comparable to a search in an on-line catalog. Howarth and Attig pointed out the value of metadata relative to the resources which they provide access to. However, the creators of metadata need our expertise and encouragement which would be beneficial to all involved. Younger clarified that the Task Force was not trying to substitute generic metadata for specific metadata such as AACR. Her point was would a basic core of metadata be able to be applied to all the other metadata schemes as a minimum basic set? To what extent could we mix and match if there was a basic record. One of the thoughts would be to include a syntax which would identify the metadata scheme which could be mapped into another scheme if desired.

    Further discussion involved how we should encourage discussion between the library and the computing community. Younger suggested the possibility of us expanding our boundaries and finding who among us should represent the library community in these joint discussions. She suggested that CC:DA should be the group to do this. There were some opinions expressed that the computer community just wouldn't care about our experience. They would simply want to do their own thing.

    The relationship of MARBI to this process was also discussed as well as a third force, the library systems designers.

530. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and reminded everyone that the meeting would continue on Monday, July 8, 1996 at the Crowne Plaza, Act IV at 8:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
John A. Richardson**
Edited by Joan Swanekamp*

Minutes *

Monday, July 8, 1996, 8:30-12:30 a.m.***

531. Agenda item 11. Welcome and opening remarks (Chair)

The second meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 8:32 a.m. in the Manhattan Crowne Plaza ACT IV. The Chair welcomed the audience and committee members and circulated the audience attendance sheet and the official roster.

532. Addition to agenda. Document distribution task force (Fiegen)

Ann Fiegen noted that they were adding a little to the charge of the Task Force. The first charge is to examine the ALCTS Policy and Procedure Manual regarding document distribution. The revision to the charge is to draft a revision to the CC:DA procedures for document distribution to bring in the concept of electronic distribution of documents.

525. Agenda item 6. Old business: Report from the Task Force to Review ISBD(CF) (Howarth)


Lynne Howarth acknowledged those who had served with her on the Task Force: Glenn Patton, Cecilia Sercan, Patricia Vanderberg, and Laurel Jizba (consultant). She noted that they were working under a tight deadline and that they had asked for broad comment from various cataloging constituencies. The task force divided up the duties so that they were also able to look at other pertinent documents, including Cataloging Internet Resources: A Manual and Practical Guide, Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia, and Rules for Archival Description, Chapter 9: Electronic Records.

They went through each of the areas of description, the glossary and the examples within the ISBD(CF) and summarized their work on a section-by-section basis. They included some editorial and typographical comments. Substantive comments focused on the 1) General Material Designation, 2) sources of information, 3) file and extent of the file area, and 4) the notes area. Regarding sources of information, there seemed to be a fair body of comments in favor of making this more restrictive, suggesting an emphasis on the internal source as the chief source of information. Reaction to the GMD was that people were not really satisfied with it but, since they couldn't think of anything better, they favored leaving it the way it was. There was a suggestion that the IFLA group have a look at the rules for archival description with the two-layered general material designation where physical form is also appended, resulting in something like: cartographic material -- electronic records. There seemed to be very positive response to the amount of detail that could be captured in the file and extent of file area. There was some concern raised as to whether cataloger's discretion might lead to multiple records describing the same item. In the notes area, there was some comment on the mode of access and system requirements notes with reference to an institution's ability to update this information. In general terms, there was concern that there needed be a way to treat digitized moving images, that there be some additional examples.

Martha Yee wondered if there was discussion of the value of using area 3 for these materials.

Howarth noted that there was some discussion of this issue and it is reflected in the report.

533. Agenda item 12. Report from the MARBI representative (Gerhart)

Gerhart noted that the greatest amount of time for discussion has been devoted to format alignment or harmonization. They have been looking at the first proposals on this topic and they have a pretty short deadline. Their first goal is to reach some consensus on alignment with CANMARC by end of midwinter 1997. The present proposal includes 22 changes to both bibliographic and authority changes to the MARC format. Canada has already agreed to make over 50 changes to their format. Implementation of the changes are to occur in the summer of 1997. The next step after CANMARC alignment is UKMARC alignment and the first proposals will begin to appear at the annual meeting of 1997. The new international MARC will probably be called IMARC.

Discussion paper 96 brought MARBI up to date on the availability of URNs. An active member of the IETF spoke on recent developments, problems, and timelines. They want to have some kind of syntax in place by 1997.

Discussion paper 97 looked at the 006 leader coding for digital items. This paper looked at the possibility of always coding digital items for content putting the digital aspect in either the 006 or 007. This would leave mainly executable files as Type "m". There was wide agreement that this would improve the coding of these materials. There was also agreement that the coding of mixed material does not work at all well in MARC formats. At midwinter, two proposals will be presented, one dealing with digital materials and another dealing with problems of mixed media and kits.

MARC Office has a Web page with all the proposals and discussion papers. The address is: Ed Glazier strongly urged the committee to pay attention to the proposals related to discussion paper 97. His reading of the paper suggests that this is really a change in cataloging practice and not just in coding practice in the content versus carrier issue.

Swanekamp asked that the proposals be forwarded to the CC:DA list as soon as they become available. She noted that not everyone has Web access.

Brian Schottlaender wondered who would have stewardship of the new IMARC when all versions have been harmonized. Gerhart responded that principal stewardship would be in the United States and that it work close to the way it does now.

MARBI will receive proposals as they do now and vote on them. The proposals will also go forward to Canada and Britain for their blessing. We will also be looking at proposals that they bring forward.

Glazier asked for confirmation that the goal was to replace USMARC, CANMARC, and UKMARC with one new version. Gerhart confirmed that it was.

John Attig indicated that his recollection of the discussion was that the main parties involved would be the national libraries of each country and that each library would set up an advisory structure similar to the way that MARBI and the other groups advise LC. In the case of disagreement, each national library would have the right to veto a proposal. Only when there was consensus between the three libraries would things go forward.

Brad Young wondered if the other national libraries had something similar to the Network Development Office for maintenance and distribution. Audience members confirmed that Canada does have a Canadian MARC office and there was the sense that the UK also had similar advisory bodies.

Swanekamp asked that the MARBI minutes be posted to the CC:DA list.

534. Agenda item 13. Report from the OCLC Representative (Patton)

Glenn Patton provided an update to several projects that he reported on at San Antonio, as well as a new project. He noted that the final report of the Internet Resources Cataloging Project was not yet available because they had received an extension of the grant from the Dept. of Education so that it ended June 30 rather than March 31. September 30 is the deadline for the final report. He will send an announcement of the report's availability on the OCLC Web page and via ftp to the CC:DA list. He doesn't know if there will be anything to come to CC:DA as a result of the project. They had made a call for comments and most of what they heard were requests for additional examples.

Patton reported that the REUSE project, the joint effort underway between a group of German academic libraries, OCLC, and the Library of Congress to harmonize German and US cataloging practices, has met again. At the regular annual meeting of the Bibliothekartag, which is primarily for German academic libraries, there were three papers that were directly related to the attempts to harmonize German cataloging and MARC format practice and with AACR2 and the emerging IMARC practice. Monika Münnich of the University of Heidelberg and member of the Expert Group RAK, presented a paper of her preliminary analysis of the differences between AACR2 and the RAK rules and proposed some changes to German practices that would align them more closely with Anglo-American practices. Barbara Tillett, also part of the project team, presented a paper which covered the idea of using linked authority records to overcome different heading practices created under the different cataloging rules while still allowing the possibility of preserving appropriate national and linguistic practices. Sarah Thomas also presented a description of a variety of cooperative projects that are going on in the U.S. and talked briefly about the efforts to harmonize AACR2 practice in Anglo libraries and the IMARC efforts. All three papers got a positive reaction. Monika had proposed some radical changes, giving up some very long-standing practices in German cataloging, including moving away from their current practice of not differentiating between two authors with the same names. Their current practice is to accept that the name in conjunction with the title is enough to distinguish different authors. There has been some further discussion with the Deutsche Bibliothek about the IMARC effort and there is some interest to moving toward a format that is closer to USMARC. OCLC is assisting their German partners in building a database of pairs of records reflecting German and Anglo cataloging practices to be able to compare the bibliographic and the authority records.

OCLC has also undertaken a similar project with the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. This is a joint effort with the Russian Library Association, with funding from OCLC. Barbara Tillett is also assisting them with this project. They had a meeting with the Russian National Library and a number of major Moscow libraries in the spring with the goal of trying to harmonize Russian cataloging practice, emerging Russian MARC format, and MARC. The national library has been considering a UNIMARC-based implementation, although some others have been trying to dissuade them from that path. This project will likely progress much more slowly simply because there isn't a body of machine-readable data to work with for the purposes of comparison. There is also less awareness of AACR2 in Russian. However, Russian descriptive practice is actually quite similar since it's based on ISBD.

Barbara Tillett added that the National Library of Russia was very interested in doing the comparison between AACR2 and the Russian descriptive cataloging rules which comprise six volumes. They are looking toward merging more toward AACR due to economic concerns. The Russians have almost completed a Russian translation of AACR and the Germans are also working on a German translation of AACR.

Glazier asked if the Russians cataloged in Cyrillic. Patton noted that they did, except for Latin-alphabet materials which they cataloged in the Latin script. They are very interested in being able to acquire bibliographic data for these foreign publications. There is also some interest in being able to do machine conversion from Cyrillic characters to a romanized version.

535. Agenda item 14. Report for the Task Force on the TEI (Sadowski)

Frank Sadowski reported that the Task Force's initial meeting at ALA annual was an organizational one where they reviewed their charge. They figured that the first charge of investigating ways that CC:DA and the editors of the TEI might collaborate and keep each other informed would be the most difficult. The second point of considering ways to amend AACR2 was considered an easier task. In considering the third aspect of the charge, to investigate collaboration with MARBI and other organizations to standardize encoding conventions in support of reversible mapping between MARC and SGML, they found that there have been some efforts in this area already, including some Web sites. They added two people to the roster as consultants: Erik Jul of OCLC and David Epstein of ALA Publishing. The group reviewed the CC:DA position paper written by Brad Eden and Sherry Kelley. Ed Gaynor from the University of Virginia reported on their cataloging experience. At U Va they create TEI headers as well as the cataloging records for the same items. Erik Jul gave a lengthy explanation of the Dublin core. The group decided to treat the TEI header as a model and acknowledge that there are other schemes being used. Using the TEI header, they will make recommendations which might be able to be applied to all of the other schemes. The discussion was pretty free-flowing. Edward Gaynor will send them copies of a portion of the U Va cataloging manual. They are hoping to do a lot of discussion via a list for the task force.

Sherry Kelley noted that Gaynor will be providing the implementation guidelines that the catalogers use in formulating and using TEI headers as the basis for their cataloging records. Schottlaender asked for clarification of the U Va practice and Sadowski confirmed that they do formulate the TEI headers and use them as the basis for creating the bibliographic records. The actual producers of the documents being cataloged do a draft TEI header which the catalogers review. Kelley noted that it had evolved this way over three years. Initially, the catalogers did it all.

536. Agenda item 15. Report from the LC Representative (Tillett)

Barbara Tillett first gave a brief rundown of the budget situation, noting that the House Appropriations Committee on June 26 approved and reported out the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1997 which provided for an increase of 6 million dollars (1.9%) for the Library of Congress. LC had asked for a 6.4% increase. House Action is scheduled for this week and there is the possibility of a cutback from this initial increase. Library staff will be testifying later before the Senate for the full amount requested in the budget. LC appreciates the continuing support that ALA has given in the budget process.

The Associate Librarian, Winston Tabb, met with the Cataloging Policy and Support Office. He believes that one of the main reasons that Congress has continued to give the Library budgetary support is that LC did set a top priority of reducing its arrearages and they have made progress. The backlog reported in 1989 has been decreased by 42%. It appears that the projected goal of reducing the arrearage by 80% by the year 2000 may be harder to achieve because of staff attrition.

Early in May, the mission of the Library of Congress was the focus of hearings before the Congressional Joint Committee on the Library. The Committee reaffirmed LC's historic mission of sustaining and preserving a universal collection and they rejected a recommendation from the General Accounting Office that LC disperse its collections among other institutions and become a national information knowledge broker and referral agency. Dr. Billington testified that it seemed inconceivable that the world's largest and most varied record of human knowledge should be pulled apart and scattered just as we're entering the information age. Senator Hatfield spoke strongly on LC's behalf.

Dr. Billington was a speaker at the ALA President's program and he focused his attention on the potential of the national digital library and the importance of universal access to information on the superhighway. He also announced the terms of the LC-Ameritech annual competition for libraries to receive grants to digitize those parts of their collections related to American history that are unique contributions to the national resource. Ameritech has a grant of 2 million dollars as part of this project. The National Digital Library program, begun in 1994, aims to make 5 million items related to American history freely available by the year 2000. Over the past 12 months, collections such as the documents of the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, various daguerreotypes, photographs and pamphlets relating to slavery and the civil rights movement, documents from the National American Women's Suffrage Association have been put online at LC's Web site. Next week, LC will be adding new collections of photographs documenting the conservation movement from 1850-1920. The collections are being demonstrated at LC's booth in the exhibits. Their Web page has just been redesigned to appeal to a wider audience, meaning K through 12. It has improved graphics, better navigation features, and more connections to other information resources.

The Cataloging Distribution Service is demonstrating its products as well. Of particular interest are the Cataloger's Desktop, Classification Plus, CD-ROM subscriptions containing the full text of LC classification schedules as they become available in machine-readable form. They're hoping to get the license from ALA to make electronic AACR2 available to everyone else. LC just has AACR2e available as a prototype test at LC so far. CDS has announced that they'll be eliminating some of their products in an effort to become self-sustaining within two years. Their operational budget was cut in half and they have to operate on a cost-recovery basis and they have to discontinue some of their more costly products. Eight CD-ROM subscription services, the CDMARC product line, CDMARC Bibliographic and its subset CDMARC Serials and the Music Catalog, along with CDMARC Subjects and Names, will be discontinued. The last issues of those will be delivered in the first half of 1997. CDS will continue to produce those products that are most in demand and will continue the print publications of LCSH, LCRI, the classification schedules, the Subject Cataloging Manual and the MARC format documentation. New CD-ROM products in Folio Views will be available.

A new priority at LC is the planning effort for an integrated library system. The justification for implementing such a system at LC at this time included all the advances in computer architecture which they hope to use to replace their current Legacy systems, which are stand-alone systems. Winston Tabb is the head of the ILS Management Planning Group that provides general oversight and policy guidance and Tillett is serving as the leader for the ILS project team that is working on developing a request for proposal, expected this fall.

The LC Cooperative Cataloging Discussion Group that meets on Sunday nights has changed its name to the Program for Cooperative Cataloging Participants Discussion Group. Sarah Thomas announced that this was her last meeting representing the Library of Congress. She will become the Director of Libraries at Cornell. Both the positions for Director of Cataloging and the Director for Public Service Collections at LC will be posted and widely recruited for.

There is news on the NACO, SACO, and BIBCO front. Since January, there have been 7 new institutions that have received NACO training using the decentralized training model. There was a three-day intensive workshop on series. That session will be repeated in September. A Cataloging Policy Convergence Agreement was signed between the Library of Congress and the British Library this year. The British Library loaded a master copy of the U.S. name authority file in March and they expect to do FTP transmissions of name authority records as part of NACO this fall. In SACO, cooperating libraries have added almost 1000 new subject headings in the first half of this year. There will be a SACO-sponsored pre-conference at midwinter in Washington on subject heading proposals. The first record contributions from BIBCO were made at the beginning of the fiscal year. 18 libraries are members of BIBCO and have contributed approximately 7000 bibliographic records in both full and core level. In April, 5 monograph cataloging divisions at LC began a 6-month experiment in creating core-level bibliographic records. These records are generally less complete than full-level records but more complete than the minimal-level records that they've been providing. These records will have both LC and Dewey classification and will have at least one or two subject headings. They will also include 504 fields, geographic area codes, the 041, and the full fixed field elements. LC's experiments with core-level records will compare the production levels and costs to full-level cataloging. During the experiment, catalogers are expected to decide on the appropriate level of cataloging for each item and consult extensively with the reference staff in making these decisions.

The 19th edition of LCSH has just been published in four volumes and it will only be available in a sturdy soft-cover edition.

They are also working on a new edition of the Subject Cataloging Manual. All the subject specialists are working on a revised text that is in response to the PCC task group recommendations that looked at this tool. The new edition will be in four volumes, will have more durable binders, more examples, and they will be using USMARC format in the examples for content designation.

In May, the complete retrospective file of approximately 900 annotated card program subject headings for children's material was converted to machine-readable form and distributed on tape to the MARC distribution service subscribers. The AC records reside in the LC subject authority file and are identified in the 001 field with the prefix "sj" used with the LC control number. There is also an "spj" prefix for a proposed or changed AC heading. Fixed field 008 byte 11 is encoded with the value "b" to indicate that these are children's headings.

LC has been working on form genre headings in subdivisions. They are looking at draft guidelines to begin implementing subfield v for form genre terms. LC has had a computer files advisory group for approximately a year and a half and in March they established a music cataloging advisory group. These are chiefly internal groups to advise the chiefs of the cataloging divisions of needed changes in these areas.

They also completed on April 8 a new set of guidelines on collection-level cataloging. It was published as DCMC 14 in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual. It brings together and integrates all the concepts for collection-level cataloging for books, graphics, manuscripts, maps, moving images, and sound recordings that were previously at variance.

All of the Library of Congress classification schedules have now been converted to USMARC classification format except for some of the tables and subclasses of class K. The schedules are now undergoing extensive proofreading to identify any data conversion errors and to update the index terms to assure conformity with current indexing guidelines. They received a report from Lois Chan this spring giving recommendations on directions for indexing. New editions of classification schedules exist for E, F, H, J, L, R, T, Z. They have just introduced a ZA portion of the schedule. Classes B-BJ, N, Q, U-V are now in press and will be available later this year. The next ones in line are class M, KF, PA, P-PZ tables, and S. About 35 LC staff currently have access to the LCC online at their workstations and are using it in their daily cataloging work. They are expecting to expand access for all LC catalogers in the next year and are hoping that other vendors will be making that available to other libraries soon. They are also doing extensive development on canon law. Jolande Goldberg, member of the classification specialist group, was selected as a senior Robbins Fellow at UC-Berkeley. Included in the award was a stipend for conducting research on theocratic legal systems to develop the KB schedule for them. She also has been working on improving access to UN documents and did extensive work on refining that portion of the schedules. She has also been working on the form division tables.

The implementation of the last phase of format integration at the Library of Congress. Staff that were cataloging serials and working on OCLC implemented their last phase of format integration on March 4. The major impact of that phase of format integration on the cataloging of serials was that serials will now be cataloged according to the physical form of the item. In those cases in which the form is not print or microform, the fixed field data relating to seriality will now be given in the 006 fixed length data element additional material characteristics. Printed or microform serials will continue to be cataloged as previously and the 007 field for physical description can now be provided on an expanded basis for all forms of material. With respect to serial practice, the 007 field will routinely be given for microforms and computer files in LC records. Staff that are cataloging monographic material implemented their last phase of format integration on March 18 and the impact of that is minimal. LC does not plan to supply the 006 in records for monographic materials except in rare cases. Neither do they plan to expand their use of the 007 beyond their existing practice for cartographic materials, microforms, sound recordings, and visual materials. The most significant change in practice for monographic materials applied to the fixed field for type of date codes and for dates publication. The missing digits in dates for the 260 field are now represented in fixed fields by the letter "u" and such dates are no longer represented by the 008 byte 6 code "q". Nor are they stated as a range of dates covering the period based on the missing digits. Staff working in RLIN began format integration implementation on April 22. These include staff who catalog items in Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Yiddish and who prepare records for the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections.

LC's monographic computer files catalogers are now discontinuing the use of the 753 field because it often contained redundant information that was provided in a 538 field. The Network Standards and Development Office are considering a proposal to make the 753 field obsolete in the MARC format.

In her role as ALA representative to IFLA, Tillett reported that there have been efforts to review the form and structure of corporate headings and she has been asked to chair a working group that is looking at revising that IFLA publication and looking toward ways of addressing different needs for corporate headings across different countries. She has also been asked to chair an IFLA task group whose official name is IFLA Working Group on Transnational Exchange of Authority Data. This is coming out of earlier proposals for an international standard authority data number. That particular concept has come to the fore again now that the sharing of authority files internationally is actually doable in the Internet environment. This task group is looking at the particular data elements that will be needed in shared resource authority files coming from national bibliographic agencies. The idea is that the individual authority files would be searchable using Z39.50 or other standards as a virtual combined, single file and at some point in time the entries that are representing the same entities would be linked via an international standard authority number. There will probably be a report in early 1997.

Elizabeth Mangan added that two other LC jobs are being recruited for nationally: the Chief of the Prints and Photographs Division and the Chief of the Rare Books and Special Collections Division.

537. Agenda item 16. Introduction to IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Tillett)


Olivia Madison is the chair of the IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and she was unable to attend this meeting. Tillett, who is a consultant to that group, provided a brief overview of the report. The study group has been meeting for many years. The report is going out on world-wide review. Anyone who is serious about commenting on the report may receive a free copy of it from Marie-France Plassard, of the Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt, whose email address is: The intention is for anyone receiving a copy of the report to read it and comment on it. Swanekamp reminded the group that all CC:DA members and consultants had already received a copy of the report. (NOTE: No more free copies are available, but the report is available in PDF format on the IFLANet Web)

Tillett explained that the purpose of the study was to delineate the functions performed by bibliographic records with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. They wanted to look at the full range of functions for bibliographic records in the widest sense, including descriptive elements, access points, other organizing elements such as classification, as well as annotation. The group was to propose a basic level of functionality and basic data requirements for records that are to be created by national bibliographic agencies. The methodology was to use conceptual modeling to describe the bibliographic universe and they used an entity-relationship model. It includes entities, relationships, and attributes. They tested the attributes against the functions to see which attributes or data elements should be included in the bibliographic records created by these agencies. They got feedback on various drafts over the years from a wide variety of groups but now want wider feedback. They hope that the model will provide for a rethinking of the records and the structures that we are currently using for catalogs. They were greatly influenced by work done over the last 15 years at the National Library of Canada and the Library of Congress in conceptual modeling.

The functional requirements were stated in terms of specific tasks: to find, identify, select, and obtain. They divided the bibliographic universe into things related to intellectual content and physical manifestations of works. On the intellectual content side, the entities identified were works and expressions. On the physical side, the entities are manifestations and items. Manifestations should be thought of as a generalized description of a physical entity and an item is a tangible or intangible item. An item may appear as many pieces. There are also descriptions of the relationships between bibliographic entities. There is also a description of all the data attributes associated with each type of entity.

The last portion of the report is the recommendations regarding which of the attributes should be applied for records created by national bibliographic agencies. There are entities related to persons, subjects, topics, and events. There are some inconsistencies because editorial cleanup is not complete throughout the text.

Swanekamp noted that she is finalizing the roster for the task force that is going to be addressing this report on behalf of CC:DA. Carol Hixson has agreed to chair the group. A number of people have already expressed an interest in serving on this group. Others who are interested should let Swanekamp or Hixson know.

Sherry Kelley wanted to know how long the world-wide review would be and when a finished product would be available for distribution. Tillett responded that comments were due November 30, 1996. The study group will receive the comments and will probably meet in the winter to see where they are. The outcome of the review is not yet known. It's hoped that the report will be approved and will go forward to IFLA at the Beijing meeting and will also serve as a basis for discussion for the IFLA conference for national bibliographic agencies now planned for the fall of 1998.

538. Agenda item 17. Proposal for a Rule Revision from ALCTS/AV (Fecko)


Mary Beth Fecko of the ALCTS Audiovisual Committee reported that the task force was charged to examine the meaning and use of the term label as defined in chapter nine of AACR2. The task force considered whether the use of the term should be changed to reflect the practice in the non-book cataloging community of treating all eye-readable information printed on the carrier as label information. The task force examined chapters 6 through 9 of AACR2 with respect to the definition and found that, while the glossary does not provide a definition, chapters six and nine offer two separate, incompatible footnote definitions. 6.0B1 footnote 1 defines label as "any permanently affixed paper, plastic, etc. label as opposed to the container itself, which may have data embossed or printed on it." 9.0B1 footnote 2 defines label as "any permanently affixed paper, plastic, etc., label that is added by the publisher, creator, etc., of the file, as opposed to those added locally, and as opposed to the container itself, which may have data embossed or printed on it." The task force proposed modifying chapters 6 through 9 to assure that label information be defined either as 1) data embossed or imprinted on a permanently affixed label, or 2) data permanently embossed or imprinted on the carrier itself. This two-part definition would be applied only to works cataloged according to chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9. For works covered by other chapters, label information would continue to be defined as: data embossed or imprinted on a permanently affixed label. The task force also made recommendations for changes to the chief source of information for 6.0B1, 7.0B1, 8.0B1, and 9.0B1. Basically, the task force is recommending the expansion of the definition of label for non-book materials so that it includes more than what we traditionally think of in terms of labels.

Frank Sadowski pointed out what he considered some major problems with the proposal. For example, he noted that they were using the term label as part of the definition of a label in footnote 1 of 6.0B1. He felt that the whole direction of the recommendations would have been better handled as an expansion of what is the legitimate source of information. Philip Schreur noted that MLA had strong objections to the proposal. First, they are strongly opposed to the changes to chapter 6 and think that the changes to the other chapters are not really necessary. They don't see any real change in the end result. The newly-proposed definitions are exactly what was originally excluded and the footnotes are what people are used to. Defining a label in two different ways -- one for media and one for non-media -- was also considered confusing. If the definition of a label is sometimes a label and sometimes information printed or embossed on an item, it becomes confusing to try to state where the information is coming from. Sadowski noted that he has some sound recordings where the identical information appears on a label on some disks and as embossed information on others. Matthew Wise noted that the definition of label includes the word etc. and members of MLA had differing opinions about what that actually included.

Swanekamp asked for background on the proposal. Fecko explained how often, particularly with compact disks, there will be information that's not really on a disk label but rather on a disk surface and sometimes people would make a note saying: "Title from disk surface" as opposed to disk label. It grew out this confusion and a desire to standardize sources of information and clarify what is a label. When they looked through AACR2 and noticed the inconsistency they decided to expand the original charge beyond looking at chapter 9.

Laurel Jizba noted that this was discussed at length on Autocat about two years ago. The conclusion reached in that forum was to consider everything a label and to use the word label in the note. She noted that there seems to be continuing confusion for the catalogers of some kinds of material and suggested that ALCTS/AV be asked to look at it again in light of the comments received at this meeting and to work with some of the other people who have strong opinions about it. She noted that cataloging workbooks and manuals were being written to resolve the confusion and the problem would be better resolved in the cataloging rules rather than in auxiliary tools.

Martha Yee indicated that she would find it helpful for the task force to give concrete examples of the types of items that were causing confusion. Brad Young noted that it was unclear to him whether the issue was changing the definition of label or changing the appropriate source. Howarth noted that in their review of the ISBD(CF), they were leaning toward reviewing the source of information. She agreed that the task force had correctly identified a problem with the conflicting definitions of label in the footnotes to 6.0B1 and 9.0B1.

Swanekamp summarized the discussion, noting that there was a proposal from the AV community to modify AACR2 and that MLA was opposed to it. She suggested that the group work with Matthew Wise, the incoming MLA representative, and consult with Lynne Howarth involved in the ISBD(CF) review. They might also address Young's question regarding the issue of source vs. label. Gerhart noted that OLAC did not have an opportunity to review the proposal at all before it came before CC:DA and they would like to have a chance to discuss it in a larger AV forum that is coming up in October.

539. Agenda item 18. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Schottlaender)

    CC:DA/JSC rep/BECS/1996/4
    3JSC/ALA/22/CCC follow-up
    3JSC/ALA/26/LA response
    3JSC/ALA/26/LA response/MusLA response
    3JSC/ALA/26/LA response/CCC response
    3JSC/ALA/26/LA response/CCC response/LC response
    3JSC/Aus/6/rev./Aus follow-up/LC response/LC follow-up
    3JSC/Aus/6/rev./Aus follow-up/LC response/LC follow-up/CCC response
    3JSC/LC/24/Aus response
    3JSC/LC/24/BL response
    3JSC/LC/24/CCC response
    3JSC/LC/24/LA response

Brian Schottlaender began his report by noting that the Joint Steering Committee met on June 20 and 21 in Washington. D.C., the first meeting chaired by Ralph Manning of the National Library of Canada, the new chair of the JSC. Because the minutes will be a while coming, Schottlaender tried to summarize the gist of the meeting in CC:DA/JSC Rep./BECS/1996/4 and also indicate where ALA action is necessary.

JSC began its meeting by reviewing various membership changes. Pat Oddy resigned as Chair and BL representative and was replaced by Sally Strutt as the BL representative and Ralph Manning as Chair. Rodney Brunt's term as the LA representative ended and he has been replaced by Sue Brown. Margaret Stewart of the National Library of Canada is the new JSC Secretary.

They reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting in Leeds. One of the ALA action items in those minutes was a request from JSC that ALA discuss the fact that the JSC charge in the ALA Handbook is inaccurately expressed. Schottlaender has reviewed that with Karen Muller and will draft a revision for the new edition of the Handbook.

JSC looked at 3JSC/Rule Revision/2/Consolidated/2/CCC rep response (24 May 1996) and 3JSC/Rule Revision/2/Consolidated/2/LC response (1 April 1996) and accepted both of them. To clear up some confusion in AACR, they agreed to draft a JSC policy statement regarding when Glossary definitions are to be specifically referred to in the text of AACR and when they are not.

The series of 3JSC/ALA/19/follow-up/2 documents relative to illustrations were put to rest. Schottlaender summarized the changes that had been agreed to in 3JSC/ALA/19/follow-up/2/CCC response/BL response/LC response/Aus response/ALA response (7 June 1996), which was accepted with one error and two typographical corrections.

3JSC/ALA/22/CCC follow-up (24 May 1995) is a document that summarizes all of the changes that have been previously agreed to regarding chief source of information for computer files. That document was distributed by CCC just at the point that Swan Hill was rotating off JSC and Schottlaender was coming on and the document didn't get distributed by either one. All other constituencies have agreed that the document does accurately summarize all of the changes and ALA needs to sign off on it, or not. Swanekamp indicated that she compared the document with her notes and thought it was in complete alignment. Jizba noted that the second review for ISBD(CF) is happening right now and is incorporating input from the international community. She wanted to note the international context to this at this point. Yee moved that CC:DA accept the document; Turitz seconded the motion and it was unanimously accepted by the voting members of CC:DA.

Schottlaender next reported on the issue of terms for computer memory documented in a long series (3JSC/Aus/6) going back to 1991. ALA has not yet officially responded to the 3JSC/Aus/6/rev/Aus follow-up/LC response/LC follow-up (1 April 1996). There has already been a response from the CCC in document 3JSC/Aus/6/rev/Aus follow-up/LC response/LC follow-up/CCC response (24 May 1996) which offered a couple of amendments that were accepted by LC and the rest of the JSC. The CCC response makes the point that using the parenthetical phrase suggested by LC for using "the abbreviated form or the full form" might lead catalogers to infer that there is an accepted abbreviated form. Since there is not agreement on that point internationally, the CCC has suggested instead the parenthetical "give the term in either abbreviated or full form." Schottlaender noted that ALA needs to respond. Swanekamp asked for discussion or a motion to endorse the proposal as amended. Sadowski moved to endorse the CCC response document; Byrd seconded it; it was unanimously accepted by the voting members.

Schottlaender noted that ALA has withdrawn 3JSC/ALA/20 in its document 3JSC/ALA/20/ALA follow-up/2/CCC response/2/ALA response (7 June 1996) regarding cross references for legal documents. It was felt that it would be wise to defer discussion of this until the international conference. Schottlaender consulted with Ann Sitkin, who polled CC:DA, and he has officially withdrawn the series.

Regarding work in connection with music uniform titles, Schottlaender reported that Swan Hill had agreed to produce a document at the end of her term as ALA representative to JSC summarizing the revisions negotiated to date. If Schottlaender cannot locate such a document, he will undertake the summary. Schreur noted that he had prepared a clean proposal which included all of the changes during Swan Hill's last year and gave it to her. He indicated that he would look for the document and pass it on to Schottlaender if he found it.

Regarding key and mode in music uniform titles for post-nineteenth century works (3JSC/ALA/26...), Schottlaender noted that 3JSC/ALA/26 was an attempt to clarify under what circumstances key and mode would be added to music uniform titles. The Library Association's response in 3JSC/ALA/26/LA response (15 March 1995) proposed that the rules for post-nineteenth century works and nineteenth century and earlier be combined into a single rule. The Music Library Association did respond negatively in 3JSC/ALA/26/La response/MusLA Response (19 June 1995). The ALA did not respond and, in the meantime, the CCC and LC have forwarded responses in 3JSC/ALA/26/LA response/CCC response (24 May 1996) and 3JSC/ALA/26/LA response/LC response (1 April 1996). ALA now needs to respond to all three documents. The British Library also needs to respond. The Australians have responded. The JSC decided that once everyone had had a chance to respond, LA would be charged with issuing a new proposal responding to all the input. Schreur noted that MLA considers it impossible to combine the two rules into one and would rather that the proposal be withdrawn rather than risk the possibility that they would be combined. Howarth moved to withdraw the original proposal; Turitz seconded it; the voting members unanimously agreed to withdraw the proposal.

Schottlaender discussed with Jizba the definitions for "computer disk" and "computer optical disc" and was apprised that the discussion of these terms in the context of the ISBD(CF) will be brought to conclusion in a couple of weeks. Jizba expects to have definitions to forward to CC:DA for review shortly. Schottlaender will wait for further direction from CC:DA on this issue.

On the subject of Vietnamese personal names, Schottlaender reported that the ALCTS/CCS/Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials has withdrawn its initial support for 3JSC/LC/24 (16 January 1996). The proposal was an effort to eliminate the artificial comma as a filing device inserted in the middle of Vietnamese personal names. This was strongly supported by the Australians. Neither the British Library nor the Library Association support it. The CCC is neutral. ALA needs to respond officially. One of the issues that has come up is the fact that Chinese and Hungarian names are also affected by this practice of inserting commas. LC has suggested the possibility of resubmitting the proposal to include rules for Chinese and Hungarian personal names. Glazier asked for clarification of the BL response which discusses the official Vietnamese form. Schottlaender noted that Australia came to JSC indicating that what is in the BL response is no longer official Vietnamese practice. Official Vietnamese practice apparently coincides with the first example in the BL response. David Reynolds reported that CC:AAM discussed it at length and the committee is very split. If the proposal were expanded to include Chinese and Hungarian names there would likely be more support for the proposal, but it's hard to tell because there is a new committee coming in. Yee wondered about the AACR2 principle behind the proposal regarding how names were cited in English and how they were cited in the vernacular. Tillett noted that there are guidelines for JSC and within AACR that recognize cultural differences and that's why there are all the language variations in the rules. Although we are addressing cataloging rules within an English language environment, we are trying to respect cultural and linguistic differences. She supported the Australian response which reflects a strong feeling within the Vietnamese communities using our catalogs. Reynolds noted that CC:AAM did not have the Australian response when they were discussing this issue in May and, if the Australian document is accurate regarding Vietnamese practice, that changes the discussion. Schottlaender indicated that ALA cannot wait and see what develops but must, rather, either endorse or reject this proposal. Tillett wondered why we couldn't say "yes" or "no" to this proposal, regardless of what happens with other names. Turitz moved that CC:DA reject the proposal as worded. Sadowski asked for clarification on the rule as it stands and the proposal. Schottlaender clarified that the proposal was to stick in the comma except for Vietnamese names. Sadowski seconded the motion to reject the proposal as worded. The vote was 5 to 3 to reject the proposal. Sadowski suggested that if LC chooses to reword the proposal to include Chinese and Hungarian names CC:DA might support it. Schottlaender asked for some further guidance. Swanekamp indicated that we would want to consult with CC:AAM but would be willing to consider a proposal expanded to include Chinese and Hungarian names.

Schottlaender next addressed 5 new rule revision proposals from the Library of Congress. Four are related to LC's attempt to mitigate the number of title changes for serials. The fifth is a proposal to add an appendix to AACR of initial articles to provide guidance to catalogers when the rules require them to drop initial articles in specific circumstances.

3JSC/LC/25 is a proposal NOT to record in the title statement titles that are grammatically linked to each other on the title page, contrary to current instructions in AACR. Turitz asked who was the source of this proposal. Schottlaender indicated the LC, prompted by the PCC, was conducting a review of its rule interpretations. What came out of the review was an effort to modify some of the rules in chapter 12. Turitz noted that it was almost unnecessary to put this in the rules because it was common sense for serials catalogers. Yee noted that there has always been an approach in all the chapters in AACR2 to say very little about how one decides what the title is. She suggested that this was a principle to be applied across all chapters. Turitz noted that, taken by itself, he has no great objection to the proposal but wondered why it was being proposed at this time. Tillett indicated that it originated with the PCC task group that was instructed to look at the LC Rule Interpretations and forward to the JSC anything that ought to be changes to the rules instead. Howarth agreed with Yee's point about the general framework outlined in chapter 1 and wondered that if we do it for chapter 12, should we be thinking about it for the other chapters as well? Sitkin was concerned about the "grammatically linked" portion and noted that this sometimes got very complex in languages other than English. Fiegen recalled an earlier CC:DA discussion supporting efforts to make all rules available in one source and noted that LC's attempt to limit rule interpretations and propose modifications to the rules themselves is a step in that direction. Yee cautioned against trying to specify too closely what the title is and spoke in favor of relying on cataloger judgment. Howarth indicated that while we want to create a code that is as straightforward as possible, there is also the risk of going back to a legalistic approach. Byrd expressed sympathy for trying to cut down on the number of serial title changes but believed that this proposal was the wrong approach. While Mark Watson approved of the discussion based on principles, he expressed concern that CC:DA not kill the discussion before other groups had a chance to respond to it. Young raised the point that the rule interpretations had apparently been generated in response to a need within the Library of Congress. There might be a need for more detail about titles in general, and specifically relating to serials. Turitz indicated a desire to take the proposal to the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging meeting in the afternoon and asked if CC:DA could delay decision on it until further discussion had taken place. Steve Squires wondered if any consideration had been given to trying to handle this in the rules for title changes rather than in the transcription of title. Schottlaender reminded the group that the proposal would go forward to the JSC even if ALA rejected the proposal because it came from LC and not ALA. He further noted that it was perfectly appropriate for CC:DA to defer a decision until the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging had discussed it. Yee moved to reject the LC proposal. Byrd seconded it. The voting members split the vote and the Chair broke the tie, voting down the motion to reject the proposal. Howarth proposed deferring a decision on the proposal and referring it to appropriate bodies for comment. Sadowski seconded the proposal which was unanimously accepted by the voting members. ALA decided to defer comment on the proposal, awaiting input from the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging. Turitz will report back on that committee's decision.

3JSC/LC/26 was the next topic of discussion. Schottlaender explained that it called for deleting from the title proper transcription names or numbers that are likely to change. Turitz moved to defer a decision on the proposal until the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging had an opportunity to comment on it. Sadowski seconded it and the committee unanimously accepted the motion to defer a decision on the proposal.

Schottlaender explained that 3JSC/LC/27 extended the instruction in 12.1B3 to include words or phrases other than forms of a corporate body's name when they're consistently presented as part of a title. Turitz moved to defer a decision on the proposal until after the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging had an opportunity to discuss it. Fiegen seconded the motion and the committee voted 7 to 1 to accept the motion to defer decision on the proposal.

3JSC/LC/28 is a proposed revision to 12.7B7 that moves the provision about a general note from 12.7B7G to the introductory paragraph of 12.7B7 and then moves the concomitant example, as well, and changes the wording of 12.7B7G to remove the concept of a subsidiary title. Schottlaender explained that the word subsidiary might be taken to imply that the related title is in some way subordinate to the other one. Yee moved to accept the proposal. Turitz seconded it and the committee unanimously approved the motion to accept LC/28... Patton and Glazier initiated a discussion on what sometimes seemed to them to be a high-handed process of making decisions in some cases on proposals that had not been previously discussed within the constituencies that have liaison relationships to CC:DA. Yee noted that this particular proposal seemed relatively minor and Turitz concurred, noting that the members of CC:DA have enough of a serials background to understand the significance of this particular proposal. Swanekamp noted that it was unfortunate that the representative from the serials section was not in attendance and that no one had been sent as a replacement. There was a consensus from the committee that while they might have moved a little quickly in this particular case, they would not revise their decision because they felt they had adequate serials representation among the voting members.

3JSC/LC/29 addresses the lack of a list of initial articles to assist catalogers when they are instructed to delete initial articles. Schottlaender explained that LC/29 proposed the addition of an appendix of initial articles to AACR. Yee moved to accept the proposal. Watson seconded it. Yee noted that it seemed sensible. Sadowski wondered how inclusive the proposed list of initial articles was. Attig and Patton asked if it were the same list as that provided in other LC documentation. The consensus was that it was the same list as was provided in other documentation. The voting members unanimously approved the motion to accept the proposal.

On the subject of the Report of the IFLA Committee on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Schottlaender noted that the JSC had decided to submit a formal response.

Regarding the International Conference of Cataloguing Experts, Schottlaender noted that the JSC, after extensive discussion, had made a number of decisions. They have tentatively decided to call it the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR. They agreed that it would be in workshop format, with invited papers and opportunities for participant discussion. They are thinking in terms of 40 to 50 invited participants with additional observers. They decided to publish proceedings following the conference. They have discussed establishing a conference Web site and posting pre-prints of conference papers to the site. They discussed general thematic topics, including: content vs. carrier, relationships between bibliographic entities, the concept of work, main entry, corporate entry, the concept of publication, and the relationship between AACR and the form of catalog technology (including MARC). Each member of JSC was asked to flesh out one or more of the topics and to submit a list of possible participants, with a few words of justification for each. They have agreed to select a conference director to work with them in developing the conference. Schottlaender noted that they had agreed to having the chair of the JSC send a letter to national libraries outside of Britain, Australia, Canada and the U.S. alerting them to the fact that an AACR code review was being planned and requesting their input. Attig wondered how papers would be selected. Schottlaender speculated that the JSC would ask multiple speakers to address each topic so that they could choose among several papers for a topic. Those details will be worked out with the conference director. Watson wondered where the concept of edition would fall. Schottlaender thought that it would be addressed in the topic of relationships between bibliographic entities, or the concept of work, or the concept of publication. Sadowski wondered if participants would be the same as paper presenters. Schottlaender noted that the 40 to 50 participants would include the presenters but not all of the participants would be presenters.

The JSC also discussed electronic AACR. Schottlaender summarized the discussion by noting that AACR2e, as presently envisioned, will comprise the 1988 base text, the 93 amendments package, plus any other amendments that they have already approved or will approve prior to whatever cutoff date is provided. ALA intends to begin conversion of the SGML file to Folio the week of 22 July and expects it to take a couple of months, through the end of September. As the file is converted, it will be sent to an as-yet-unspecified review panel for evaluation. The JSC has requested that they not receive it for formal review until after that review panel has completed its work. The only review panel of which they know is the one to review the SGML markup. It isn't clear if the new review panel will be the same group of people. ALA Publishing intends to bring it to the marketplace in early 1997. There are third-party vendors, including CDS, who are eager to acquire it. The editing role of the JSC, in priority order, includes: verifying the accuracy of amendment integration, spot- checking Folio conversion, testing hyperlinks, evaluating screen interface, and evaluating alignment issues. It is likely that ALA will look to a broader audience for the final 2 points. Swanekamp indicated that it was not clear to her whether the SGML or Folio version would be offered to other vendors. Schottlaender believed that it would be the Folio version. Swanekamp felt that varied from what CC:DA had been told last winter. Kelley suggested that we have a report from ALA Publishing at the next meeting. Swanekamp indicated that she might be able to get information from ALA Publishing before the next meeting. Schottlaender referred to 3JSC/Chair/47 (23 May 1996) and noted that the publishers had settled on three product formats: a standalone product that the three Associations could sell to libraries with PC-based or proprietary systems, a licensed product that would be sold on a non-exclusive basis to vendors, and a licensed product that could be sold on a non-exclusive basis to organizations that would incorporate AACR2e into their systems. It doesn't specify the format of the file. Swanekamp noted that the SGML version appeared to offer more flexibility as far as development goes and expressed concern that developers might be constrained by the Folio software. She asked Schottlaender to seek clarification on this. Tillett believed that the licensed version to be offered to other vendors would be the SGML version.

Schottlaender reported that the timing for the next meeting of the JSC was related to when the international conference would take place. May 1997 seems a probable time for another meeting, with the intention of meeting again immediately after the conference.

540. Agenda item 19. Discussion of directions for CC:DA, including issues for future discussion (Group)

Following up on the discussion from Saturday's meeting, Swanekamp noted that the committee had agreed to include proposals as part of the document produced by the Task Force on Works Intended for Performance. Additionally, the work of the Task Force on Music Moving Image Materials, chaired by Daniel Kinney, has been completed. Swanekamp indicated that the documents from these groups should be sent to the JSC via the ALA representative to the that group. She indicated her plans to try to reconstruct a summary of the listserv discussion regarding editions and work, put it back up on the list for further comment, and then see how to put that forward with some other issues outlined by the JSC.

Swanekamp reminded the group that another issue that came up towards the end of Saturday's discussion was whether or not CC:DA should take a role in evaluating the Dublin core standard for metadata and whether all the elements that we needed to do our work were included in it. This would require another task force to pursue it and she wondered how the group felt about this. Sadowski noted that in his report he noted that there were a lot of other models to be examined and that whatever they came up with for the TEI header might have applicability to the Dublin core. Swanekamp asked if there were a recommendation to use the TEI group with perhaps some other members to look at the Dublin core. Young wanted to see the issue pursued, although he wasn't sure if it needed a separate group to look at it. Mangan wondered if the TEI group were looking just at text documents because the Dublin core was intended for any document-type object which is much broader than TEI. Kelley asked if there were some urgency to this issue. Noting that the TEI group was to report by January, May at the latest, Swanekamp believed that a year would be too long for the group to wait. Jizba noted that the computing community operates very quickly and indicated that CC:DA needed to begin looking at the Dublin core right away and then coordinate with Sadowski's committee so that there might be something to say about it by the fall. Sadowski noted that, given the sense of urgency, it made sense to form another group to look at the Dublin core and have it coordinate with the TEI group. Young suggested having a charge for the group to look at the degree to which the Dublin core paralleled or was relevant to AACR. The consensus of the group was to have two separate groups. Swanekamp indicated that she would put together a group with a narrow charge and instructions to finish by January. Kelley suggested having a person serving on both groups to facilitate coordination. Sherman Clarke asked if the charge would be to look only at the Dublin core or to look at other metadata models, as well. He noted that there are a couple of things in the art field, such as the 12 core categories issued by the Visual Resources Association, and the categories for the description of works of art issued by the Getty Art History Information Project. Swanekamp responded that she wanted us to look at the other models and make sure that they include elements that we would need in the cataloging world to process these materials in the future. Jizba noted that there was plenty of work involved in these issues and it made sense to distribute the work among a lot of people working on separate issues but coordinating their efforts as appropriate. Clarke suggested using the Dublin core as a pilot on how the cataloging community could address other models. Kelley noted that the Dublin core is more of a superstructure and other standards could be incorporated into it. They had expected to have it serve as a model for the TEI group. Attig confirmed that the Dublin core is a special set and needs to be looked at as a separate issue. Kelley noted that TEI is more established. Swanekamp asked that volunteers to serve on a task force to look at the Dublin core see her to sign up.

Attig addressed a joint meeting between CC:DA and MARBI and suggested the question of metadata as a possible topic for such a meeting. Glazier suggested that the relationship between leader 006 and bibliographic description might also be a topic for a joint discussion. Swanekamp wondered if midwinter or the next annual meeting would be preferable for a joint meeting with MARBI. The group consensus was to invite MARBI to attend one of the CC:DA meetings for an hour or two. Glazier felt that, given the timing of the international conference, it might be advisable to defer business as usual and have a joint meeting for one of the regular CC:DA meetings. Yee wanted what involvement CC:DA would have in preparing for the international conference and whether that would affect our scheduling of a joint meeting with MARBI. Swanekamp expressed her understanding of the conference that groups would not be solicited for papers. However, members of CC:DA groups might be invited to speak about some of the issues targeted for the conference. The papers would probably have been written before the next annual meeting. Gerhart had already discussed the possibility of a joint meeting with some MARBI members and they would prefer only an hour-long joint meeting.

Regarding the international conference, Sadowski wondered if members of CC:DA should submit drafts of papers to the JSC through Schottlaender. Tillett felt that it would be very premature to do that and did not recommend that course of action. She indicated that as soon as a conference director had been chosen it would be announced.

541. Agenda item 20. Reports from the floor, Announcement of next meeting, and Adjournment (Chair)

Howarth announced a three-year funded grant project at the University of Toronto that is looking at the content and display of bibliographic records in OPACs and Web catalogs. She brought copies of a progress report on the project and noted that there is also a Web site that people can access.

Swanekamp offered thanks to Frank Sadowski and Mark Watson for their service to CC:DA. Watson served as secretary prior to his terms on CC:DA. Watson thanked the committee for the opportunity to serve and he encouraged people to pursue involvement. Sadowski also expressed his thanks for the opportunity and enjoyment of the work. Swanekamp noted that Sherry Kelley would be filling one of the slots and Matthew Beacom would be filling the other. Swanekamp will continue as chair for the next year.

She will be requesting the same time slots for the midwinter meeting. The meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

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