CC:DA/M/542-562

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Joan Swanekamp, Chair
Matthew Beacom
Ann Fiegen
Lynne Howarth
Sherry Kelley
Mitch Turitz
Martha Yee
Brad Young

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):

Marlyn Hackett, ALCTS/AV
Jianrong Wang, ALCTS/CCS/CCM
Betsy Simpson, ALCTS/CMDS
Catherine Gerhart, ALCTS/LITA/RASD/MARBI
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Marguerite Horn, ALCTS/SS
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

Non ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Ann Sitkin, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Daniel Kinney, ARSC
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST
Steve Squires, MedLA
Matthew Wise, 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
   ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
   CCS = Cataloging and Classification Section
   JSC = Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR

The first meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Congress Hall A of the Renaissance Washington Hotel. 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.

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

[CC:DA/Roster/1997 February]

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

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

[CC:DA/A/35]

The agenda was unanimously adopted, after the Chair requested a change to the order of items number 8 and 9.

545. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meetings held at 1996 Annual Conference, New York, July 6 and 8 (Chair)

[CC:DA/M/520-541]

The Chair noted that she has received corrections from Dan Kinney, Barbara Tillett, and Martha Yee. Mitch Turitz clarified his request to delay approval of certain items at the last meeting until the serials cataloging community had been consulted, which he has now done, and reiterated his request that the community be alerted to relevant items prior to their discussion by CC:DA. On a motion by Martha Yee, seconded by Mitch Turitz, the minutes were unanimously adopted.

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

The Chair distributed documentation related to Monday's discussion by the Task Force on the Cataloging of Conference Proceedings. She further announced that Martha Yee's "Ruminations on Named Conferences" will also form part of that same discussion of agenda item number 12.

The Chair reported that the brochure produced by the Committee's Task Force on Outreach was sent on to CCS Executive Committee and the ALCTS Publications Committee that decided not to publish it. There was continued interest in getting the information about CC:DA out and the CCS Executive Committee decided to distribute it as a letter rather than as a brochure. All that is needed now is the postage to send it out. Ann Fiegen noted that this is probably the best solution for now. With more widespread Web access, it will be easier to communicate with the cataloging community.

Swanekamp stated that one of the issues of concern to CC:DA has been the publication of the electronic version of AACR2. A letter was sent to ALA Editions requesting information some time ago and CCS Executive Committee is also concerned about the lack of a substantive response from them. Charlie Simpson and Paul Weiss have drafted a letter to the Committee of Principals that is currently in the ALA/ALCTS approval process. The letter expresses concern with ALA Edition's intent to publish AACR2-e as an Infobase system rather than making it available in the SGML format to distributors as originally announced. David Epstein and Don Chatham will be appearing before the Committee Monday morning to discuss the issue. Brian Schottlaender noted that the JSC has also made similar concerns known and has requested clarification from ALA Editions and has not yet received a response. He noted that he considered it appropriate for CCS to communicate its concerns to the Committee of Principals.

Jennifer Younger's Task Force on Meta Access Issues is about to complete their work and John Byrum will be reporting on where they stand. The Task Force has recommended giving high priority to developing a workshop to bring meta access issues to ALCTS members. They're looking to put together a planning group for that and Younger would like to have a member from each of the ALCTS Sections. CCS discussed it and felt that CC:DA would be the best group to recommend a representative to serve on that planning group from CCS. Sherry Kelley, the chair of the TEI Task Force, agreed to have her group recommend a representative. Swanekamp sent around a sign up sheet for others who might be interested in serving on Younger's planning group.

During the last six months, Swanekamp noted that she had received two ANSI/NISO standards and had decided that neither one was in the scope of CC:DA and will be sending them back without comment. There is a brand new one, Z39.26, on micropublishing product information that might be within CC:DA's purview for comment based on the advance information she has received about it. She may be requesting volunteers to take a look at it once she has had time to look it over.

Swanekamp noted that she had just switched jobs and that had resulted in some documents not getting sent out when she would have liked. She made a revision in the charge to the TEI Task Force to include also looking at the Dublin metadata core standard and will be getting information about that out shortly. Matthew Beacom and Cecilia Sercan are new members to that group.

Swanekamp noted that the incoming chair of CCS, Dorothy McGarry, is looking to sponsor a joint CCS/CC:DA program at the 1998 Annual Conference focusing on the outcomes of the International Cataloging Conference to take place in the Fall. She wanted to know if there would be interest in such a program. After a straw vote, the Committee agreed that such a program would be worth pursuing. It was noted that various members of CC:DA are attending the international conference, either as guests or as participants.

547. Agenda item 6. Old Business

Laurel Jizba reported on the Guidelines for the Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia. The report she distributed was only a summary of the final report. The final version will be distributed following ALA. She noted that she had received 17 substantive comments and that, overall, the Guidelines were seen as well-organized. Slightly over half of the respondents requested an updated, revised version.

There are a number of concepts in the Guidelines that it was felt should be incorporated in Chapter 9 of AACR2. The first of these concerns rule 0.24 and the problem with physical item versus work. Regarding rule 9.0B1 (chief source of information), several respondents indicated that the Guidelines should be revised to prefer internal sources before external sources and noted that the ISBD(ER) has a better approach. Rule 9.C1: slightly over half the respondents preferred the larger class "computer file" for these resources. "Interactive multimedia" was seen by many more as a subclass of computer material. Some continued to endorse narrower GMDs. Regarding rule 9.2: the concept of edition as it pertains to the whole work needs to be re-examined. Rule 9.4F1: include latest date as applicable to the whole work. Rule 9.5: include multiple carriers treatment. Regarding rule 9.7: respondents wanted the Guidelines to address the issue of one carrier containing versions for two or more separate operating systems.

Relating to Chapter 21: respondents felt that new rules are needed based on condition of authorship for mixed responsibility in new works. More examples were wanted in the text of the Guidelines rather than in the appendices, including remote and Internet access examples. Finally, there was a desire for terms relating to interactive multimedia in the AACR2R glossary. There was a desire for these to be coordinated with CONSER, as well.

Major specific revisions or updates needed in the Guidelines included Section B, the definition. There was a desire for the definition to be simplified and for instructions for applying it to be included. Emphasizing the multimedia aspect was suggested. Regarding Section C, it was felt that the additional help section is dated and the suggestion was to delete it. Section G regarding the GMD: many would like to see the removal of the GMD "computer file" and preferred the term "electronic resource" as the ISBD (ER) does. Section H, statements of responsibility: respondents indicated that there was a need to clarify principal responsibility for specific parts and for the whole, here and in Appendix A. In the notes area, several called for combining the source of title and source of edition in one note, as applicable. Some would minimize the system requirements note details, making them shorter and less explicit. In Appendices B and C there was a desire for full cataloging examples with full MARC coding, showing remote access and Internet resources.

Regarding questions of alignment and how to proceed, Jizba noted that part of the question is whether we try to move forward together with ISBD(ER) or not. Problems with the Guidelines have to be resolved before inclusion into AACR2R. Technology has moved on since the Guidelines first appeared. Should CC:DA proceed to prepare a revised edition of the Guidelines? Should CC:DA proceed to entertain changes to AACR2R resulting from the Guidelines as they pertain to the current text of AACR2R or to the ISBD(ER) text or wait for some alignment?

Schottlaender suggested that they do nothing for a while and let the Guidelines stand as they are. Jizba noted that there is a need for some direction from CC:DA, at least about the GMD. There are implications about implementation by the networks. Glenn Patton noted that OCLC did authorize use of the Guidelines by OCLC members. If the intent is to let the Guidelines alone, we should cease use of the GMD to avoid confusion with something else later on. OCLC's hope would be that CC:DA might indicate that the cataloging community should stop using the experimental GMD. Kelley supported leaving the Guidelines alone, except where the experimental GMD was concerned. The simplest thing is to go back to the standard GMD until further notice. Patton noted that it is probably possible to do a machine flip of the experimental GMD of interactive multimedia in the OCLC database. Swanekamp noted that the AV cataloging community still likes the experimental GMD. Schottlaender indicated that a decision needs to be made about the GMD. Yee felt that we should leave things alone until ISBD(ER) is done and we can see all of the things that need to be converted. Frank Sadowksi from the audience wondered if the flip that Patton talked of were done, would it be possible to flip them back later to something else once the community decided what it wanted. Patton answered that there has been a change to the MARC format since publication of the Guidelines that could enable some of these records to be identified and flipped again to something else later on. Kelley suggested waiting. Patton would like some official backing for ceasing to follow the Guidelines, if that's the intention. Barbara Tillett noted that LC is following the Guidelines but is simply not cataloging materials in that area. After some further discussion, Swanekamp conducted a straw vote and the consensus of the Committee was that the Guidelines are in need of revision but it is premature to appoint a task force to make specific recommendations. Jizba noted that the ISBD(ER) is supposed to be out in the Spring of 1997 and suggested that we tell ALA Editions that the Guidelines are in need of revision, although it's too early to make specific recommendations. Swanekamp recommended that ALA reprint in small numbers, if they reprint at all.

Carol Hixson reported on the Task Force to Review IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (CC:DA/TF/Functional Requirements Review/3 and CC:DA/TF/Functional Requirements Review/4). The Task Force noted that the Study on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records potentially provides a new language of considerable power for describing and discussing the content, functionality and relationships involved in the use of bibliographic data. The model could enable us to speak about the relationships to people who may not understand cataloging concepts but who are familiar with various types of data modeling. It could also help to justify these requirements by placing them in the context of a formal model and might help us to fine-tune our own understanding of key concepts. However, the Task Force had difficulty with some of the terminology, with the definitions provided and the consistency with which they were employed. General comments about the Study were that the motivations for and the objectives of the study were not clearly explained, although the Task Force supported the attempt to develop a theoretical functional model. The Task Force members felt that the Study does not explain where it derived its understanding of user needs and noted that it would be helpful to add some statements that reviewed the background leading to the assumptions. It was also felt that it would be helpful to explain the reasons for defining the functional requirements: was it really more, better, faster, cheaper? To whom was the Study really directed -- to practicing catalogers, to national library directors? The Task Force felt that it would be a better document overall if the foundations behind it were more explicitly stated.

There was a belief that the Study was too oriented to monographic and print-based materials. Additionally, there were some difficulties with the entity-relationship model itself. Greater confusion arose when working with the definitions themselves. For instance, the definitions for expressions and manifestations that were given in section 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 didn't seem to match the definitions that were being applied later in the document. The Task Force felt that there was a lack of clarity and consistency in the terms used for work and expression and that it would be a much better document if examples were given. In sections 6 and 7, the Task Force felt that the rankings were so confused by a lack of clear definitions that they were unable to comment on them substantively. Hixson concluded by asking Barbara Tillett, a consultant to the IFLA Study Group, if there had been any follow-up with the Study Group. Tillett noted that Olivia Madison, the chair of the Study Group will be getting back to all commentators. She noted that the comments of the Task Force complimented many comments made by other reviewing groups. The report will be issued in revised form. It will be discussed at the IFLA Conference in Copenhagen and she believed that the minutes from that will be made available. Swanekamp wondered if the next ALA would be too premature to invite Madison to report. Tillett suggested that it would be better to wait until after August.

On another topic of old business, Mitch Turitz brought up the four items that CC:DA had postponed a decision on at the last ALA because he had wanted to take them to the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging. He wondered what the procedure was now for reintroducing them. Schottlaender noted that CC:DA needed to take them up again and suggested that the issues could be resolved electronically post conference. Swanekamp said that she would redistribute the documents for discussion with Turitz's comments. Yee noted that there is some controversy about the degree to which we should legislate how to determine a title. It was decided to follow up with a discussion of the issues in the meeting at the Annual Conference.

548. Agenda item 7. Report from the Task Force on Document Distribution (Fiegen)

[CC:DA/TF/Document Distribution/3]

Ann Fiegen pointed out that the report is a working paper and the Task Force is looking for feedback so they can finish. She reviewed the four charges outlined in the document. The Task Force looked over a lot of documentation. Regarding the ALCTS Policy and Procedure Manual, they felt that the paper documentation was fairly well covered and they were mostly looking at what can be done for electronic distribution. They reviewed the CC:DA procedures and have recommended that they add an additional paragraph that addresses electronic dissemination. They made quite a few changes to Section E under ACTION. It would now read: "Documentation of Committee reports and minutes shall be made available electronically on the CC:DA Web Site, by the CC:DA members so designated by the Chair. The CC:DA Web Site shall reside on the ALCTS/ALA Web. All documents posted electronically must conform to the ALA Web Site and Gopher submission guidelines for electronic discussion." The Task Force recommended including on the Web Site at a minimum the following: Action summary, Meeting minutes, Current roster, Current procedures, Pamphlet, Instructions on how to submit a rule proposal, Task Force charges, rosters, and reports, Draft reports requesting comments from the cataloging community. Many of these items are already on the site. Paper distribution seems to be working well. Anyone not on a committee may request to be put on a mailing list or listserv.

Point 2 of the report: JSC working papers are not intended for distribution beyond those bodies who provide input to JSC. In practice, this would mean that nothing beginning with the document numbering of JSC could be mounted on the Web site. Point 3: the phrasing recommended is that already being used, noting that the document is a draft and that it cannot be modified, distributed without permission, or retained permanently in electronic form. Currently on the CC:DA Web site there is something similar. The issue of maintenance will come up as wording and information changes. Points 4 and 5 can be taken together. ALCTS guidelines are more in the model of central maintenance of Web sites with transmission to ALCTS of the files. The Task Force is recommending that CC:DA follows ALA guidelines for Web-based documentation. Fiegen thanked Mark Watson for maintaining the CC:DA Web site at the University of Oregon. She then requested specific feedback.

Schottlaender requested clarification on Task Force thinking about the stated need for prior permission of the Chair before sharing documents from the site. What would be the implications of trying to discuss documents with pertinent communities? Fiegen noted that the ALCTS guidelines state that you do need prior permission. Swanekamp noted that the difference with it being on a public Web site is that people could be told that something was available and could be referred to it, rather than needing to redistribute the document. Gerhart wondered at the logistics and the amount of work for the Chair in granting permissions ahead of meetings. Fiegen noted that there's a standard boilerplate in every task force charge that states that copies of documents will go to the Chair of CC:DA. Swanekamp noted that posting things to Web sites will be a lot easier than posting to various listservs. Fiegen noted that another issue is that somebody will have to move it from a local file to ALCTS -- that should go through the Chair of CC:DA. Swanekamp noted that this might facilitate the work of liaisons who can simply refer people to the Web site rather than redistributing every document for discussion.

It was recommended that the wording be changed from "cataloging" community to "library" community. Fiegen concluded from the discussion that the Draft reports wording was acceptable. Brad Eden suggested including a deadline date for comments on things posted. Fiegen asked for assurance from Schottlaender that the Task Force assumption that JSC documents could not be posted. He concurred. Fiegen recommended that we go along with whatever phrase ALCTS comes up with and indicated that it was her understanding that this phrase must go on every document and not just on front page of the Web site. Should we continue to list the current phrase that is on the CC:DA Web page? Fiegen recommended that we do because it clarifies. The consensus of the Committee was to accept this recommendation.

Regarding points 4 and 5, plans would be made to move it over to the ALCTS Web site. Swanekamp noted that CCS has also put up its Web page that has a link back to the ALCTS site. Staff at the ALCTS office will be doing the maintenance work on a first-in, first-out basis. Fiegen noted that CC:DA needs to come up with a process to get things up and ready. Swanekamp will follow up with Karen Muller to see if they have a recommended process for moving the documents.

549. Agenda item 8. Report from the Task Force on Works Intended for Performance (Yee)

[CC:DA/TF/Works for Performance/3]

Swanekamp noted that the prior listserv discussion was not sufficient to resolve the issue. Yee had sent out a list of questions which CC:DA needs to answer.

Martha Yee referred to a list of discussion points that she sent out on the discussion list. What recommendations can CC:DA make to resolve the problem of works intended for performance? The Task Force did try to rough out a recommendation, which Yee read aloud, and wondered if CC:DA could adopt it. The Task Force members consider it crucial to make an added entry for the main entry of any pre-existing work that is an adaptation of that earlier work so that people could make the connection. One of the possibilities is for CC:DA to adopt that recommendation. What can CC:DA do to facilitate the discussion of this problem leading up to the international conference? Should the report be distributed more widely? Can it be distributed for comment as is with some corrections suggested by CC:DA members?

Swanekamp suggested taking it apart a bit more. She recognized the need for wider distribution of this document. It was not certain that everyone on the Committee had had a chance to see it and comment on it.

Matthew Wise noted that MLA supported the final report in theory but were hesitant to commit further than that because of the history of the whole issue. It came to CC:DA because MLA members couldn't decide among themselves. Swanekamp asked if there were general support for the document. Schottlaender wondered that if MLA, LC and others have already committed, what wider discussion would be envisioned? Yee noted that people have asked if they can distribute it more widely, such as in the MLA newsletter. CC:DA needs to decide how official to make it. Can it go on the Web site? Marlyn Hackett read from a document that she provided the Committee. She noted that the general reaction to the Task Force document was that its size was overwhelming. The document appears to be trying to codify the cataloging of types of materials which rely heavily on cataloger judgment. Approach 1 in the report seems unrealistic and difficult to judge and does not seem to differ from existing practice. Approach 2 was found acceptable. There was disagreement with Approach 3 concerning the question of the other functions besides recording that go into a work intended for performance. It would require listening to sound recordings or viewing films to make sound judgment which current rules do not require. With regard to Approach 5, identifying all functions that could be carried out, it was questioned how detailed this list would be and noted that it would be difficult to make an exhaustive list. This type of decision should be left to the cataloger. Approach 6 was not felt to be completely satisfactory for audiovisual catalogers.

Swanekamp noted that this response took the Committee back to Yee's questions and the group needed to deal with the question of mixed responsibility. Yee noted that new works seem to be easier for people to deal with than the pre-existing works. Laurel Jizba felt that the new works rule is needed for interactive multimedia. Brad Eden suggested putting in a new rule for works of mixed responsibility. Swanekamp felt that the Task Force document provided some better instructions for dealing with realizations than what we currently have in the rules. Wise indicated that it helped but there were still some gray areas relating to improvisation, but that it was moving in the right direction. Yee felt that she could have used some help with the examples to pick some that were more illustrative of the full range and requested more guidance on all the various ways that music could be adapted in the course of performance. When is it a new work and when isn't it? Swanekamp remembered a task force in earlier MLA days dealing with these issues and thought that there might be some documents in the MLA archives that would include some examples of the type that Yee was looking for.

Yee noted that her instructions from the JSC for the International Conference are that the more concrete the cataloging world can be about what it wants, the more likely the JSC will be to follow through. Schottlaender concurred, noting that JSC doesn't want vague assertions of the existence of problems. Swanekamp noted how difficult it is to proceed without specific suggestions. She suggested that posting the draft to the Web page and soliciting feedback from some outside communities might help us to focus on specific recommendations.. She suggested working with Yee on separating them into smaller segments to make it easier for people to respond and comment. Kelley felt that it would unnecessarily drag out the process to break it up into smaller parts. Yee noted that it would be better for her paper for the international conference if she were able to cite CC:DA specific recommendations for solutions.

Jizba wondered if Yee were addressing that this has some relationship to chapters 7 and 9 relating to statements of responsibility. Wise noted that one of the main concerns MLA expressed in its report was responsibility for work and that it crosses into interactive multimedia, too. Jizba felt the Task Force report attempted to put a rough patch which didn't solve the problem, although it did help to illuminate it more. There was further discussion relating to responsibility for works between Yee, Jizba, and Wise.

Schottlaender pointed out that there was a great amount of specific detail embodied in the 3 general recommendations and recommended making it as specific as possible. Swanekamp felt that CC:DA should express theoretical support, while pointing out practical difficulties. Yee cautioned about the danger of merely continuing to point out how difficult it is to deal with these materials. The Task Force tried to write a rule and is requesting specific feedback on the rule. Eden noted that we haven't had a discussion about re-issues with other material not included in the original. Yee noted that her final paper for the international conference was due April 11 and she would listen to whatever feedback she got but it would be, ultimately, her paper. She was hoping to have some specific CC:DA recommendations to incorporate in the paper. Schottlaender noted that it was incumbent upon her to take a stand. Ed Glazier noted a continuing lack of consensus, with the music community having one point of view and the AV community having another. John Attig from the audience noted that in order to take a consistent approach we'll have to give something up. Others noted that some communities would be happy and others would not be and some would probably follow the new rules and some would not. Swanekamp indicated that she would work with Yee to get these documents posted in order to solicit further comments. Yee concluded by indicating that she is particularly interested in the actual wording for the actual rules.

550. Agenda item 9. Report of the MARBI Representative (Gerhart)

[CC:DA/MARBI/1]
[CC:DA/MARBI/2]
[CC:DA/MARBI/3]
[CC:DA/MARBI/4]
[CC:DA/MARBI/5]

Gerhart noted that paper 97 was already discussed at the Annual Meeting and that what came out of it was Proposal 97.3 for redefining type code "m" to be just for computer files and not for digital manifestations of other things, such as maps. 97.3 looks at what that definition of type code "m" would look like. There are two levels: one that very narrowly defines computer files to leave out things like numeric data and one that is broader to include numeric data, while leaving out things such as digital maps, digital scores, all digital graphics. Only computer programs would be left in this type code "m". Gerhart wondered if anyone had had experience cataloging digital atlases yet and what problems people were having dealing with the leader 06 not necessarily matching up with the chapter being used for cataloging. Yee noted that it sounded very familiar and these were the kinds of problems that led us into format integration. She noted that content versus carrier and whether the descriptive rules were properly organized was on the agenda for the international conference. There are many cases where catalogers need to refer to more than one chapter just to come up with the physical description. She would like to see us more closely analyze what all the aspects of documents are, such as: the fact that any document can be serial or not, the fact that any document can be digitized or not, the fact that any document can be analytic. We could then try to organize descriptive rules in a way that would let catalogers describe things based on the nature of the document and be less rigid about dividing things up into chapters the way we do now. Gerhart wondered if Yee saw a problem with MARBI going ahead and trying to answer this particular question about type code "m" now. Is it ok for the format to be ahead of the cataloging rules and wait for the rules to catch up? Yee noted that we made some mistakes in designing the MARC format in that we didn't make the leader big enough to code for both content and carrier right at the top. In a pragmatic sense, as long as it's in the record somewhere, we should be able to use programming and system design to enable people to get what they want either in terms of content or in terms of carrier. Glazier thought that it's a content versus carrier issue and a descriptive issue before it's a MARC format issues, which he sees only as a carrier to contain the data. He recommended that MARBI wait until after the international conference since content versus carrier is being discussed there. He noted that perhaps more than digital data is involved and we are following a similar practice for microform, treating them as text rather than as microform. He felt that it was better to resolve descriptive issues first, then worry about the container (format) later. The MARC format still requires a cataloger to declare a primary material type. What is the primary material type for digitized text? Barbara Tillett agreed with Glazier that, since it is going to be debated at the international conference, it would be wise for MARBI to wait. Schottlaender concurred and noted that it was reminiscent of the multiple versions discussion. Swanekamp conducted a straw vote and found that the group overwhelmingly favored having MARBI wait until the rules have been dealt with.

Gerhart turned to discussion paper 9, explaining that it was somewhat of an update for what's happening with metadata and included some of the work that LC has been doing trying some of the mapping from core elements such as Dublin core into US MARC. She noted that there had been earlier discussion about a joint meeting between MARBI and CC:DA and the two issues that were brought up were metadata and looking at the leader 06. MARBI favored putting something together about metadata. She noted that there is also the CC:DA Task Force, chaired by Sherry Kelley, that was looking at the TEI header. MARBI thought that hearing a report from that Task Force and preparing a MARBI response could form the basis of a joint program. Swanekamp reminded the group that they had decided to use part of one of our summer meetings to have a focused discussion. She will need to revise the room arrangements to accommodate a larger meeting and perhaps reserve an hour to an hour and a half of the Monday meeting. Kelley was theoretically in favor of this approach but wanted some clarification of the metadata schemes her group was to look at. Gerhart indicated that MARBI would appoint someone to work with the Task Force. Schottlaender reminded the group that in light of the ALCTS' plan to give a high priority to developing a metadata workshop, CC:DA needed to make sure to coordinate efforts with Jennifer Younger as well.

551. Agenda Item 10. Report from the ALCTS Task Force to Define Bibliographic Access in the Electronic Environment (John Byrum)

Byrum noted that the Task Force has been operating from January 1996 and is concluding its work at this meeting of the ALA. Their job was to help ALCTS in identifying actions and strategies that will enable us to lead the way in defining access and bibliographic control mechanisms for information in electronic form. They have reached the point of gathering data and have had an open forum to assist the group. The issues of the highest priority divide into two groups: technological problems and human relations problems. The technological problems are four: 1) naming of objects; 2) describing of objects; 3) formatting issues; and 4) the handling and maintenance of records. For each of these areas they intend to state the problem and recommend action in terms of the ALA/ALCTS structure and what units and groups could participate in resolving the problem. Beyond those, there are three additional areas to address: 1) educating of staff; 2) greater emphasis to developing partnerships and contacts; and 3) developing mechanisms to maintain a better understanding of the electronic environment. Not only are the materials and the environment changing so rapidly but the means by which we approach them is changing equally rapidly, so that education of staff must become an ongoing aspect of our professional lives. The technology is forcing us to develop mapping mechanisms and other ways of dealing with contending bibliographic control mechanisms. The Task Force was identifying organizations in and out of ALA, such as the NDLF, IFLA, PCC, the utilities and others where an ongoing working relationship needs to be established on behalf of ALCTS. ALCTS must be prepared to respond more quickly to changes than in the past. These are the challenges and they will be working on the recommendations at this conference. As soon as they're presented to the Board, they will be put up on the Web site. The Web site is http://www.lib.virginia.edu/alcts/. Byrum noted that it will be up to the Board to solicit statements and to decide what else needs to be done to move forward.

552. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and reminded everyone that the meeting would continue on Monday, February 17, 1997 at the Renaissance Washington, Congress Hall A at 8:30 a.m.

The second meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 8:33 a.m. in the Renaissance Washington Congress Hall A. The Chair welcomed the audience and committee members and circulated the audience attendance sheet and the official roster. She also noted that she was passing around a sign-up sheet for those interested in helping to put together a session being organized by Dorothy McGarry entitled "What in the World: Cataloging on an International Scale".

554. Agenda item 12. Report from the Task Force on Cataloging Conference Proceedings (Mark Watson)

Mark Watson, a former member of CC:DA, chaired this Task Force which submitted its final report at the meeting. Watson began by thanking the task force members and noted that Beacher Wiggins' preconference paper initially got the discussion going. The charge of the Task Force was to look at the rules and make recommendations and to monitor the activities of other groups working in this area. He noted that a NISO committee has just been created and Jean Altschuler, a member of this task force, will be serving on it. The CONSER Task Force on the Cataloging of Conference Proceedings wrapped up its work and issued a final report for a revision to LCRI 12.0A. The substance of the report is in two rule revision proposals in an attempt to make explicit the connection between 21.1B1 and 24.13A. The problem is in determining what constitutes a named conference. The Task Force attempted to come up with a way to provide more guidance. The approach they took was to pick several issues or problems and move the rules in a direction of providing more guidance. They have proposed to expand the footnote to provide additional guidance on what constitutes a named conference.

Martha Yee noted that her written comments were in support of the Task Force recommendations but she hoped that we could go further. The Task Force is trying to broaden the degree to which we consider things named. She advocates going even further. She made a list of examples of things that would still be considered to be unnamed using the LCRI and some of the material that was written up from the preconference. She looked at some of the names and wondered why they were still considered to be unnamed. She noted a trend for people who are putting on conferences not to realize the need to use words such as "meeting" in order for us to consider it named. She wondered how far we wanted to get out of synch with what is going on in the community putting conferences together. She suggested that catalogers may be splitting hairs too much. Mitch Turitz agreed with most of what Yee said but disagreed with her comments where she wondered why the presence of a year was not considered sufficient to create a specific appellation. Turitz noted that a year is often the indication that something is a serial and serials and conference publications often overlap. He wouldn't want to see the rules drawn too black and white because it would interfere with cataloger's judgment. Wise commented that materials that appear to be proceedings are often actually nothing more than collections of papers. Judging from the proposed definition of a conference, there would be no way to weed such publications out from conference proceedings. He noted that putting something in the rules relating to place to help to identify conference publications could be problematic now in the electronic environment where there isn't necessarily a physical site where the conference is held.

Watson noted that Yee's comments point out the need to come up with a general principle. It is difficult to enumerate all situations in which a conference is determined to be named. The Task Force took a pragmatic approach in identifying several situations in which a conference should be determined to be named. The idea of trying to find a general principle is another approach. Wiggins' paper specifically zeroed in on brief forms of names and phrases that include acronyms and initialisms and talked about how that has become more prevalent and problematic for catalogers.

Yee noted that if we wanted to rely on cataloger's judgment, the most principled approach would be to leave the rules as they are. Swanekamp summarized that there were three ideas on the table: 1) the Task Force suggested expanding the footnote; 2) Yee suggested an approach that would look for two or more of six key elements; and 3) Yee's second idea to leave the rules as they are and rely on cataloger's judgment. Glazier supported Yee's idea for giving guidance to recognize a specific appellation as being indicative of a named conference. He looked at the six categories and thought that he wouldn't want to choose a named conference that had just any two of them. He saw them as being in two groups and would support having at least one element from the first three that Yee listed (topic, corporate body, term denoting meeting) and at least one from the second three (numbering, date, place). Lynne Howarth noted that two of the three proposals on the table were at opposite ends. The rule as it is has proved problematic to catalogers. On the other hand, how prescriptive should the rules be? Many catalogers are clamoring for more specific guidance but it's the user groups who are in a position to be naming the conferences. Howarth concluded by supporting the proposal to leave the rules alone. Glazier noted that he didn't disagree with Howarth but suggested that we have guidelines that are not necessarily incorporated into the rules but to help someone to know whether they are dealing with a named conference. Howarth proposed a compromise position to propose the guidelines to be incorporated into an LCRI for the benefit of those who are unsure. Yee noted that if we left the rules as they are, we could suggest more examples that would illustrate specific appellations. Marker spoke out in favor doing something since the concern is coming not just from catalogers but also users. The Science and Technology section of ACRL co-sponsored a preconference because of their concern that there wasn't adequate access. Adam Schiff pointed out that many special libraries did not have access to LCRI and he supported changes to the actual rules. Schottlaender felt that if there's a deficiency in the rules, the way to address the problem is to address it in the rules. Kelley felt that more guidance was needed in the rules. Laurel Jizba also supported making a change to the rules and specifically proposed changing the wording in the Task Force's recommendation from "are considered to be named" to "may be considered to be named." Howarth noted that she was not in favor of picking two out of a menu of six as a way of giving guidance to catalogers. Swanekamp conducted a straw vote which indicated CC:DA support for moving forward with a rule revision. Yee noted that even adding examples would constitute a rule revision. Swanekamp conducted another straw vote to see if there were a consensus supporting the Task Force's recommended revision to the footnote in the rules. The majority did not support the Task Force's wording. Another straw vote revealed strong CC:DA support for recharging the Task Force to study the issue further, taking Yee's issues into account.

Yee spoke out in support of the Task Force's second proposal for a revision to rule 21.1B2(d) to remove the requirement that a conference be "prominently named in the item being cataloged," noting that users of conference publications were the farthest away from title pages of the users of any other kind of publication. People came to know of conferences in a variety of ways that had nothing to do with a publication and Yee felt that we should bend over backwards to help people find the publications of the conferences they had attended or heard of. Horn, Schiff, Marker and Lundgren also spoke out in favor of this proposed change. A vote of the Committee favored the deletion of the "prominently named" phrase from the rules. Swanekamp sent around a sign-up sheet for anyone else who would like to serve on the continuing Task Force or if they were already on it to let either Swanekamp or Watson know if they no longer wanted to serve.

555. Agenda item 13. Report from ALA Editions (David Epstein)

David Epstein and Don Chatham provided a report on the status of an electronic version of AACR2, referred to as AACR2-e. Reading from a three-page report submitted to CC:DA, Epstein noted that the three co-publishers (ALA, LA, and CLA) have reached an agreement on the mode of distribution for AACR2-e and demonstrated a prototype at last summer's annual conference. In the fall of 1996, ALA invited three experienced cataloging managers (Pamela Brown, Jay Lambrecht, and Gary Strawn) to provide expert input on the development. The programmers needed more precise information on typical patterns used in searching the print version, where links would be needed, and how to translate the format from the printed page to the monitor screen. They refined the specifications and finalized the details. SGML files were always intended to be the archival version. Folio Views was selected by the three publishers as the best and most secure medium for distribution of AACR2-e. As of February 1997, Chapters 1-5 and 21-24 had been converted to Folio Views. The consultants had returned comments on the first batch and conversion is expected to be completed by late April. Since the members of the JSC stated last summer that they preferred to review the application in an essentially finished form, the publishers expect to send it to them around mid-May. AACR2-e cannot be released in any form before the JSC reviews it. Third-party licenses can be negotiated after JSC's approval. Before there could be any substantive negotiations with potential developers, the three co-publishers had to reach agreement on various licensing terms. Epstein explained the decision to use FOLIO Views, noting that it permits translation into the widest possible variety of software formats. He concluded by noting that he expects to report to CC:DA again at the next ALA meeting.

Schottlaender thanked them for the update and asked about the three kinds of licenses being developed. He noted that the last two types of licenses had a decidedly educational bent and wondered what their intentions were regarding the development of such licenses for non-educational organizations, such as the Rand Corporation. Epstein noted that there might well be different fees for not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. Chatham indicated that they hadn't anticipated the question and would have to be careful how they priced the product to provide for special consideration for non-profit organizations. The intent of the product is that the primary customers would be the cataloging community. Schiff pointed out that the customers would not just be catalogers within universities, but also catalogers in public institutions as well as private organizations. Epstein noted that they had made a deliberate effort to include public librarians in the design group. Attention is being paid both in design and in the packaging of the product to make it useful to various communities.. Marker questioned why she had received an order form from ALA Editions a couple of months ago to order the product if it was not yet available. Epstein explained that they are beginning to accept orders now and defended it as standard publishing industry practice to promote publications before they are actually released. Wise asked for clarification of the definition of for-profit. Was it institutions that would intend to resell the product? He wondered if pricing were being based on how much the consumer would be able to pay. Chatham explained that there would probably be two types of licenses, one for third-party developers and the second for essentially everyone else who would want the stand-alone product. He reminded the group that ALA Editions is a net revenue-generating unit in ALA and it is expected that revenues will exceed expenses. They will likely have to treat all licenses in the second group the same, whether the institution itself was for-profit or not-for-profit. They do not intend to offer different prices to different customers based on their ability to pay. Patton pointed out that this issue is of considerable interest to OCLC which is anxious to see potential licensing agreements. They are concerned that it seems to be limited to a single format in FOLIO Views. OCLC is much better positioned to know how they might make use of an SGML file. Epstein noted that ALA Editions is open to exploring possibilities. FOLIO Views is a fairly standard Windows application and C++ or Visual Basic programming can be used with it. Schottlaender pointed out that the JSC's expectations to have it reviewed by June was contingent upon having received it in October 1996, rather than May 1997. It was doubtful that the JSC would be able to review it in only one month. Epstein doubted that AACR2-e would be available until after ALA Annual. Marker stressed the need of the user community to have access to the product and that it was important to license the product to third-party developers quickly given that many individual ALA members cannot afford the price of an individual copy and would need to get it as part of another product.

The issue of whether the print or the electronic version would be official was raised and Epstein pointed out that, while the decision would have to be made by the JSC, there was no practical reason why both couldn't be official as long as they were maintained in synch. ALA Editions intends to keep the print version available and he expected that a new print version incorporating the amendments would be out later this year.

556. Agenda item 14. Report from the OCLC Representative (Patton)

[CC:DA/Patton/1]

Patton began by noting that OCLC is behind in putting out a revised version of the Internet Cataloging Manual. They hope to get it on the Web page soon. They do not intend to bring forward rule revision proposals from the project. They expect it be folded up in ISBD(ER).

He next reported on two international projects. The German REUSE project, the joint effort between a group of German academic libraries, OCLC and the Library of Congress, seems to be coming to an end. They will be meeting again in March and some kind of formal report is expected that will be electronically available. Barbara Tillett has been assisting with this project. They have also been working with the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg translating a portion of AACR2 and comparing it to the Russian rules. They have identified areas where they want to align more fully with ISBD(G) and thus AACR. There are also some areas where we might want to examine AACR2. The Russians look at examples far more prescriptively than the way they are intended to be used in AACR2. They are meeting again in mid March.

Referring to CC:DA/Patton/1, the appendix to AACR2 with a list of initial articles, he noted that, after the discussion of 3JSC/LC/39 at ALA annual, he went back and looked at lists of initial articles that OCLC uses. This then led them back to the primary sources, the lists of articles in the ALA filing rules (1980) and in Rule 13 of Library of Congress Filing Rules (1980). He compared these to the list out of the USMARC appendices. The Albanian indefinite article "nje" is a candidate for addition to the proposed AACR2 list. In addition, Maori articles may also need to be added, according to colleagues from New Zealand. There are two general concerns about the proposed appendix. The first is that the proposed text for the general rule could be read to mean that the list is a "closed" list. It would be preferable to make it clear that other initial articles in other languages could be included. The second concern is that the ALA and LC filing rules contain comments designed to remind the cataloger that context is often necessary to decide if an indefinite article is functioning as the number "one", rather than as an article. After further discussion of the matter with Barbara Tillett, he has submitted a revision of 3JSC/LC/39 that attempts to address these concerns.

On behalf of MLA, Wise expressed concern that it be clear that the list is not exhaustive. He also wanted to point out that there were other languages, such as ebonics, that might not be considered official languages but where certain words function as articles. Fiegen pointed out that the list should indicate that the initial articles are to be ignored for filing purposes when they are in the nominative case. Bob Ewald noted that the JSC doesn't say anything about the nominative case. Schottlaender stated that ALA is officially on record as supporting LC/39. Referring back to Wise's comment, Yee wondered if there were a list of official languages and if other languages were stable enough to be included. Turitz noted that added entries would provide access if it were unclear that certain words were functioning as articles. It was suggested that a clause about what to do in case of doubt be added. After some further discussion, CC:DA accepted the proposal by a vote of the Committee.

557. Agenda item 15. Report from the MARBI Representative (Gerhart)

Gerhart noted that MARBI had met the day before and had taken care of a number of archival issues. Stu Weibel reported on the work regarding metadata and indicated that they would be putting out a request for comment soon. Gerhart will forward that to CC:DA when it's available.

Regarding MARBI proposal 97-3, it was decided that they would do nothing at this meeting. The proposal wasn't ready to be passed and another proposal will be made this summer. She noted that the people who spoke in support of it were persuasive, particularly the CONSER representatives.

558. Agenda item 16. Report for the Task Force on the TEI (Kelley)

Kelley reviewed the Task Force's charge and membership and noted that the Task Force met the day before, with about twenty people attending. They were considering amending AACR2 and will be working with MARBI. They are investigating the Dublin core and its potential use for cataloging. A Web site for the Task Force has been set up by Edward Gaynor. They have been conducting a lot of business on an electronic discussion list. People interested in subscribing to the list should contact Lynne Howarth.

The Task Force began by examining TEI headers. Jackie Shieh had prepared a set of examples identifying what headers look like and what catalogers might do with them to incorporate them into bibliographic records. They have split the Task Force into two groups. The one is taking a look at the philosophical relationship of metadata packages to AACR2. How do they serve as a source for description? There is a well-developed metadata standard. The editors of the TEI have already worked with the cataloging community and are interested in continuing. They will also do mapping to AACR2. The University of Virginia has done some mapping to MARC. The second group had been looking at mapping for other metadata packages. What other metadata packages are there? John Attig was instrumental in getting them to focus on AACR2 mapping. Some of the metadata packages that are already well-developed are GLIS, CDWA, and MESL. Kelley noted that CC:DA may wish to amend the Task Force's charge to broaden it. They will proceed to do the work on the electronic list and via conference calls. She noted the possibility of needing a standing committee on metadata issues.

Yee commented that she assumed that looking at the TEI header was like looking at the new ANSI standard for title pages. Kelley pointed out that the TEI header is meant to be a title-page substitute. Editors often refer to it as an electronic title page. The question is whether catalogers can use it the same way that they have always used title pages. There has been a lot of discussion about simply mapping it to MARC and inserting it into the catalog. Mapping it to AACR2 is not the same as mapping it to MARC. Attig pointed out that metadata is a broadly-defined term. Cataloging is metadata. Creating data and putting it into a header in a form that will be compatible with AACR2 is the challenge. Kelley noted that the issue of embedding AACR data into the TEI header has been discussed. Yee commented that we're not expecting people who create documents to do authority work. Kelley concluded by noting that there is a distinction between the encoder and the creator of the data and the Task Force is investigating the intersection of those two roles.

559. Agenda item 17. Report from the LC Representative (Tillett)

Tillett began by welcoming everyone to Washington, D.C. and pointing out that the Library of Congress had arranged a series of special tours and demonstrations at LC during ALA Midwinter, including hosting the all-conference reception in the Great Hall and Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson building. The Jefferson Building will officially reopen to the public on May 1, 1997, marking the occasion with a permanent exhibition called the "Treasures of the Library of Congress". They are also planning the bicentennial celebration of the Library in the year 2000 using private funding.

Tillett reminded everyone that LC was demonstrating its newly redesigned home page at the LC booth in the Convention Center. The new page features four modes of access to their online catalog: 1) a specific word search using fill-in forms through the World Wide Web through a Z39.50 gateway, 2) a browse search using fill-in forms through Web searching to browse and then select from alphabetical indexes of the Library's catalog, 3) a command search to search words and browsing indexes of the Library's catalog and additional non-catalog files through telnet, and 4) a new experimental search system that supports relevancy ranked searching of catalog records and full-text materials, some of which are non-LC materials. They are seeking user feedback on this experimental system. The booth also includes a sales shop with free copies of the award-winning Civilization and the Library of Congress Information Bulletin that contains the Year in Review. There is also a poster from the Brady Civil War Collection of photographs. CDS staff will also be available to provide information about alternatives to the discontinued CD-MARC products for subjects, names, and bibliographic records.

Tillett reported that LC presented its budget request to Congress for fiscal year 1988. LC is asking for an increase of 7.1 percent over fiscal year 1997 to fund mandatory pay raises, continuing security initiatives, price level increases and automation projects. The Library currently has five automated record systems that were developed separately over the last 30 years and needs to acquire an integrated automated system. In addition, there are two manual systems dating back almost 200 years that need to be converted. Associate Librarian Winston Tabb chairs the Integrated Library System (ILS) Management Planning Group and Tillett leads the ILS Project Team. They have issued a Request for Comment and received comments from nine potential vendors in February 1997 which are helping them to refine their Request for Proposal. If all goes well, including funding, they could be testing and implementing a new system in 1999.

During April through November 1996, LC staff members experimented using core level cataloging for 1548 items previously identified for minimal-level cataloging. Their results showed that core level saves time over full level cataloging for over half of the materials cataloged. In addition to the required core elements, LC decided to add 504 fields, LC call numbers, 043 and 041 codes, plus Dewey numbers when appropriate. The Cataloging Directorate will add core to its repertoire of cataloging modes.

Arrearage reduction continues with LC having reduced its arrearage by 1.5 million items in fiscal year 1996, a cumulative 47.2 percent decrease since the initial inventory in September 1989. LC has been using RLIN's Diogenes Project for foreign-language, non-JACKPHY and Arabic/Persian books. They have been finding a hit rate of approximately one third.

LC is offering a sabbatical for two music catalogers during 1997 for a three to six-month stay to receive one-on-one training with a senior music cataloger working on sound recordings. Interested people should contact Sue Vita.

CPSO began meetings with a small group of experienced catalogers to develop guidelines for cataloging electronic resources. She requested people with draft guidelines for cataloging these materials in place to share them with her.

Tillett reported on some miscellaneous issues. Judy Kuhagen has completed the revision of 18 LCRIs on series and there are 14 rule revisions going forward to the JSC. CPSO also plans to complete work this year on a series training manual.

LC Classification Schedules have now all been converted to USMARC format and are being proofread. Schedules B-BJ, N, Q, and U-V have been published in new editions over the past six months. LC is working with several libraries on the draft of the new KZ schedule for international law.

The Subject Cataloging Manual is now out in its fifth edition. A new edition of the USMARC code for languages is now available with 29 new codes. CPSO is developing a Web page to serve as an official source for cataloging policy information. They are also looking into Web access to Cataloger's Desktop and ClassPlus.

The data elements (subfield v) in authority records for form/genre are expected to be implemented by their systems staff this year and we should begin seeing them in LC records.

Cooperative Cataloging reached a new record for NACO contributions with over 100,000 new authority records added in fiscal year 1996. The merger of the PCC with CONSER will be effective in October 1997.

Questions can be sent to CPSO at cpso@loc.gov.

560. Agenda item 18. Draft Proposals for Additions to the Glossary and GMD Change (Jizba)

[CC:DA/Glossary/1]
[CC:DA/GMD/1]

Jizba noted that the Glossary document has definitions approved by the JSC in May 1995. This has actually been on the table for some time. Wise noted that additional deletions are being proposed. Under section E.2 other deletions could be seen as friendly amendments. Swanekamp noted that the issue has been discussed extensively at previous meetings. CC:DA approved the document through a vote of the Committee.

Regarding the GMD, Jizba questioned if it would be appropriate to substitute "electronic resource" for "computer file". She looked at Chapter 9 and believes that it would not require a major conceptual revision but would be, instead, a patch. Public services people are reported to be generally supportive of the change. Howarth noted that ISBD(ER) approved by IFLA is scheduled for release in March and should be to the publisher by May. It should be available in December 1997 at the latest. Marker noted that the government documents people are not happy with the word "resource" but prefer it to "computer file". Patricia Vanderberg favored looking at Chapter 9 as a total package and believed the GMD is only one aspect. In particular, the issue of a reproduction needs to be looked at. Swanekamp summarized the discussion proposing that we begin discussion of what we anticipate will be the GMD and try to get user feedback before ISBD(ER) is published whereas Vanderberg was proposing a more encompassing view of the whole chapter. Tillett felt that we were jumping the gun somewhat but were probably on pretty safe ground. Schottlaender noted that it was just a proposal to make a proposal and the issue on the table was whether to go with a simple (revise the GMD) or complex (revise chapter 9) approach. Swanekamp indicated that she would send around a sign-up sheet for people interested in serving on a task force to look at the issue.

561. Agenda item 19. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Schottlaender)

Schottlaender reported on four general areas: pending documents, new documents, an update on the international conference, and AACR2-e.

On pending documents (CC:DA/M/520-541): Page 22, work in connection with music uniform titles. Phil Schreur has provided a clean document incorporating all the various revisions to 3JSC/ALA/11 which he will forward to JSC. Page 23: Laurel Jizba has forwarded proposed Glossary definitions to CC:DA. CCDA has approved them with friendly amendments which he will forward to JSC. Pages 24-25: CC:DA comment on 3JSC/LC/25-28 was deferred until Annual in San Francisco. Page 25: CC:DA approved 3JSC/LC/29, although, subsequently, it was learned that a couple of initial articles were missing from the list. Schottlaender forwarded a response to the JSC noting ALA's endorsement of the proposal, with the addition of the missing articles. Since then, however, additional omissions have been identified and OCLC has prepared a revised proposal on CC:DA's behalf. As soon as Glenn Patton has had an opportunity to finalize the proposal, he will forward it to JSC as 3JSC/LC/29/ALA response/2.

On new documents, he noted that he had received very little in the way of JSC documents until February 3. He decided to have the Chair distribute them all as a packet after the conference. There will be documents in two categories: international documents and documents requiring CC:DA comment. The international documents include:

1. 3JSC/M/208-229: minutes of June 1996 JSC Meeting in Washington, D.C.,
2. 3JSC/Mailing List/13: latest JSC mailing list,
3. 3JSC/Chair/50/rev./1: status report on planning for the international conference,
4. 3JSC/Chair/51: information regarding the IFLA Study on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, and
5. 3JSC/Chair/52: information regarding international conference announcements.

The documents requiring CC:DA comment include:

1. 3JSC Rule Revision/2/Consolidated/3: compilation of rule revisions agreed to but not yet published,
2. 3JSC/Rule Revision/2/Consolidated/3/CCC rep response: CCC response to (1),
3. 3JSC/Rule Revision/2/Consolidated/3/LC response: LC response to (1),
4. 15 LC proposals arising from the work of the CPSO/PCC Task Group on LC-Issued Descriptive Cataloging Documentation, including:
   • 3JSC/LC/30 in re: rule 1.6A1
   • 3JSC/LC/31 in re: rule 1.6A3
   • 3JSC/LC/32 in re: rule 1.6B1
   • 3JSC/LC/33 in re: rule 1.6C1
   • 3JSC/LC/34 in re: rule 1.6G1
   • 3JSC/LC/35 in re: rule 1.6G3
   • 3JSC/LC/36 in re: rule 1.6H1
   • 3JSC/LC/37 in re: rule 1.6J1
   • 3JSC/LC/38 in re: rule 5.0B2
   • 3JSC/LC/39 in re: rule 12.0B1
   • 3JSC/LC/40 in re: rule 12.1A1
   • 3JSC/LC/41 in re: rule 12.3C4
   • 3JSC/LC/42 in re: Appendix D
   • 3JSC/LC/43 in re: Appendix D
   • 3JSC/LC/44 in re: rule 1.1D1

   He noted that these were all relatively small proposals that could probably be dealt with electronically.

   On the International Conference, Schottlaender reported that nine topics had been identified and scoped out. The topics and presenters were:

   1. Principles of AACR2 (Michael Gorman/Pat Oddy)
   2. Bibliographic universe (Tom Delsey)
   3. AACR2 and catalogue production technology (Rahmat Fattahy)
   4. The work (Martha Yee)
   5. Bibliographic relationships (Sherry Velucci)
   6. Issues related to seriality (Jean Hirons/Crystal Graham)
   7. Main entry and corporate entry (Ronald Hagler)
   8. Content versus carrier (Lynne Howarth)
   9. Beyond MARC (Mark Ridley)

   Presenters have submitted presentation outlines, which JSC has reviewed. Approximately 40 additional participants have been identified and invited. A Web site has been created where conference documents, including attendance list and solicited papers will be mounted.

   Regarding AACR2-e, Schottlaender reported that the synchronicity of electronic and paper versions are a high priority for the JSC. This issue requires further discussion between JSC and ALA Editions. JSC had not recommended that ALA reissue AACR2R with the revisions incorporated, but, rather, that they issue the second set of rule revisions as a separate publication. He reported that the matter was still under discussion.

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

   Swanekamp noted that she would be sending along various documents. She was considering posting one or two issues as a time to give people an opportunity to respond more appropriately.

   She also indicated that she would be moving forward to make the Monday meeting at the Annual Conference a joint MARBI/CC:DA meeting, as discussed. She reported her new email address as joan.swanekamp@yale.edu.

   The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 p.m.
   
   

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

   
   
   www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/min9702.html