CC:DA/M/563-581

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Joan Swanekamp, Chair
Matthew Beacom
Ann Fiegen
Lynne Howarth
Sherry Kelley
Mitch Turitz
Martha Yee
Brad Young
Carol Hixson, Intern
John A. Richardson, 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):

Marlyn Hackett, ALCTS/AV
Wen-ling Liu, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM
Betsy Simpson, ALCTS/CMDS
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Marguerite Horn, ALCTS/SS
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
Larry Heiman, ALA/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Ann Sitkin, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Daniel Kinney, ARSC
Gertrude Koh, CLA (for Tina-Karen Forman)
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST
Valerie S. Gordon, 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.

The first meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 2:10 p.m. in the Moscone Conference Center, room 135. The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming Committee members and audience observers. The roster was circulated to the members, representatives and liaisons for corrections. An attendance sheet was passed to the audience. Committee procedures were reviewed for the benefit of new members and guests.

The normally scheduled time for the meeting, 2:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. was shortened to accommodate a meeting scheduled during the no conflict time. Monday’s meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. in room 134 of the Moscone Conference Center. In the middle of the meeting, a joint CC:DA and MARBI discussion will be held. Topics relating to Metadata will be discussed. Questions were distributed on e-mail in preparation for this discussion. Copies of the questions will be available on Monday morning.

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

[CC:DA/Roster/1997 June/rev.]

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

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

[CC:DA/A/36rev.2]

The agenda was approved by the Committee.

566. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meetings held at 1997 Midwinter (Chair)

[CC:DA/M/542-562]

On a motion (Kelley/Howarth), the minutes were approved as corrected.

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

The brochure, Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards: the Role of the American Library Association Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access, is available at the ALCTS booth. The Chair thanked the Committee on Outreach which worked on the brochure.

The Task Force on Conference Proceedings, re-appointed at the last meeting, has Martha Yee as its Chair, with members Mitch Turitz, Mark Watson, David Van Hoy and Jean Altschuler.

The ALCTS Digital Resources Committee has applied to have a place at this table. The Chair distributed a document [DR96-MID/2] which outlines the charge of the Committee. It branched off the ALCTS Audio Visual Committee and is a parallel committee. It has been charged to continue to the annual conference in 2000. The Chair reviewed the requirements to be included in CC:DA proceedings with Karen Muller. The Digital Resources Committee does meet the requirements. On a motion (Kelley/Beacom) to accept the application of the Committee, CC:DA members voted in favor of the motion.

The Chair also distributed additional documents which were missing from the mailing sent out around June 15. Brian Schottlaender also sent out a large mailing about a month ago. The Chair offered to send copies to any one who was missing any of these documents after the meetings.

The ALCTS/CCS/Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials is planning a program for the 1998 Conference. They have asked CC:DA to co-sponsor the program in name only. The topic is “Adding Vernacular Names to the LC Name Authority Files.” B. Schottlaender clarified that “in name only” meant no financial support. C. Gerhart reported that MARBI will co-sponsor it. On a motion (Yee/Howarth) the committee agreed to support the program “in name only.”

The Guidelines for the Standardized Cataloging of Children’s Materials were distributed during Spring 1997. Suggestions made in reference to this document were sent to the Committee on the Cataloging of Children’s Materials. They have been incorporated into the draft of the document.

568. Agenda item 6. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Schottlaender)

Schottlaender explained that some of the documents being discussed at this meeting were actually presented at the 1997 Midwinter program. Discussion was deferred until this meeting. These documents are 3JSC/LC/25 – 3JSC/LC/29 to which have been added the following documents: 3JSC/LC/25/CCC response; 3JSC/LC/26/CCC response; 3JSC/LC/27/BL response; 3JSC/LC/27/CCC response; 3JSC/LC/28/BL response; 3JSC/LC/28/CCC response; 3JSC/LC/29/BL response; 3JSC/LC/29/LC response.

Proposal LC/25 – the revision being proposed by the Library of Congress, rules relating to the omission of titles from the title proper, indicates that titles are not to be recorded in the title statement but rather to be given in a note. Therefore, revision 12.1B.1 includes a reference to 12.1B.7 in such situations and as a follow on proposal LC/26 is a revision of 12.1B.7 to include such situations. The discussion at Midwinter was deferred to allow the Committee on Serials Cataloging to study the matter.

Mitch Turitz brought it to the Committee and to other experts. The response was a mediocre “That sounds OK.” The proposal takes the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI) and incorporates them into the rules themselves. Since these are already US practice, there seems to be no objection from the US users. Marguerite Horn agreed with Mitch. Martha Yee reiterated her position from Midwinter that it sets a dangerous precedent to write down more and more rules on how to determine what the title is. Her concern is that the size of AACR2 could become doubled. Martha pointed out that proposal LC/25 also applied to other types of materials, notably a video. Therefore the same elaboration should be written into other chapters of AACR2 probably Chapter 1 as her fall back position.

Turitz agreed that for serials you cannot possibly document every situation because there are so many variations in titles for serials. It is usually the cataloger’s judgment, which you cannot completely document.

Barbara Tillett reported that the impetus for all these changes came from the Program for Cooperative Cataloging’s review of LCRI.

Rhonda Marker pointed out that this situation occurs so frequently in serials cataloging and that it would be a good idea to give guidance where it is needed. Lynne Howarth agreed that it would be more useful to provide guidance for catalogers than to see this as a dangerous precedent.

Brad Young gave the example of “Ann Margaret Live from Las Vegas“ as case where the same situation occurs with sound recordings.

Adam Schiff felt it was a good proposal. He felt that the wording on the CCC (Canadian Committee on Cataloging) was a better. He encouraged the Committee to look at other chapters of AACR2 – for computer files, for cataloged internet resources where you get phrases like that as well.

Swanekamp questioned if the Committee had already agreed to these proposals. Schottlaender stated that LC/28 and LC/29 as amended and subsequently amended were the only ones that were agreed to.

Yee made a final comment that it might be more appropriate to pass this as an amendment to Chapter 1.

Horn felt that it was appropriate to serials, since this would help to lessen unnecessary title changes.

Ann Fiegen agreed with Yee in that there may be other areas where this would apply. She felt it might be a better place to discuss broader issues at the International Conference.

Turitz stated that LC/25 would not affect any other chapters. In order to apply the same rules, another proposal or proposals would be needed. He though that the Committee might request LC to make a proposal for chapter 1. Jizba offered another option to create a CC:DA Task Force.

Ed Glazier stated that the practice is already in LCRI so that there is no problem with serials to continue the practice. It might be more appropriate to see if it applies to other chapters first. It would be better to make a proposal which covers all chapters at once.

Elizabeth Mangan felt it was fine to go ahead with the revision for serials.

Jizba felt that this was an attempt to move a successful rule interpretation into the rules themselves. She stated that there are plenty of instances of inconsistency in the rules.

Yee offered the interpretation that by inserting the revision only into chapter 12 that this would imply that the situation applied only to serials.

Sherry Kelley pointed out that this is a problem with seriality and is common to all formats. This would direct people to chapter 12 and provide guidance.

Upon a motion (Turitz/Kelley) to accept proposal 3JSC/LC/25 as written, Fiegen proposed a friendly amendment to accept the CCC revision. A straw poll was taken. The CCC revision was favored. The Committee voted to accept the motion, with one member opposed.

Proposal LC/26 – addresses situation in 12.1B.7 where the title includes a date, numbering, or a name that varies from issue to issue. The proposal is to omit the details and use a mark of omission (…).

Jizba found it to be extremely useful.

Yee asked if it applied to loose-leaf materials. Turitz felt that loose-leafs are monographs that have a type of serial nature attributed to them. He felt it doesn’t apply to them. Yee again pointed out that the situation could be applied to more than just serials. Horn pointed out that the whole issue of seriality could be applied to a variety of materials and that we have tried to solve the problem through the MARC format.

Jizba pointed out that everyone is already doing just what has been proposed and that if it is standard practice it ought to be in the rules.

Marker stated that she believed that catalogers create new records when the title page changes on a loose-leaf publication.

Upon a motion (Turitz/Fiegen) to accept the CCC revision, the Committee voted to accept, with one opposed.

Proposal LC/27 – deals with 12.1B3. The British Library responded negatively. The CCC has endorsed the proposal with a friendly amendment and recommends the addition of an example. Turitz provided two examples from the CONSER Cataloging Manual. The first is from module 6, p. 21. The title is Association of Research Libraries Newsletter. The example has the title as Newsletter but from the surrogate, it appears as if the Association is part of the title. The second example is from module 6, p. 11. The title is Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center Update. It is not Illinois Update which appears in relatively larger type. The decision was to catalog the entire title as the title.

Schiff found it hard to see from the example how the rule would be applied. It is necessary to look in other places in the serial to see if these decisions were made on the basis of the entire document. Jizba felt that the purpose of this proposal was to reduce the number of title changes, by giving the cataloger more flexibility. Horn felt it was appropriate to review the entire document so the example would have to clarify how the document looked and what it contained.

Upon a motion (Howarth/Turitz) the Committee approved LC/27/CCC response with the inclusion of appropriate examples with one vote opposed. Schottlaender agreed to include appropriate examples with his response to the JSC.

Proposal LC/28 – deals with rule 12.7B7 – making a note for a serial which is a subsidiary to another serial. Schottlaender reminded the Committee that they had endorsed the proposal. The British library response is generally, though not totally, supportive. It agrees that the concept of subsidiary edition should be removed. It agrees with LC’s proposal of subrule g. The CCC response is also supportive. It also agrees with the British Library’s disagreement to make a general note.

Jizba felt that the CCC response decreases the number of lookups a cataloger has to make and therefore it speeds up the cataloging process. She feels it is far better to repeat the instruction to make a general note at 12.7B7a and 12.7B7g.

Horn requested time to meet with the Serials Cataloging Committee before making a recommendation.

Proposal LC/29 – proposal to add an appendix of initial articles. ALA endorsed the proposal, but pointed out that there were omissions to the list. Glenn Patton compiled a more complete list, CCDA/Patton/revised. Schottlaender suggested that ALA should forward CC:DA/Patton1rev as ALA response to LC/29.

Yee questioned if the proposal could contain a recommendation that the list not be considered as exhaustive, allowing the cataloger some judgment. Schottlaender pointed out that the statement at the bottom allowed for the arising of another language which had not previously been included in the list.

Upon a motion (Yee/Turitz) to forward Glenn Patton’s list as enumerated by Brian as an amendment to our support of the original LC proposal, Schottlaender clarified his suggestion that CC:DA/Patton1rev. be forwarded as ALA response to LC/29. The motion was passed unanimously.

Proposal LC/30 – Horn requested to consult with the Serials cataloging committee, so the discussion was postponed to Monday.

3JSC/Rule Revision 2/Consolidated 3 and 4 – Consolidated 3 is a compilation of all the rule revisions agreed to by JSC and not yet published. Responses included 3JSC/Rule Revision2/Consolidated 3/CCC Rep. Response. The JSC endorsed the Consolidated 3 as amended by the CCC Rep. Response and ALA. However, a Consolidated 4 was issued, including in it the recommendations found in the Consolidated 3/CCC Rep. Response. Following that, Jizba, in CCDA/Jizba1, has suggested a few revisions to Consolidated 4.

On page 5 of Consolidated 4, there are proposed revisions to 9.0B1, second paragraph. Jizba and Fox propose that the parenthetical, e.g. main menus, etc. be expanded. Glazier suggested that this is a rule revision proposal that has already been approved. Would this create a procedural problem?

Jizba inquired about the timing of the revision. She considers her proposal to be a friendly amendment. Schottlaender stated that it is too late for these to be a friendly amendment. Ralph Manning clarified that any change to Consolidated 4 has to be considered as a rule change and therefore must go through the normal rule revision proposal process.

Swanekamp suggested that these must be proposed as new rule revisions. Jizba agreed to submit them as such.

Eden stated that there was a need to have harmonization between AACR2 and the draft ISBD/ER and that these documents need to be reviewed and brought together in a rule revision proposal.

Therefore, Schottlaender wanted clarification as to how the Committee would like him to proceed. He is willing to convey acceptance of Consolidated 4 on ALA’s behalf.

Upon a motion (Kelley/Yee) to accept 3JSC/Rule Revision/Consolidated4, the Committee voted to accept the motion unanimously.

Yee questioned if a Task Force was needed to look at harmonization issues.

Upon a motion(Yee/Kelley) that CCDA form a Task Force to consider harmonization issues that arise out of the prospective publication of ISBD/ER, the Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. A sign-up sheet was passed around to volunteers to sign.

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

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

Two e-mail versions containing the full document were distributed. The Task Force reported that they are updating the CC:DA web site to conform with the ALA guidelines. The site will be moving from the University of Oregon to the ALA web site. The Task force thanked Mark Watson for his work on the web site. The Task Force would like a new contact name at ALCTS in order to maintain the web site. The Task Force found that written documentation was sufficient. However, the Task Force proposed a revision to CC:DA procedures, Section 9 Documentation to add a new section (E): Only those documents originating with CC:DA will be eligible for mounting on the CC:DA web site. The Committee questioned if an explicit statement, "All documentation originating with the Joint Steering Committee is to be excluded from electronic posting to the web site" should be included?

Eden questioned the dating of materials on the web site. Fiegen clarified that all documents must first be cleared by the Chairperson of CC:DA and that a boilerplate statement regarding the draft status of a document be added. As far as dates go, the Chair would date and number any document. Swanekamp stated that discussion about any document would be handled through the listserv.

Watson described the documents already on the web site. There are some with overlapping purposes - Roster, Procedures, are useful for handy reference. The other documents, the action summary and the minutes are there to reach out to the cataloging community and give them insight into the Committee’s thinking. Other documents are there to elicit comments from the cataloging community. In those cases, there are explicit statements as to who should get the comments, by what date, etc. Marker questioned the mechanism for suggestions about what should be on the web site. The ALCTS guidelines state that the Chairperson of CC:DA would have to approve the inclusion of any document on the web site.

Upon a motion (Turitz/Beacom) to accept the wording that the Task Force has recommended as an addition to the CC:DA procedures, the Committee unanimously voted in favor of the motion.

Swanekamp asked for a volunteer serve as a liaison from CC:DA to ALCTS to maintain the web site. She suggested that anyone who is interested in doing so should contact her or Dan Kinney. She thanked the Task Force and Mark Watson for all their efforts.

570. Agenda item 8. Report from ALA Editions (Epstein)

David Epstein reported on the electronic AACR2. The conversion of the infobase is complete. The prototype is in the hands of the catalogers who are testing and reviewing it. The problem of representing non-Roman fonts and accented Roman fonts could not be accomplished by the use of bitmap graphics. There will be a custom set of fonts used. The Joint Steering Committee should receive a copy by late July. The CD-ROM product will be finished by November 1997. As for the licensing for third-party developers, the agreements are ready to be released. Other organizations which expressed interest in sub-licensing were also contacted. The code itself cannot be released until JSC has approved.

As far as the reprinting of AACR2R goes, there will be an amendment package in 1998. The publishers have agreed to issue the latest (including the JSC consolidated amendment) in print format. The amendments will be integrated, using the file used to create the electronic version. Swanekamp questioned if a loose-leaf edition of the latest amendments would be available. Jizba suggested that the amendment packet should be printed on a single sheet to help people who cut and paste into the bound version. Epstein stated that if a loose-leaf version were to be printed, it would be shrink wrapped and not shipped with a binder. Schiff questioned about the possibility of a self-adhesive copy. Epstein said that the price was extremely expensive. As a final comment, Epstein stated that the latest set of revisions would be included in the electronic version.

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

Five issues were reported: Proposal 97-3 is a follow-up of the proposal which deals with electronic maps. This proposal makes the 007 mandatory for computer files. It offers a new definition of computer files for materials which fall more properly into other formats. It redefines the “type” code for computer files to limit them to program files and other small categories. If an item does not fall into the other categories, it allows you to set the “type” as “m”. Gerhart pointed out that the issue of “content” vs. “carrier” has been handled inconsistently by defining electronic maps as maps and that 97-3 will try to take a consistent approach to the issue. She added that “type” code and GMD are not necessarily related.

Discussion Paper 100 deals with enhancements to the authorities format as we become more international in authorities work. More discussion is needed: enhancements deal with transliteration, language of the heading, type of script, and the 880 in the authority record, the type of transliteration scheme, the need for a place for the country or nationality of an author. Young asked if this was part of the plan to exchange cataloging internationally. Gerhart responded in the affirmative. Another issue is the problem of multiple languages when you are dealing with uniform titles. Yee suggested that this was a way to search cataloging by language, or to use the English form of the heading in an OPAC display. Gerhart added that this might be a way to handle subject headings in languages other than English.

Discussion Paper 103 looks to expand use of the 028 to non-musical materials.

Proposal 97-11 which looks at expanding the 043 to allow geographic sub-entities to be coded. Proposal 97-9 suggests placing the URN in field 856.

Discussion Paper 102 looks at the problem of non-filing characters in the MARC format and the different ways we currently handle their treatment. Swanekamp suggested that MARBI should be aware that CC:DA went through AACR2 and did massive rule revisions relative to initial articles. Schottlaender asked if MARBI could put more descriptive subject information in their e-mails, rather than simply stating DP or Prop. …

572. Agenda Item 13. Report from the OCLC Representative (Patton)

Patton reported that a new edition of the internet cataloging guidelines will be available in July in print and electronic format. He will notify CC:DA when the electronic form is available. [Electronic version now available at: http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.htm] The REUSE Project met for a final meeting in Mid-March. A report is in final stages. At the meeting, more candidates for revision of the German rules were identified. Multilevel descriptions for multipart works is an area which needs attention. The final report will be published electronically. The Russian project is moving very slowly. However, one of the staff members of the National Library of Russia spent a week at LC comparing AACR2 and Russian rules.

573. Agenda item 6. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Schottlaender) (continued)

Schottlaender reported on the progress of the International Conference, to be held October 23-25, 1997. To date, draft copies of the papers have been received from 8 of the 9 authors, or author pairs. Review and comments to Ralph Manning have been done for 6 programs. 40 confirmed participants/attendees are registered. Once the revision process has been completed, the papers will be posted on the web site. Swanekamp asked if there were plans to post the discussions of the Conference on the web site. Manning reported that there were plans to publish proceedings and discussion. Swanekamp asked that there be a forum for discussion before the 1998 Midwinter Conference.

Meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 30, 1997 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in Room 134 of the Moscone Conference Center.

[Secretary’s Note: Although this is labeled Agenda Item 9, it should be Item 10, since item 9 was listed as the report of the MARBI Representative, and it was addressed at the meeting held Saturday June 28, 1997. For the purposes of these minutes, the numbering will appear as found in the Agenda, CC:DA/A/36rev2, dated June 25, 1997. Apologies for any confusion.]

The Chair welcomed the committee members and guests from MARBI. The audience was asked to sign in.

575. Agenda item 10. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Schottlaender) (continued from June 28th meeting, agenda item 6)

On Saturday, proposal JSC/LC/28 was deferred. M. Horn had agreed to bring the proposal to the Serials Cataloging Committee. She reported that they prefer the CCC response.

Upon a motion (Yee/Howarth) the Committee voted to accept the proposal as amended by the CCC.

Proposal LC/30 was discussed. M. Horn reported that the Serials Section would like one month’s additional time to discuss this proposal, as well as LC/31, 32, 33 and 34. The Chair wanted to continue the discussion but encouraged the Serials Section to respond to the proposals through the listserv. M. Horn agreed. S. Kelley asked for clarification if there is an option for Text A or Text B. B. Schottlaender clarified the CCC response that if a revision were to be approved, their choice would be for Text B. M. Turitz agrees that Text B is fine. L. Howarth felt that Text B. is more in line with ISBD structure of AACR and therefore she prefers Text B.

The Chair asked for discussion of whether this proposal was needed. M. Turitz felt it was not just a serials issue as it applies to all formats. M. Yee does not see a difference between the two options, in effect they would have the same result. The Chair asked M. Horn to have the Serials Section look at whether this was really needed as well as which option were the most acceptable. M. Turitz felt that the proposal was worthwhile to bring handling of series in line with the way MARC field 362 is defined. A. Schiff pointed out that in the special libraries community, they do not have access to LCRI and therefore a specific rule would be beneficial. M. Turitz agreed with Adam’s point. L. Howarth restated she would prefer Text B.

Proposal LC/31 – B. Schottlaender pointed out that the CCC agrees that a situation is involved but does not agree that the proposal on how to address it. They feel that there is no provision in AACR for scope note for a particular area of a bibliographic record. They prefer that it be handled in a glossary definition. M. Yee sees no problem with the definition of scope and does not care whether is appears in a rule or in the glossary. B. Schottlaender asked if it were to be handled as a glossary definition, would it be acceptable to the Committee? E. Glazier felt it looks like it is a rule from the way it is proposed, but he has a problem with its title. A. Schiff agrees with E. Glazier and from page 2 of the proposal, he felt it wouldn’t fit into the glossary. The Chair felt the sense of the Committee was that it was useful, but that it should not be called “Scope.” B. Schottlaender asked for an alternative. A. Schiff suggested multipart items in more than one series. A. Fiegen felt that there were too many things worked into one rule. B. Eden suggested that seriality and multilevel descriptions are now being done differently and that should be examined at the October Conference. L. Jizba felt that scope might be the right word to describe the situation. B. Schottlaender pointed out that scope has been used differently already in AACR. L. Howarth suggested that the instructional part of the document should be placed in the rules. L. Jizba preferred to see it stay as proposed. B. Schottlaender asked if the inclination of the Committee is to go with the rule as proposed, as opposed to its definition, but to alter the proposed title of 1.6.A.3. M. Yee preferred to take more time and examine the issue. L. Howarth agreed that the contentious issue the “what’s in a name” and to call it scope of a series is the problem.

Proposal LC/32 – the CCC response supports the proposition. The Chair asked if there was a preference for the CCC revision. S. Kelley and J. Swanekamp support the CCC proposal. M. Beacom agrees with the CCC response. B. Schottlaender questioned the CCC response dealing with “a numbering.” G. Patton suggested that this is usually called “enumeration” in other circumstances. M. Turitz pointed out that enumeration does not include chronology, but that numbering could include it. M. Yee felt that we could have a situation where something was “Publication A of the Social Science Education Consortium” and therefore we should not limit it just to numbers. M. Yee asked if we define numbering as including alphabetic designation? B. Schottlaender pointed out that the way it is written is usually alphabetic and numeric designation. LC/42 proposes the addition of the word “numbering” to the glossary. The Chair asked to move to the discussion of the other proposals and if there was general support for the proposal, using the LC language as modified by the CCC parenthetical. A. Schiff suggested it might be good to have an example which isn’t a number.

Proposal LC/33 – the CCC response is not supportive. L. Howarth concurs with the CCC response. Her concern is that this is a dangerous precedent – imbedding one rule into another, rather than allowing them to move throughout the code and infer from the entire code. M. Yee concurs with L. Howarth. J. Swanekamp asked for a show of hands in support of the LC proposal. A. Schiff proposed the addition of more examples. M. Turitz asked if this was an example of where LCRI would be used to address some small things without revising the entire rule? He also felt this would not occur too frequently. B. Tillett responded that the thought was that it should be a rule revision, rather than address it as a rule interpretation. B. Young felt that this proposal was used to clarify the rule, not change it. L. Howarth agreed that examples could be used for clarification, rather than use the entire text. B. Young felt that the clarification of the process seems rather obvious, but that the example does not clarify the process. A. Schiff felt that this is one of the areas where people have tremendous problems figuring out what to do. B. Schottlaender pointed out that rule 1.1.D tells you how to proceed. The LC proposal lifts out a part of 1.1.D. He suggested that this committee should suggest a revision that reads “After the title proper of the series has been recorded, follow the instructions in 1.1.D, when transcribing the parallel title of the series.” M. Beacom seconded this opinion. B. Schottlaender agreed to draft a response pending discussion by the Serials Section. The Committee agreed.

Proposal LC/34 – CCC response supports the revision with minor changes. The chair asked if there was general support. There was a question if square brackets (in AACR) meant that the example was explicit or implicit. There was support for the proposal with modification by CCC and further modification by ALA to read “Transcribe it as found and add the correct numbering in square brackets.”

Proposal LC/35 – the CCC response supports the deletion suggested by LC and supports the new sub-rule suggested by LC with one minor change – from “record” to “give” and goes on to note that there are two index entries which need to be deleted or revised. L. Jizba felt that “record” was fine and that this is undue focus on wording. S. Kelley supported it. The Committee went with the LC proposal, with the CCC reference to the index point changes.

Proposal LC/36 – CCC supports it in principle, but breaks up the lengthy 1.6.H into sub-rules of 6.H.1, 6.H.2, 6.H.3 and 6.H.4. M. Turitz supports it. A. Fiegen supports the LC proposal. M. Yee supports renumbering. M. Beacom does not support breaking it up. B. Schottlaender pointed out that instances “in case of doubt” are frequently broken out into separate rules throughout AACR. J. Swanekamp asked for a show of hands for retaining the LC language (one rule with 3 paragraphs). 18 were in favor of the Canadian revision; 6 supported the LC proposal as is. The Committee agreed to accept LC’s proposal, as modified by the CCC response, with examples for 1.6.H.3.

Proposal LC/37 – the CCC response is supportive, but takes a different approach to solving the problem. CCC proposes adding 2 new rules 1.6.J.2 and 1.6.J.3. It is noted that the Canadian-proposed 1.6.J.3 is related to the 1.6.A.3 which they rejected in the LC-31 proposal. Another difference is that LC uses the word “published” and CCC uses “issued.” A. Fiegen asked why this was moved out of the notes area into the series areas. She feels it is more appropriate as a note. B. Schottlaender explained that this was an attempt to show how it could be used in a series area, not that it had to be used there. The Chair asked if there was general support for the LC version. L. Jizba asked if this was already in LCRI. A. Schiff felt is should be in the rules. L. Howarth felt that there was general consensus with the content, but that the CCC response raises structural changes to make it consistent with AACR. B. Schottlaender would like to have the Serials Section consider LC-31 and LC/37 side-by-side. The Committee is in support for the substance of the LC proposal and that LC’s proposal relates only to the first two rules of the CCC response. The Committee is not clear on the third rule of the CCC response as yet.

Proposal LC/38 – M. Wise reported that the Music Library Association supported this proposal. Upon a motion (Howarth/Beacom) the Committee voted to accept the proposal.

Proposal LC/39 – the CCC response does not feel the proposal is necessary. M. Turitz agreed with the CCC response. A straw poll was taken. No one was in favor of the LC proposal. B. Schottlaender noted that it was rejected by the Committee by straw poll pending review and recommendation by the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging.

Proposal LC/40 – the CCC response is that it prefers text B. M. Turitz had no preference for either text. M. Young prefers the language of Text B. B. Schottlaender noted preference of the Committee for Text B, pending discussion by the CSSC.

Proposal LC/41 – the CCC has supported the proposal. Upon a motion (Yee/Beacom), the Committee voted to accept the proposal.

Proposal LC/42 – add a definition of the word numbering to Appendix D. The CCC supports the notion of a need for the definition. The Committee questioned about the proposal’s applicability to multi-volume works. There was further discussion of the use of the word “publication” in the generic sense. R. Marker proposed adding multi-part item to the CCC’s proposed revision. L. Jizba pointed out that the use of the word “item” assumes a physical object and that this wouldn’t work for electronic publications. After further discussion, the committee voted on a motion (Turitz/Howarth) to accept the CCC wording as amended by R. Marker with a change from “item” to “monograph.”

Proposal LC/43 – the CCC response rejected the proposal. M. Turitz agrees with the CCC objection. After discussion, a straw poll was taken. Those in favor of the LC proposal – 2; those in favor of the CCC response to leave the rule as is – 15. B. Schottlaender noted that it would be referred to the Serials Committee for its response.

Proposal LC/44 – B. Schottlaender stated that the Committee did not accept LC/33, nor the CCC response to it, but suggested its own wording. The Chair asked if there was general agreement with the discussion about Proposal LC/33. B. Schottlaender agreed to wait for the opinion of the Serials committee.

576. Agenda item 11. Report from the Task Force on Metadata (S. Kelley)

Kelley distributed several documents: the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set Reference Description and some examples of the Dublin Core and Cataloging Rules Examples. The present name of the Task Force is the Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules. The Committee was originally charged to look at the TEI header but there have been several schemes which have developed, so the Committee decided to look at the more mature and most-likely-to-be-accepted ones. At Midwinter the group divided into subgroups to examine the TEI, the Dublin Core Element Set with additional elements. The most progress was to deal with the Dublin Core. The TEI has been hampered by the lack of mapping from TEI into MARC data elements.

Kelley turned the floor over to John Attig. The Dublin Core website was set up. He described what the Dublin Core is. It deals with a minimum set of data elements. The model on the website starts with using a template and creating links to element definitions. He is using the mapping done by LC into the MARC format. This puts the data elements into a familiar context. There is also a questionnaire on how you would use it without modifying it. Some questions occur - what are the implications of putting metadata into a catalog based on AACR principles; what do you have to do to the data to make it AACR2 compliant; are the rules adequate for this type of data? Finally, if we were to make metadata compliant with AACR2, which rules would we use? He stated that more examples would be added and that comments from the listserv would also be included.

Young suggested that if AACR2 is to be a viable standard for use with objects and across a wide range of databases, there has to be a way to deal with multiple levels of detail or assignment simultaneously. J. Attig agreed and asked what do we do about missing elements. A possible solution might be a minimal level of cataloging. S. Kelley suggested that MARBI is working on creating a code for Dublin Core data as a source for the cataloging. M. Yee expressed a concern over the creator of the metadata elements, since there is a considerable degree of variance in the experience of the creators of the metadata. Issues such as authority control are a major concern. J. Attig brought the group up on MARBI discussions about computer data. It was decided to limit code “m” to computer files (computer programs and related kinds of material). Other digital data with content relating to other types of information, you code for content, rather than physical form. M. Shen questioned if the 245 GMD is a Dublin Core element. It is not. J. Attig suggested that that type of data may be generated from other areas of the record. S. Kelley reminded the committee that Dublin Core was not being suggested as a replacement for fully cataloged records, but rather the Committee should look at what’s missing in the Dublin Core records.

Swanekamp spoke of some of the recommendations made to CC:DA Task Force on Metadata Access. One recommendation was for the appointment of a Joint Task Force of CC:DA and MARBI. The ALCTS Board met and made some revisions, among them was a recommendation for CC:DA to endorse the Dublin Core. Its is clear that there needs to be some clarification on what they are looking for. She suggested that if there was clarification, she would suggest revision of the charge to the Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules.

577. Agenda item 12. Joint CC:DA/MARBI Meeting on Metadata Issues

Swanekamp introduced J. Riley, the Chairperson of MARBI. Some discussion questions were prepared and distributed. The members of both committees were asked to introduce themselves. The questions broke down into two categories: the relationship between the Dublin Core and traditionally formulated AACR records; the service or public OPAC issues.

The first question is “Can Metadata be used as a means of access?” J. Attig expressed hope that by working through the examples on the website, there would be answers to the questions being asked. The website is located at:

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/dublin/index.htm

J. Attig will post it to the USMARC listserv. D. Hillmann felt that in general anyone who is used to using preliminary records will not find Dublin Core records too difficult to use. The purpose of the Dublin Core elements was to make the information reasonably understandable. In terms of question 6, the suggestion has been made that data (personal names) should be in inverted form.

S. Kelley expressed concerns that what is lost is a sense of transcription, that we lose the sense of the chief source of information; that we are creating what looks like authorized forms of headings. Hillmann pointed out that that is the reason why MARBI created the 720 MARC field. Attig added that the 653 MARC field also served the same function with subjects. He stated that what is important is what we will do with these records. It isn’t clear what we will need to do to turn these records into AACR records.

R. Guenther was asked what is the Dublin Core? There will be many sources of metadata and there are no real guidelines. S. Kelley asked who is creating them? Projects outside of the US are creating them. J. Attig suggested that some data elements in the header could become the chief source of information. A. Schiff remarked that in many cases the title on the home page does not match the header information. It is a problem when you are trying to transcribe what you see on the title screen. R. Wendler felt that this was not a problem since the rules on computer files recognize that you have to search in many places to find a chief source. The approach at Harvard is that you’re on your own because people probably do not know what the title is. The main point is to get enough vocabulary into the record to allow retrieval. S. Kelley felt that AACR provides enough instruction rules to locate a chief source. D. Hillmann stated that for mass-produced documents, verification was important. Internet resources are similar to archival materials in that we are more interested in finding them – access is more important than verification. Vocabulary is more important than transcription in this case. P. Weiss added that people get to know certain title from continued reference to a site, so we need a standard way of referring to those sites. M. Yee explained that transcription of what appears on a title page offers the best chance that users will be able to find them later on. They will be mass produced, so they will need to be cited rather than “discovered” as in the case of archival materials. L. Howarth pointed out that even virtual documents are real documents. Once the data is encoded in HTML and placed in the document it becomes part of the document itself and is not like a surrogate of a surrogate. A. Schiff felt it was a disservice to our users if we used a title which is different from what our users see on the document. He added that some metadata elements may not appear anywhere on the document. B. Young stated that we should be more concerned over what the elements “do” for us, rather than things like what we name these elements. J. Attig felt that consistency in access is the central issue, so authority work is important. One of the options that will be considered is that we will put metadata elements in our catalogs without even looking at the item. L. Jizba pointed out that ISBD (ER) takes the position that the preference is “what you see is what you get.” There is also a place for HTML title. Although AACR gives clear guidelines on how to choose a title, there is leeway in chapter 12 for serials for choice of titles which is also applicable to electronic resources. R. Wendler felt that since this data is so malleable it makes it necessary for us to accept this reality.

Weiss stated that if we really want to use embedded data, we must promote that idea that this data is important or the discussions are worthless. E. Glazier said that this is true, but that anyone out there can buy software and create a home page and never worry about the standard. There is a possibility that we could talk with all the net browsers and say that there must be something in the record which would block access unless some standard is met. B. Young questioned about the “scope” of the situation – adding some 500 thousand records a week? M. Beacom added that public relations won’t help. Authors of the material won’t follow guidelines when the records are created. Then there are librarians who will be creating records after the documents are created. Dublin Core data created by authors may be analogous to title page information. Beacom answered Young by stating that we obviously need to be selective, rather than just dump data into our catalogs. The developers of search engines might use this data, as unfiltered and unrefined as their data already is.

Shieh expressed the hope that publishers of electronic documents might publish with Dublin Core data encoded in the record. We might be able to map it into AACR standard cataloging, then dump it into MARC format records and load them into online catalogs. M. Fox encouraged the complex markup found in the Library of Congress proposal which could be used by publishers of commercial indexes. J. Attig agreed that putting these records in our online catalogs is only one of the alternatives. He also added that in terms of numbers of records which might be created, initially blocks of records created for specific projects with content guidelines for the specific project. R. Guenther expressed concern over the issue of separate but linked image files.

Kelley pointed out that we had not gotten beyond the first question. There was concern that we never do user research. A discussion of the ALCTS Board recommendations in regards to a joint ALCTS/MARBI Task Force followed. J. Swanekamp felt that there was an issue which needed further clarification from the ALCTS Board. The Board asked CC:DA to examine the Dublin Core and other metadata encoding standards and then to evaluate them and come back to the CCS Executive Committee and to the ALCTS Board with recommendations for implementation or further action. There was no prejudging about which standard ought to be recommended. The ALCTS Board asked the Subject Access Committee to establish a subcommittee to make metadata recommendations but this was a separate issue. B. Young felt that this was an important issue. The descriptive cataloging record is the base upon which we hang other things like subject headings, classification, etc. which the descriptive cataloging must support. S. Kelley wanted to leave with some kind of joint Task Force. J. Swanekamp felt that there was agreement that one was needed to address areas that ALCTS has indicated. She will work with J. Riley to come up with a charge to the Task Force. A sign-up sheet was passed around. J. Swanekamp thanked the members of MARBI for their attendance and participation.

578. Agenda item 14. Report from the LC Representative (Tillett)

[Secretary’s Note: This report has been copied from a disk given to the Secretary, rather than an actual transcription of the report which was delivered at the meeting.[

Beacher Wiggins
We are delighted to announce that effective at the start of June, Beacher Wiggins was named permanent Director for Cataloging for the Library of Congress. Beacher had been acting director for the past 2 and a half years.

Facilitative Leadership
During March and April this year all Library of Congress supervisors received three days of training in the philosophy and techniques of Facilitative Leadership. Beacher Wiggins was one of the six LC co-trainers along with the instructors from Interaction Associates. Facilitative Leadership is a management approach that improves communication and fosters a working environment in which authority, accountability, and responsibility are shared by all workers. A one-day version of the course is being designed for non-supervisory staff.

ILS
On June 5, Dr. Billington and Deputy Librarian Donald Scott appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch appropriations to present the Library’s budget request for fiscal year 1998. The Library is requesting a 7.1% increase over the current budget to support our procurement and installation of an integrated library system (ILS) and to fund mandatory pay and price level increases.

On June 17 the official announcement of our intention to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an integrated library system (ILS) was posted in the Commerce Business Daily – the official publication for such notices for the federal government. The RFP will be available July 7 from Kaye Klinker of Contract & Logistics at LC. Interested parties should write to her (can be a faxed request) for a paper copy or a copy on a diskette. The open period for the bids will be 45 days. Once the bidding is closed in August, the RFP will be made available through FTP on the Web to those interested in seeing the content.

Bicentennial Planning
After 12 years of renovation, the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress reopened to the public on May 1 with new readings rooms for the African and Middle Eastern Asian, and European Divisions and a new visitor’s center and gift shop. At the same time, a rotating permanent exhibit of the rarest and most significant items from LC’s collections relating to America’s past entitled “American Treasures of the Library of Congress” went on view. Highlights of the collection include many firsts – the first extant book printed in America, the first photographic portrait of a human face, a photograph of the first flight, the first baseball card, the first telegraphic message, a drawing of the first telephone along with a written account of the first phone call, the first motion picture deposited for copyright, and others. Selected items from the exhibit may also be viewed online in two versions – a high-end one incorporating animation and audio as well as a standard version.

On Saturday of this conference, Winston Tabb and John Cole of the Library of Congress co-chaired a program “Promoting Libraries Through the Library of Congress Bicentennial” – they are very interested in ideas on how to promote libraries while celebrating this historic occasion. I am sure Mr. Tabb would welcome further ideas. Please write to him at the Library of Congress.

Conference Exhibit Booths
The Library’s exhibit booth is #3016. We are providing demonstrations of Cataloger’s Desktop and Classification Plus and demonstrations of the Library’s World Wide Web sites, including the four options for searching the Library’s catalog. There is a growing demand for access to LC’s computer systems with over 40 million transactions a month logged on LC’s public electronic system, double the volume of a year ago. All of the reading rooms are now accessible via their own home pages with each virtual reading room providing information about its services.

At the exhibit booth, there is also a brochure describing the American Memory collections on the National Digital Library, as well as brochures on the LC/Ameritech National Digital Library Competition.

There is also a commemorative issue of Civilization magazine celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Thomas Jefferson Building and its grand reopening in May.

On March 1, 1997, the Cataloging Distribution Service sold its last catalog card set. For 95 years, since 1902, CDS and its predecessors produced and sold LC catalog cards at cost plus 10%. At the peak of LC card sales in 1968, CDS produced almost 79 million cards, With the spread of library automation, demand for cards decreased. In 1996 CDS sold fewer than half a million, Catalog cards may still be purchased from commercial vendors and CDS is providing a list of those sources. Because of demand and use within LC CDS is continuing its card-based alerting service called Alert Current Awareness Service, in which customers can pre-select categories of items cataloged by LC in the past two years and receive notification for acquisitions and development planning purposes. CDS is putting renewed effort into its core electronic and computer-produced print products.

The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped also has an exhibit booth #3247 and we invite you to visit.

CPSO’s Home Page
The Cataloging Policy and Support Office now offers access to cataloging policy information via the World Wide Web. The address is: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/ The site offers a varied selection of cataloging policy papers and reports, cataloging tools and documentation, information and announcements about LC Classification, and information about CPSO itself. We welcome comments from the library community as to the layout of the site and the usefulness of the material currently posted, as well as ideas and suggestions for additional types of material that might enhance its value to users. Information about how to contact CPSO is available on the web site. You can always use our email address: cpso@loc.gov.

Archival Moving Image Materials
We are planning to revise the AACR2-based cataloging manual, Archival Moving Image Materials (AMIM). It was first published in 1984, and designed to provide instructions for the bibliographic description of moving image materials held by film and television archives. Rapid advances in moving image technology, coupled with the expansion of television and video archives since the early 1980’s, have combined with the increased application of automated technologies for cataloging moving image archives to invite a review of the provisions of the manual, and to incorporate the content designation of USMARC within its examples. For the purposes of the review, we are seeking advice and suggestions from as broad a range of specialists and interested professionals as possible. Comment and suggestions should be directed either to me or to Harriet Harrison of CPSO and will be accepted through October 15, 1997.

LC Control Number (LCCN) – (010)
CPSO led an assessment by technical staff of various alternatives to accommodate the forthcoming century change in Library of Congress control numbers. Since we actually began using these numbers in the about 1898, we will already run into ambiguity, but we feel we can live with that until the year 2000. The new structure will expand the year to 4-digits and we will reduce the prefix to 2 positions, and eliminate the position defined for supplement number. We will also discontinue use of variable data elements Suffix/Alphabetic Identifier and Revision Date. We are providing lead time so other impacted by this change will be aware. We do not yet have an exact implementation date at LC, but will give at least 6 months notice before we change over.

USMARC Code for Languages
CPSO will be posting all new language codes and changes to language codes in the USMARC Code List for Languages on the CPSO web site. We will also list the new and changes codes at the end of the weekly list of approved subject headings and in the MARC section of the Cataloging Service Bulletin.

Data Elements in Authority Records
CPSO staff worked with staff from our Automation Planning and Liaison Office and Information Technology Services to develop the specifications for updating LC’s internal authority system for names and subjects to incorporate all of the USMARC data elements not yet defined in those systems - the changes that resulted from Update No. 1 to the USMARC Authorities Format. We now anticipate that the changes will be made by early 1998.

These changes include those related to the new field 155 for form/genre subject authority headings, subfield $v for form subdivisions, and subject subdivision records for the control of free-floating subdivisions. Information about the new form/genre subject heading and subject subdivision records has not yet been disseminated. A working list of form/genre subdivisions and subject headings has been prepared for cataloging electronic resources and works about electronic resources that fit in the LCSH structure.

Electronic Resources: Interim Guidelines for Cataloging
For some time it has been the intent of the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) to develop conceptual guidelines for the cataloging of electronic resources. That effort has been delayed for various reasons, and toward the end of 1996, stimulated by increased activities in the area of digitization and cataloging of electronic resources to develop a structure for preparing interim guidelines for cataloging electronic resources.

The group has developed draft interim guidelines first by establishing a common context through the use of entities and concepts based on the work done with modeling and the IFLA Study: Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (May 1996 draft for worldwide review). This led to a common vocabulary and a taxonomy of various kinds of instances, involving both tangible and intangible (remote electronic) resources likely to be encountered. We’ve tested the examples and are distilling the analysis to present some basic principles as the basis for the set of guidelines. This summer we will be submitting the draft to a larger group of LC staff for further improvement.

Cooperative Cataloging Initiatives
This marks the 20th anniversary of NACO, the Name Authority Cooperative program, which now has over 225 participants. In recognition of this milestone, there was a celebration at the PCC Participant’s Meeting, Sunday evening, June 29, from 7-9pm at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, Plaza Ballroom E.

This spring we presented the sixth Series Institute for NACO participants and the next will be offered in April 1998. Independent NACO libraries should contact their liaisons on the Cooperative Cataloging Team at LC for more information. The trainer is Judy Kuhagen, one of our CPSO senior policy specialists who is an outstanding teacher, and I highly recommend her classes.

Core Level Cataloging Standard
In May the Cataloging Directorate announced plans to adopt the core level standard for bibliographic records. This decision was based on the results of an experiment conducted from April to November 1996, which showed that productivity was higher for core than for full-level cataloging in a variety of formats, languages, subjects, and scripts. We also considered the results of similar experiments at Cornell University and UCLA, as well as LC’s core cataloging project for serials. The Directorate intends the core bibliographic record to be the basic level of cataloging for most materials. Full, minimal, and collection level cataloging will continue to be produced for appropriate categories of materials. Over the next several months the directorate and Serial Record Division will develop implementation plans and revise documentation as needed to implement the core bibliographic record.

Pinyin Romanization
For decades, the library community has used Wade-Giles as the system to Romanize Chinese. However, since the 1950’s, the Pinyin system has increasingly come to replace Wade-Giles throughout the world. The Library of Congress first proposed conversion to Pinyin in 1980. The East Asian library community at that time wished to retain Wade-Giles. During the next decade, many libraries came to realize that conversion to Pinyin was inevitable, since the rest of the world was using it. In 1990, after consultations with user communities and others, the Library of Congress decided to support conversion when it became technically and economically feasible.

The Library has been monitoring recent developments that seem to indicate that conversion to Pinyin might now be possible. The National Library of Australia (NLA) has converted over 500,000 Chinese records to Pinyin, utilizing an independent conversion software program that identified and converted Wade-Giles data in MARC records, and then reassembled the records. The program even identified Wade-Giles in records that contained a mixture of languages. The Library began to consider the possibility of using such a program in order to convert its file to Pinyin.

The Library was encouraged when the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) recently reported that response to a survey mailed to libraries with East Asian collections in North America, a large majority of recipients indicated support for both conversion to Pinyin and for the Library’s approach to word division (following the same structure for word division now used in Wade-Giles).

In discussions with OCLC and RLIN, agreement was reached to proceed with planning as soon as possible. LC now has a Pinyin Task Group to recommend action and to coordinate with the utilities and the library community. We are now targeting the year 2000 as the year to begin using Pinyin for Romanization of Chinese.

LCRIs
The most recent revisions to LCRIs (for 21.2C and 25.5B for uniform titles for serials being simplified) were recently issued in both paper form and on our new Web site. This Web site access is an experiment and we would really like comments on this method of communication. We do not anticipate eliminating the paper distribution for comments and in fact some of the LCRI revisions will still only be done on paper to show a mark up of revised RIs.

Marker asked if the LCRIs on the web were proposed or final? B. Tillett responded that they were proposed, at this point. R. Marker asked who she should contact about the decision to go with core records. B. Tillett responded that she should contact Beacher Wiggins.

579. Agenda item 15. Draft Proposals (Jizba)

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

Jizba reported that these proposals were discussed in January, accepted by CC:DA with amendments proposed by M. Wise. The glossary amendments were incorporated into these documents. These are the definitions for computer disk and computer optical disc. They are compatible with AACR2Rev. and the new ISBD(ER). M. Wise’s amendment appear on p. 3 of the document and has to do with related cross reference terms. B. Schottlaender made references to some typographical corrections. A. Schiff also had another item to be listed – CD-R in section C. L. Jizba felt she did not have time to do it. B. Schottlaender agreed to include it in the recommendation to the Joint Steering Committee. He also asked about DVDs. Jizba suggested it ought to be handled as a separate issue at a later point.

At the last meeting of the Committee in February, a Task Force was set up to deal with revisions to Chapters 1 and 9 of AACR2R to bring them into compliance with the revised ISBD(ER). The Chair asked for opinions on whether or not the Committee should proceed or wait until the document is published. Jizba reported that it was accepted by 3/4 of the respondents to the survey posted on the WWW. Support came from the audiovisual community and from a wide range of the general cataloging community. Upon a motion (Yee/Beacom) the Committee voted to accept the proposal to change the GMD from computer file to electronic resource. B. Schottlaender requested an electronic copy of the text.

580. Agenda item 16. Report on the 1998 CC:DA/CCS Program (Kinney)

Topics : Introduction and Overview (to set the stage); Ralph Manning will speak on the International Conference of Cataloging Experts; Olivia Madison will speak on the IFLA functional requirements; there might be a report on Project REUSE; Unicode and harmonized MARC are two other proposed topics as well as an overview of IFLA activities and the ISBD revision process. There will be time for questions and answers. Some co-sponsors are to be contacted.

581. Agenda item 17. Reports from the floor, Announcement of next meeting, and Adjournment (Chair)

At the end of the meeting, A. Fiegen, L. Howarth, J. Richardson and J. Swanekamp will have completed the terms of their office. Next year’s Chair will be D. Kinney. Continuing members are B. Young, M. Yee, M. Beacom, S. Kelley, M. Turitz. New appointments include C. Hixson, M. Larsgaard, and A. Schiff. New interns will be S. Hayes and S. Lincicum.

Howarth, on behalf of CC:DA expressed her thanks to J. Swanekamp.

Meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
John A. Richardson
Revised by: J. Swanekamp