ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services


Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Minutes of the meeting held in New Orleans, LA
January 10 and 12, 1998

Members present:
Daniel Kinney, Chair
Matthew Beacom
Carol Hixon
Sherry Kelley
Mary L. Larsgaard
Adam L. Schiff
Mitch Turitz
Martha Yee
Brad Young
Susan M. Hayes, Intern
Shirley J. Lincicum, Intern
John C. Attig, CC:DA Web site coordinator

Ex-officio representatives (those present are named)

Brian Schottlaender, ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee
Barbara Tillett, LC
Glenn Patton, OCLC

ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Marlyn Hackett, ALCTS/AV
Jianrong Wang, ALCTS/CCS/CCM (absent 1/12/98)
Betsy Simpson, ALCTS/CMDS
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Carolyn Myall, ALCTS/SS
Ann Sandberg-Fox, ALCTS/DRC (represented by John Attig on 1/12/98)
Catherine Gerhart, ALCTS/LITA/RUSA MARBI
Rhonda Marker, ALA/GODORT
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
Brad Eden, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Gerald Langford, ALA/NMRT
Margaret Shen, ALA/PLA
Noelle Van Pulis, ALA/RUSA
Larry Heinman, ALA/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Ann Sitkin, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Judy Knop, ATLA
Gertrude Koh, CLA (absent 1/12/98)
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST (absent 1/12/98)
Valerie St. Pierre Gordon, MedLA
Matthew Wise, MusLA
Michael Fox, SAA
Cynthia Whitacre, SLA


  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:
    CC:DA = Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
    JSC = Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR
    ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
    CCC = Canadian Committee on Cataloging
    CCS = Cataloging and Classification Section
    PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
    CSSC = ALCTS/Serials Section, Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
    ACOC = Australian Committee on Cataloging


Saturday, January 10, 1998, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

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

The first CC:DA meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Orleans West room of the Monteleone Hotel. The Chair welcomed Committee members and guests and circulated the Committee roster to members for corrections. An attendance sheet was passed to the audience. Committee procedures were reviewed, and the times and locations of other meetings of the Committee and its four task forces to be held at the 1998 ALA Mid-Winter Meeting were announced.

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

    [CC:DA/Roster/1997 December]

Members introduced themselves.

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

The agenda was adopted by the Committee.

585. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meetings held at 1997 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, June 28 and 30. (Chair)

The Chair received corrections (primarily typographical errors) from Turitz and others. Upon a motion from Larsgaard, seconded by Schiff, the minutes were approved as corrected.

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

Kinney welcomed Ann Sandberg-Fox to the Committee. She fills the new CC:DA Liaison position from the ALCTS/Digital Resources Committee.

Kinney distributed two documents: Report on the 1997 IFLA General Conference, by Barbara Tillett and Olivia Madison, and a tentative schedule for the CC:DA preconference to be held at the 1998 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. [CC:DA/TF/1998 Preconference-Program Planning/1]. He also announced that he has a copy of the draft ANSI/NISO standard for holding statements for bibliographic items and invited any interested members to contact him if they would like to review this document.

Kinney announced that Attig has developed and mounted a revised CC:DA home page and has replaced Mark Watson as Web site coordinator. Mark Watson, Brian Schottlaender, and Laurel Jizba now serve on an informal committee to review documents prior to official Web publication. Kinney asked Attig to lead a discussion of current issues involving the Web site.

Attig reported that as he was redesigning and testing the site on a server at Penn State University, ALCTS staff proceeded to mount CC:DA materials from the original site on the ALA server. Once he discovered this, Attig began forwarding his updated files to ALCTS. ALCTS has not yet mounted the updated files due to time constraints, so the CC:DA pages on the ALA server are somewhat outdated at the moment. Attig will work with ALCTS staff after the 1998 Mid-Winter Meeting to transfer all updated CC:DA files to the ALA server. Once the ALA site is caught up, it should be considered the official site and the Penn State mirror site will be used primarily for testing and review of documents prior to their official release on the ALA server. Attig distributed a print out of the CC:DA home page and asked members to forward suggestions for additions or changes to him. Some ideas he is currently considering include: posting the criteria for CC:DA membership and adding links to home pages of representatives’ organizations, when such pages exist. He encouraged members and others to link to the CC:DA home page when appropriate.

Attig considers the issue of policies on posting working documents to the Web site to be the largest issue facing the Committee. What documents can and should be posted? How long should documents remain on the site? Should the Web site serve as a permanent archive or institutional memory for the Committee? These are all questions which need to be discussed by the Committee. Schottlaender noted that strong statements are needed on all CC:DA proposals posted on the Web in order to make the status of such documents as clear as possible. Attig suggested that it might be beneficial to make such documents available on the Web site only for specified review periods. He noted that this would mean that Committee members would need to take responsibility for archiving copies of working documents themselves, just as they always have with printed CC:DA working documents. Jizba asked about the possibility of making CC:DA pages unprintable. Attig and others indicated that it would be virtually impossible to do this. Schiff noted that providing access to CC:DA working documents via the Web is extremely convenient for representatives because it allows them to easily refer constituents to the full text of proposals in order to get feedback. Schottlaender reminded the Committee that the CC:DA Web site will never provide access to all relevant documents because JSC documents cannot be posted on the CC:DA site. He also mentioned that it is not necessary to post documents to the Web in order to make them available electronically. Members could use e-mail to distribute electronic copies of documents to others. Attig noted that there will always be a tension between the advantages and disadvantages of posting CC:DA working documents on the Web and that policies should be reviewed in light of specific cases as they arise.

Attig also suggested that Web pages are extremely useful for task forces, so all task forces should be allowed to maintain Web pages. These will probably be the most volatile sites, however, and it may not be necessary to mount task force pages on the official ALA site or have Attig involved in maintaining task force sites. He would like to be aware of all task force Web sites so that he may link to these sites from the CC:DA site, and if the Committee decides that the Web site will serve as a permanent record of the work of the Committee, Attig would like to receive something to mount on the CC:DA site from each task force upon the completion of its work.

Committee members affirmed Attig’s suggestions and agreed that it should not be necessary to mount task force pages on the official CC:DA site or subject the content of these pages to the normal review process used for documents on the official CC:DA site. Some members felt that it would be important to clarify who is responsible for maintaining task force pages which are linked to official CC:DA pages. Some members expressed concerns about linking directly to task force sites where working documents are available. Some felt that this could make some working documents too “public,” perhaps leading to misunderstanding and premature implementation of proposed rules or rule revisions. Attig feels that it is important to share the work of CC:DA task forces with a broad audience, but he is uncertain as to how “public” task force working documents need to be in order to achieve this goal. He indicated that an actual link to the working documents of the task force might not always be necessary, though his preference would be to make a link whenever possible. Some members suggested that task force chairs would need to work with the CC:DA Chair to determine when Web publication would and would not be appropriate. Beacom suggested that a short document providing guidelines for task force Web pages be produced. Attig agreed that this would be a good idea and indicated that it should be possible to prepare a draft based on today’s discussion.

Several members noted the lack of a date on the home page. Attig responded that there is no dating mechanism included in the ALA template for menu pages. He plans to inquire about this and will add dates himself if the template continues to exclude this information. Some members indicated that they would also be interested in adding counter(s) to the CC:DA page(s).

Attig reported that he made minor editorial changes to two official documents, the pamphlet on building international descriptive cataloging standards and the instructions for preparing a rule change proposal, in the process of mounting these documents on the Web. His changes primarily involved making active hyperlinks to electronic versions of other documents cited in the CC:DA documents. In at least one case, this involved updating a URL already listed in the document. Attig feels that changes of this nature should not require approval from the Committee. He noted that in cases where a printed version of the document exists a procedure is needed for communicating the updated information to the party responsible for maintaining the print document. Jizba suggested that in such cases the Committee Chair should contact the appropriate party to let them know about the change(s). Kinney asked if there were any objections to the suggestion that the Web coordinator be allowed to make changes which don’t affect the content of documents without formal Committee approval. No objections were raised.

Kinney and others thanked Attig for his work on the Web site.

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

  • International Conference

    Schottlaender opened his remarks with a report on the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR which occurred in Toronto, Ontario, October 23-25, 1997 and on the JSC meeting which followed the conference on October 27-28, 1997. He reported that several articles about the Conference have been published or accepted for publication, and that the Conference proceedings are currently being prepared for publication. Schottlaender focused his remarks on recommendations arising from the Conference with implications for CC:DA.

    The Toronto conference proceeded as planned for the most part. All of the papers were presented, and none of the presentations consisted of the author(s) simply reading his/her paper to the audience. Rather, the presentations were “thoughtful extrapolations” of the papers. Following the presentations and reactor/discussion panels, nine general sets of issues were identified to serve as the focus of break out discussion sessions during the third and final day of the Conference. The nine general sets of issues were:

    1. Principles
    2. Remainder of Introduction
    3. Case-based rules
    4. Terminology
    5. Seriality
    6. Main Entry/Work authority record
    7. Content vs. Carrier
    8. Internationalization of AACR2
    9. AACR review process

    The nine break out groups produced general recommendations for AACR2R revision or for other JSC action in these nine areas. The JSC took a day off after the completion of the Conference and then convened to discuss the recommendations.

    The JSC has plans for immediate action in the following three areas:

    Seriality: Of all the recommendations, those related to seriality were the most unanimously considered to be of high priority. The JSC will therefore seek to formalize the recommendations presented in the Hirons/Graham paper, as amended and refined at the Conference, as rule revision proposals. Since CONSER played a leadership role in producing that paper, JSC is looking to CONSER to contribute similarly to the formulation of formal rule revision proposals. CONSER has already formed a committee charged with preparing rule revision proposals. Any rule revision proposals prepared by CONSER will be brought through CC:DA.

    Principles: In order to eventually produce more explicit statements of the underlying principles of AACR2, the JSC plans to commission Tom Delsey or another expert to complete the entity-relationship modeling exercise which Delsey began. The JSC will also conduct brainstorming sessions electronically amongst its members to devise a second list of principles to compare with that produced through the modeling exercise.

    Content vs. carrier: The JSC will solicit a revision proposal for rule 0.24. Since the U.S. cataloging community has been most outspoken in calling for revisions in this area, the JSC has asked CC:DA to take the lead on preparing the initial proposal. It is expected that this proposal will serve primarily to elicit substantive discussion of content vs. carrier issues and that numerous revisions to the initial proposal will, therefore, be made before the rule is definitively revised.

    The JSC felt that action on the issues of main entry/work authority record, remainder of the introduction, and case-based rules would depend greatly upon the outcome of the entity-relationship modeling exercise, so action on those issues would need to wait until the modeling exercise is complete. While awaiting the completion of the modeling exercise, the JSC will attempt to develop a policy statement on when a proposed rule or revision would be considered too specialized to be included in the code. On the issue of internationalization of AACR2, the JSC plans to determine whether any surveys of interest in or use of AACR2 in non-author countries exist, and if none exist, the JSC will conduct one and proceed based on the results. In the meantime, language indicating that non-author countries should submit comments or ideas for revisions to the JSC via an appropriate national cataloging agency will be added to the AACR Web site. In response to some confusion which has been expressed recently, the JSC, in consultation with the Committee of Principals, will prepare a mission statement and a statement of goals and objectives. These statements will be included on the AACR Web site. Action on terminology issues will be delayed until the modeling exercise is complete and a revision proposal for rule 0.24 has been received. The JSC anticipates that the 0.24 revision proposal will generate some terminology proposals.

    Schottlaender called for questions.

    Jizba asked whether all terminology changes would really be on hold until after a revision proposal for rule 0.24 has been forwarded. Schottlaender responded that only action on those changes suggested at the Toronto conference would be deferred. Attig inquired about the timeline for completion and the nature of the final product of the entity-relationship modeling exercise. Schottlaender responded that the JSC anticipates a summer 1998 completion date, but the precise nature of the product and distribution of the results remain undetermined. Attig noted that it might be unwise to proceed with a revision proposal for rule 0.24 until after the results of this exercise are available. Schottlaender responded that though the results of the modeling exercise will undoubtedly inform the revision of 0.24, it should be possible for CC:DA to form its task force and get started on the work of preparing the proposal prior to the completion of the exercise. Turitz asked whether individuals who originally suggested the revision of 0.24 can serve on the proposal task force. Schottlaender responded that at least a few are expected to do so. Attig asked whether the structure of the AACR review process was discussed at the Toronto conference. Schottlaender responded that this was discussed the AACR review process task group. He also mentioned that in the past twelve to eighteen months, much of the tension which has existed historically between the Committee of Principals and the JSC has been ameliorated due in large part to the advent of AACRe. Schiff mentioned that several specific suggestions for rule revisions had been posted to the Toronto conference listserv prior to the Conference. He inquired as to how requests for such revisions should be made. Schottlaender responded that formal proposals would need to be prepared and forwarded through the normal channels.

    Speaking as Chair of the PCC, Schottlaender announced that the PCC intends to petition the CCS Executive Committee for official representation on CC:DA. The PCC believes that this will best facilitate forwarding of the proposals related to seriality which CONSER will prepare. Though the PCC is technically an international group, since it includes Canadian and British representation, the bulk of the PCC membership is American. CC:DA was, therefore, considered to be the most appropriate group through which to forward proposals prepared by the PCC.

    Upon a motion from Turitz, seconded by Beacom, the Committee voted to form a task force to prepare a revision proposal for rule 0.24. Kinney distributed a sign-up list for the task force, and Schottlaender volunteered to assist in drafting a charge.

  • AACRe

    Schottlaender reported that all members of the JSC have now received copies of AACRe. JSC members have been assigned to review specific chapters and/or sections of the electronic text. Ralph Manning has requested that members submit as many comments as they can by the end of January, so that he will have substantive comments to present to the Committee of Principals at their February meeting. Though none of the members have examined the files extensively yet, initial impressions are that the files are fairly clean, but the product overall has some weaknesses, including “flatness” and lack of real indexing.

  • JSC action on rule revision proposals

    Schottlaender reported on the status of proposals which will require no further action from CC:DA. The following proposals have been withdrawn: 3JSC/ALA/26, 3JSC/LC/24, 3JSC/LC/27, 3JSC/LC/31, 3JSC/LC/33, 3JSC/LC/44. 3JSC/LC/25 was approved by JSC as amended by the CCC response. 3JSC/LC/34 was approved by JSC as amended by the ALA response. 3JSC/LC/35 was approved by the JSC as amended by the CCC response, with a minor correction; “when” was replaced by “if” in the text of rule 1.6G3. 3JSC/LC/36 was approved by the JSC as amended by the CCC response, with the addition of the example suggested by ALA and minor corrections; “of” was replaced by “for” in the text of the rule. 3JSC/LC/38 and 3JSC/LC/41 were approved by the JSC as written.

    By the date of the last JSC meeting, neither the British Library nor the Library Association had yet had the opportunity to respond to 3JSC/LC/28/CCC response, so this proposal has been referred back for their consideration. 3JSC/LC/29 has been referred back to ALA so that specific statements regarding the origins and limitations of the proposed list can be added to the proposal. As the desired changes do not affect the content of the proposed list itself, Schottlaender will revise the proposal and resubmit it to the JSC. Tillett mentioned that a new LC response to this proposal is forthcoming due to a recently discovered error involving recognition of initial articles in the Tagalog language.

  • CC:DA action needed

    3JSC/LC/26. At its last meeting, the Committee voted to support this proposal as amended by the CCC response. The JSC, however, referred the original proposal back to LC to add clarification for the Governor Rhodes example and to substitute “number” for “numbering” in the text of the rule. These changes have been made in 3JSC/LC/26/LC follow-up. CC:DA needed to reaffirm its original endorsement or endorse the LC follow-up. On a motion from Schiff, seconded by Larsgaard, CC:DA voted to endorse the LC follow-up.

    3JSC/LC/30. At its last meeting, CC:DA expressed a preference for proposed text B, but wanted to give the CSSC a chance to review the proposal before making a final decision. CSSC expressed a preference for proposed text A. All other constituents have expressed a preference for proposed text B. CC:DA needed to reaffirm or withdraw its preference for proposed text B. Myall reported that the CSSC was divided about their preference for proposed text A, so the committee did not, therefore, object to the approval of proposed text B by CC:DA. Upon a motion from Turitz, seconded by Yee, the Committee voted to reaffirm its support of proposed text B.

    3JSC/LC/32. At the San Francisco (1997) meeting, CC:DA expressed support for the LC proposal with the addition of the parenthetical suggested in the CCC response. The Committee also expressed a desire to add an alphanumeric example and solicited input from the CSSC. The CSSC supplied revised text for the original proposal. At the JSC meeting, the Australians expressed support for the proposal as amended by the CCC response, but the British Library and the Library Association both expressed support for the original LC proposal. LC indicated that it would accept the rewording suggested in the CCC response. CC:DA had three options: endorse the original LC proposal with the addition of an alphanumeric example, endorse the proposal as modified by the CCC response with the addition of an alphanumeric example, or forward a response with the CSSC’s suggested rewording and an alphanumeric example. Upon a motion from Yee, seconded by Kelley, the Committee voted to endorse the original LC proposal with the addition of an alphanumeric example.

    3JSC/LC/37 & 3JSC/LC/45. At its Toronto meeting, the JSC referred 3JSC/LC/37 back to LC for revision. LC responded by submitting its own response to 3JSC/LC/37/CCC response and a proposal (3JSC/LC/45) to create a new rule, 1.6K, to address the situation when an item consists of more than one part and not all parts are in a series. CC:DA needed to respond to 3JSC/LC/37/CCC response/LC response and 3JSC/LC/45. There was some discussion to clarify the proposals. Yee moved to endorse the 3JSC/LC/37/CCC response/LC response and 3JSC/LC/45, and Hixon seconded the motion. Myall asked that the CSSC be given a chance to review the proposed text of 1.6K prior to a formal vote by the Committee. Several members of the Committee pointed out that the text of 1.6K proposed in 3JSC/LC/45 was essentially the same as that which had appeared labeled as 1.6J3 in the CCC response. The CSSC, therefore, had seen and been given a chance to comment on the text of the proposed rule already. A vote was taken, and CC:DA voted 7 to 1 to endorse 3JSC/LC/37/CCC response/LC response and 3JSC/LC/45.

    3JSC/LC/39. LC agreed to submit a revised proposal at the Toronto JSC meeting. CC:DA needed to act on this revised proposal, 3JSC/LC/39/LC follow-up. The follow-up adds a lengthy explanation of the rationale behind the proposed revision, but does not significantly modify the substance of the original proposal. Schottlaender reminded the Committee that it did not support the original proposal at its last meeting, and that the ACOC, the CCC, and the Library Association had also chosen not to support the proposal. The British Library had not yet responded. Schiff stated that after reading LC’s explanation, he felt that he could support the proposal. Hearing no other comments, Schiff moved to accept 3JSC/LC/39/LC follow-up. Larsgaard seconded his motion. CC:DA voted 5 to 3 to approve Schiff’s motion.

    3JSC/LC/40. At its last meeting, CC:DA indicated that it preferred proposed text B, but sought input from the CSSC. CSSC indicated that it preferred proposed text A. All other constituents on the JSC preferred proposed text B. CC:DA needed to reiterate or withdraw its support for proposed text B. Upon a motion from Hixon, seconded by Larsgaard, the Committee voted to reiterate its support for proposed text B.

    3JSC/LC/42. At the Toronto JSC meeting, LC received many comments on this proposal. In response to these comments, LC prepared a revised proposal, 3JSC/LC/42/LC follow-up, which adds an explanation of the rationale behind the proposal, but does not revise the text of the definition presented in the original proposal. At its last meeting, CC:DA expressed support for the proposal, but preferred a modified version of the wording in the CCC response. CC:DA needed to decide if the explanation provided in the LC follow-up obviates the need for modifying the text of the definition as originally proposed by LC. Larsgaard asked whether use of the term “publication” in the definition would mean that items on the Web would be excluded; are Web-based materials considered to be publications according to AACR2? Schottlaender and others responded that Web-based materials are considered to be publications, so use of the term “publication” in the definition would not exclude items published on the Web. Yee moved to accept 3JSC/LC/42/LC follow-up. Tillett noted that the list of types of publications suggested in the 3JSC/LC/42/CCC response may have been a deliberate attempt to limit the kinds of publications to which this definition would apply. Schiff observed that throughout the rules, numbering is mentioned in relation to series, serials, and multi-part monographs, and for that reason, it might be a good idea to reflect correlation in the definition in order to avoid other numbers which might appear on items from being considered as “numbering.” Attig noted that he would not want to see the definition limited to series, serials, or multi-part monographs because there are other situations, such as uniform titles, when numbering applies. Turitz questioned whether a special definition was really necessary if the AACR2 definition of numbering is to be essentially identical to a dictionary definition. Kinney called for a vote. The Committee voted 5 to 3 to accept 3JSC/LC/42/LC follow-up.

    3JSC/LC/43/LC follow-up & 3JSC/LC/46. At the Toronto JSC meeting, LC agreed to revise 3JSC/LC/43 to include the definition of monographic series. Upon further reflection, however, LC decided to withdraw 3JSC/LC/43 and submit an entirely new proposal, 3JSC/LC/46, to establish a separate AACR2 glossary definition for the term “monographic series.” CC:DA needed to respond to the withdrawal of 3JSC/LC/43 as called for in 3JSC/LC/43/LC follow-up and to the proposed definition for monographic series presented in 3JSC/LC/46. Turitz moved to accept the withdrawal of 3JSC/LC/43 and to accept 3JSC/LC/46 as written. Larsgaard seconded this motion. Discussion of the definition of monographic series proposed in 3JSC/LC/46 ensued. Some members of the Committee were concerned about requiring or implying that a specific number of titles proper are required to appear on an item in order for that item to qualify as part of a monographic series. The Committee devised a revised wording for the definition which reads as follows:

    Monographic series: A publication, issued in successive parts and intended to be continued indefinitely, each part of which has its own title proper and a title proper applying to the publication as a whole.
    Because it seemed obvious that the Committee was not satisfied with the text of the definition proposed in 3JSC/LC/46, Kinney called for a vote on Turitz’s motion to accept 3JSC/LC/46 as written and to endorse 3JSC/LC/43/LC follow-up. The Committee voted against the motion. Kelley then made a motion to forward the definition of monographic series as revised by CC:DA as the ALA response to 3JSC/LC/46. Schiff seconded this motion. Myall praised the Committee’s work on the revised definition, but urged the Committee to get input from the CSSC prior to forwarding a formal response to LC’s proposal. She promised to expedite the review of the Committee’s proposed definition and suggested that a vote could be conducted via the CC:DA listserv. Kelley and Schiff agreed to withdraw their motion in order to allow time for the CSSC to review the Committee’s proposed definition. A motion to post the revised definition to the CC:DA listserv, to allow the CSSC until the end of February, 1998 to post its comments to the CC:DA listserv, and to make a final decision about the ALA response to 3JSC/LC/46 via the listserv/electronic ballot was put forward by Hixon and seconded by Kelley. The Committee voted to approve the motion.

    A Committee member noted that in defeating the original motion put forth by Turitz, the Committee had voted against endorsing the withdrawal of 3JSC/LC/43. Upon a motion from Kelley, seconded by Larsgaard, the Committee voted to endorse the withdrawal of 3JSC/LC/43 as called for in 3JSC/LC/43/LC follow-up.

    In response to a question from the audience, Schottlaender reported that recent updates to AACR2 are forthcoming from ALA Editions. They will be released both as an amendments packet and as part of “AACR2R integrated.” The printed updates will be generated from SGML source files. The JSC expects to exercise its normal level of editorial control over the release of the amendments packet and “AACR2R integrated.” Schottlaender speculated that the amount of time required for the AACRe review process could have some impact on the release of the printed versions of the amendments and stated that he did not know to what extent ALA Editions is anticipating this.

    Upon a motion from Larsgaard, seconded by Hixon, the Committee voted to adjourn until 8:30 a.m. Monday, January 12, 1998. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Shirley Lincicum, Intern


    Monday, January 12, 1998, 8:30-12:30 a.m.

    The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m.

    588. Agenda item 7. Welcome and opening remarks (Chair)

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

    The Chair mentioned that he was passing out two documents to the members of the Committee: 1) a report on the IFLA Conference in Copenhagen by B. Tillett and O. Madison; and 2) the tentative schedule for the CC:DA Preconference at the upcoming Annual in Washington, D.C.

    589. Agenda item 8. Report from the Task Force on Harmonization of the ISBD(ER) (Howarth)

    Howarth remarked that at the first meeting of the task force, the first item on the Agenda was to draft a charge. Next, the members discussed methodology, time frame and possible outcomes. It was felt that there was a critical need to review ISBD(ER) and AACR2 in order to identify and propose rule revisions. These would chiefly be to chapter 9 (computer files), chapter 1, chapter 6, chapter 7 and the glossary. Also discussed were the implications of harmonization for the international cataloging community. In order to facilitate the revision process, the task force decided to establish a listserv. M. Beacom volunteered to set up a website for the task force. Members of the task force next looked at a list of key areas in Chapter 9, identified by J. Byrum, that would be impacted by ISBD(ER). The task force intends to rank this list in terms of priority, using the core record as the criterion for determining importance. Howarth explained that this list of priorities will be divided among the task force members, who will then work at identifying needed rule revisions, while at the same time considering the implications and impact of such revisions. At the ALA Annual in Washington, the task force will create a draft of all proposed changes, with a final report expected at the following Midwinter. Meanwhile, the task force will post working drafts on its website for comment by members of CC:DA and input from national and international constituencies, the outcome of this process to be an interim report. Eventually, the task force plans a program on harmonization to be mounted at the ALA Annual in the year 2000. Howarth mentioned that the task force is currently hampered by the lack of availability of ISBD(ER), and noted that many task force members do not have working copies. She stressed the need to work with the existing text as well as with revisions approved by the JSC, and will contact Ralph Manning in that regard. Howarth then asked the Committee how it preferred to handle the rule revision process, i.e., should the revisions come forward to the committee “in chunks” or all at once, and queried Schottlaender and Tillett as to the JSC’s preference. Yee said a consideration of all the rule revisions would be better since some rules would inevitably refer back to other rules. Schottlaender said that a consideration of all the rule revisions was the JSC’s preference as well. Howarth mentioned that the URL of the task force’s website would be posted on CC:DA’s listserv. Young suggested that the task force identify and target groups that might wish to comment on the revision process as it is ongoing. Schottlaender urged the task force to be pro-active in eliciting input from these target groups during, rather than after, the revision process.

    590. Agenda item 9. Report on the IFLA Conference in Copenhagen (Tillett)

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

    Report on the 1997 IFLA General Conference, August 29-September 6, 1997, Copenhagen, Denmark, Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloging, by Barbara B. Tillett and Olivia Madison, ALA representatives to the Section on Cataloging.

    The Section on Cataloging’s Standing Committee met two times during the 1997 IFLA General Conference held in Copenhagen, Denmark. The committee’s agenda was extensive, with reports and actions related to numerous projects. In addition, the section sponsored an open programme where three papers were presented and there were two workshops of interest to the Section on Cataloguing.

  • Section Meeting Reports and Projects

    1. Section Elections: Ingrid Parent (Canada) was re-elected section chair; this is her second term. Maria Witt (France) was elected section secretary. The Standing Committee thanked Suzanne Jouguelet (France) for her past four years of excellent service as secretary. This was the last year of service for Olivia Madison (United States, 8 years of service), Sarah Thomas (United States, 4 years of service), Suzanne Jouguelet (France, 8 years of service) and Eeva Murtomaa (Finland, 8 years of service). Glenn Patton is a new member from the United States along with Z. Dimic (Slovenia), Assumpcio Estivill (Spain), Monika Muennich (Germany), and Reinhard Rinn (Germany). Ms. Parent was also elected chair of the Division of Bibliographic Control and therefore serves on the IFLA Professional Board.

    2. Medium-Term Programme (1998-1999): The draft of a medium-term programme was approved. The programme includes an ambitious set of nine goals with a lengthy list of action plans for the goals. The list includes many plans as noted in the projects listed below (e.g., establish a work plan to revise the ISBD(S), finalize the study on functional requirements for bibliographic records, and complete the review and publish the results of the anonymous classics project) as well as planning a satellite meeting to review further developments to access multilingual/multiscript materials, and seeking members and/or corresponding members from those areas of the world not currently represented on the standing committee.

    3. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: The final report was unanimously approved with thanks to Olivia Madison, chair of the working group. While it will probably be published by K.G. Saur early this fall, efforts are underway by Ingrid Parent to make it available on the Web immediately following its publication. Olivia recognized the especially hard work of two of the consultants, Tom Delsey and Beth Dulabahn. The rest of the study group included John Byrum, Jr., Suzanne Jouguelet, Dorothy McGarry, Elaine Svenonius, Barbara Tillett, Nancy Williamson, and Maria Witt. The report made several suggestions for future work that are reflected in the following project reports. Olivia will present the report’s recommendations for the national bibliographic record at the conference for national bibliographic agencies to be held in November 1998 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

    4. Working Group on “Form and Structure of Corporate Headings” (FSCH): Although Barbara Tillett stepped down as chair, she was asked to be note taker by default of English language expertise. The current chair is Ton Heijligers from the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The working group will recommend that IFLA hire a consultant to devote the time needed to come up with principles before doing more work on rules. They recommended postponing most of their work until after the current examination of the principles of AACR2 (at the International Conference on the Principles and Future Directions of AACR2 to be held this October in Toronto) and the current work to revise the German cataloging, RAK. However, some progress will be made in looking at specific practices related to treatment of corporate names that include personal names. Reinhard Rinn will be doing a comparison for AACR2, RAK (German rules), and AFNOR (French rules) of some of the FSCH rules. Isa de Pinedo will do the same for AACR2 and RICA (Italian rules).

    5. “Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries” (GARE): A new committee was started to revise GARE and is chaired by Isa de Pinedo (Italy). Barbara Tillett will serve as liaison with the IFLA UBCIM Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records, which will submit recommendations to the GARE Committee for revisions for the online environment.

    6. The IFLA UBCIM Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records: The working group, chaired by Barbara Tillett, met during the conference. They have an initial list of essential data elements they agree are required for internationally shared authority records. The list of data elements is being refined during September/October and a final report should be ready in November for wider review. The group will also make recommendations for enhancements to UNIMARC and to the GARE Committee (above). The group proposes to have each national bibliographic agency that maintains a national authority file make it available through the Internet for Z39.50 searching and display, thereby saving the overhead of exchanging each other’s records and maintaining redundant resource authority files. Each national bibliographic agency would be responsible for the maintenance of their own files. The records in the files would be linked by using the record identifier from another national authority file when the same entity was described. It is hoped this would lead to international cost savings. It was agreed that the essential element of “nationality” would be required but that libraries could code it as undetermined. Barbara will provide a report on progress at an open forum session for the 1998 IFLA General Conference in Amsterdam.

    7. Anonymous classics: A new edition will be out soon and work has already started on the next edition to include works from Latin American and Asian countries.

    8. Study on OPAC displays: The Standing Committee agreed to go forward with the project study on OPAC displays with financial support of the Division of Bibliographic Control. Dorothy McGarry is serving as chair.

    9. ISBD(ER): On May 31, 1997, the Section on Cataloguing unanimously approved the proposed International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources. Within three weeks of its submission to K.G. Saur, the manuscript was published and it is now available for purchase.

    10. ISBD(S): The review group met and Edward Swanson volunteered to be editor. The work will include the issues of seriality, metadata, and electronic resources in serial form and will be coordinated with the Section on Serials and the ISSN Centre. The group will also consider the recommendations regarding serials in the study on functional requirements for bibliographic records. The project should take two years.

    11. ISBD Maintenance: The ISBD Maintenance Group was reconstituted to be a review group to look at all the ISBDs with respect to the functional requirements for bibliographic records base record. The group will need to review the need for an ISBD Concise; a draft had been circulated for world-wide review but had been tabled due to the functional requirements study.

    12. Future programs

      1. 64th General Conference in Amsterdam (1997): The theme of the Amsterdam conference will be Crossroads of Information and Culture. Assumpcio Estivill suggested that Tom Mann, a reference librarian at the Library of Congress, speak at the Section on Cataloguing’s program during the Amsterdam conference. The program would be on reference use of cataloging data, since the focus of the conference is to have an emphasis on users. Other suggestions included cataloguing trends (for libraries, archives, museums, cooperative cataloguing agencies), OPACs and the Web. It was suggested that a workshop be held on the new ISBD(ER).

      2. 65th General Conference in Bangkok (1998): A suggestion was made to examine the teaching and changes in cataloguing curriculums in professional schools. Another suggestion involved continuing the focus on multilingual and multiscript issues for international cooperation.

  • Workshops

    The section co-sponsored with the UBCIM Core Programme a workshop called “The Future of Communication Formats.” The workshop covered the development of new textual and document formats in context with formats traditionally being used in automated systems. Four specific formats were discussed: UNIMARC; harmonization of MARC in the British Library, the Library of Congress, and the National Library of Canada; cataloging in SGML; and the Nordic metadata project.

    Another workshop was the Workshop on Authority Control, co-sponsored by the Division of Bibliographic Control and the UBCIM Core Programme. Francoise Bourdon and her colleague from the Bibliotheque National de France gave an exciting update on Project AUTHOR, describing major progress made during the week of the IFLA Conference, with the Danish prototype being completed. Volunteers to use and evaluate the prototype were solicited and reports on their responses will be given in the future. Barbara Tillett presented an update on the UBCIM Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records. Paul Bunn (United Kingdom) gave Alan Danskin’s report on the AAAF (Anglo-American Authority File) at the British Library, a project that has had some technical difficulties getting started. There was discussion about whether such a file was really needed in light of current thinking about shared resource authority files, and the British Library believes it is still worthwhile. Mirna Willer, current chair of the Permanent UNIMARC Committee, reported on progress with the UNIMARC Authorities format. Papers from the workshop were distributed.

  • Section Open Programme

    Three papers were given at the Section Open Programme. Two Danish colleagues, Troels Andreassen and Tommy Schomacker gave a paper entitled “DanBib: A Union Catalogue Applied for User Friendly Flexible Querying.” Olivia Madison presented a report on the IFLA Study on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, and was followed by Michael Gorman, who gave a paper entitled “The Future of Cataloguing and Cataloguers.”

    591. Agenda Item 10. Report from the OCLC Representative (Patton)

    Patton announced that the second edition of OCLC’s Cataloging Internet Resources is available. He distributed the URL of the electronic version, and said that paper copies will be scarce until a reprinting. Patton noted that the content of the Guidelines has been impacted by ISBD(ER) in that there are considerable changes in Area 3, i.e., the terms that a cataloger records. The OCLC Guidelines give an expanded list of terms for Area 3 and encourages people to use them.

    Patton also reported that OCLC is preparing guidelines for OCLC libraries that plan to implement the changed definition of type code M for computer file records, i.e., indicating the primary format of the electronic resource and considering the computer file aspect to be secondary. The publication of these guidelines, which focus on MARC tagging considerations, has been held off in order to compare them with the LC Guidelines just issued, but meanwhile they will be posted on the OCLC website. Schottlaender commented that the GMD change from computer file to electronic resource that was approved by CC:DA at the annual meeting is in the pipeline for the JSC to consider. Patton remarked that OCLC will wait until this change is approved by the JSC before including it in the OCLC Guidelines.

    Patton also reported on the completion of the German project, REUSE, and said that the final report of this project would be posted on the CC:DA website. Also posted will be another report, delineating a project that compared corporate headings established under the RAK rules with those established under AACR2. This report is in German with English summaries. As an outcome of that project, additional work will be done to study further problem areas, especially multiple-level hierarchies and works published in a series. Patton noted that in this regard, German practice is quite different than Anglo-American practice. Project members and some German colleagues will consider examples of works published in a series where volumes in the series are handled in different ways in U.S. practice, e.g., purely as a contents note and as separate bibliographic records tied together with a series tracing. There will be a further report detailing the results of this consideration.

    Patton reported next on the Russian project devoted to the translating of AACR2 into Russian. He said a report had been drafted delineating the differences between AACR2 and the Russian cataloging rules which contains recommendations for changes to the Russian rules. He said that a project which compares records created using the Russian rules with identical records created using AACR2 is in progress. He noted that it is taking a long time because the Russian National library is implementing a UNIMARC-based format, which, unfortunately, is not so close to UNIMARC as project members had hoped, making it hard to match them with records in the OCLC database. The Chair asked for questions or comments. A. Schiff noted that the URL for first and second editions of the OCLC guidelines for electronic resources is the same. Patton said this was because the second edition replaced the first.

    Schiff also asked if the change to the indicators for multiple-surnames which had been announced at the PCC meeting would be implemented by OCLC. Tillett responded, saying that OCLC and LC had been working together on this issue. LC has decided that the indicators on older records will not be changed, but that the indicators on new records obtained from the British Library and the Dance Heritage project will feature the change. Young remarked that the German records emanating from Project REUSE and which will shortly be loaded in the utilities will be of great interest to the academic library community. He suggested that CC:DA add an agenda topic which addresses harmonization practices, as well as how to educate catalogers in how to make best use of these records. He said that CC:DA would have a role to play in interpreting the significance of these records to librarians. Tillett mentioned that LC already had records from the Deutsche Nationalbibliotek in its resource file, which is available through RLG.

    592. Agenda item 11. Report from the Joint MARBI/CC:DA Metadata Task Force (Kelley)

    Kelley reported on the meeting of the original ALCTS Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules. Members had to decide how to conclude their business and complete their charge to report during the 1998 ALA Annual in Washington. Kelley noted that this task force had undergone a change of name; previously it was the Task Force on the Relationship of the TEI Header to the Cataloging Rules. Then, at last year’s Annual, the scope of the task force was broadened to include other emerging metadata schemes. At the same time, the deadline for the report of the task force was extended from 1997 to 1998. Kelley reported that the task force had rejected as impractical an analysis of many metadata schemes in favor of concentrating on the two most mature schemes, i.e., those emerging as most used by the community of resource description developers, the TEI Header and the Dublin Core. J. Attig informed the committee of the development of a Dublin Core work project which has a home page. Kelley said that the purpose of that project was to invite the cataloging community to work with Dublin Core elements with the purpose of analyzing how they would integrate into an AACR2 catalog and to speculate on possible problems. For example, would rule revisions be necessary to advise catalogers on how to deal with these elements to ensure that they would integrate appropriately? Kelley said the task force had hoped to perform the same analysis with TEI but couldn’t proceed because the USMARC office has not developed a crosswalk that translates TEI elements. Kelley remarked that without an ad hoc standard for mapping from one data element scheme to another, there could not be the same analysis as that applied to the Dublin Core. As an alternative, however, the task force could use work done by Jackie Shieh and UVA. Extensive work has been done there in the use of TEI headers as the basis for the development of AACR2 records, and they have developed their own crosswalks. Kelley felt that the task force can perform a similar analysis using a slightly different methodology.

    Schottlaender asked if by TEI, Kelley meant a TEI header. Kelley said that was correct. She said the task force feels strongly about educating the cataloging community about how they might use these resource descriptions as a basis for AACR2 cataloging and how they might integrate these records in an AACR2 catalog. Therefore, the final report of the task force will include descriptions of VRA, GILS, EAD and HTML 2.0/4.0 mark-up language in general. In the meantime, the task force has developed, or rather refined, an agenda. Members of the task force are analyzing the various metadata schemes and will post drafts of these on the task force listserv. Kelley mentioned that there will be a delay on the TEI side, because a TEI/MARC crosswalk will not be available until after Midwinter.

    Kelley continued with a report on the Sunday, January 12th, meeting between volunteers from MARBI and members of the CC:DA task force. Kelley admitted that there was some confusion about this task force. She said the plan to create a joint task force of MARBI and CC:DA members could not be approved by CCS for some time, and that the time it would take to submit a proposal for a joint task force would be prohibitive. It was felt that the topic needed to be addressed in a timely manner, so the decision had been not to constitute a joint task force, but rather to expand the current CC:DA task force to include MARBI members who would work together to develop an agenda of study for the examination of metadata and cataloging standards such as MARC and AACR2. Kelley said that a lot of people, including herself, had thought the current task force would be a joint task force. Although it is not, Kelley said a joint task force could be put in motion for the future. The Chair explained that the failure to form a joint task force was the reason why the list of volunteers for the joint task force had not been acted upon. Kelley said that a listserv for the group was being developed.

    Also during the Sunday morning meeting, task force members discussed the administrative details of how to proceed. They reviewed their charge: to analyze and document the impact of metadata schemes on well-established library standards such as AACR2 and USMARC; to monitor the development of metadata element sets and implementation projects; to set up liaisons to important metadata scheme developers. The task force next identified the action items needed in order to carry out that charge: the study of implementation projects such as the Australian, Nordic and German metadata projects; the investigation of education activities and publicity activities involving metadata. Kelley projected a 2-year limit during which the task force would identify emerging metadata schemes and investigate how these schemes will integrate into standard catalogs. She said this group would not preclude the possibility of establishing a joint MARBI/CC:DA task force, as had been originally intended. She said that while the original charge will be discharged by the 1998 annual, the charge of the combined task force will go into effect at that time. Kelley concluded her report by saying that there were many administrative details that still have to be worked out, and called for questions from the committee.

    E. Mangan asked that since the scope of the task force had been broadened, was the task force now going to examine all mature metadata structures instead of just the TEI and Dublin Core? Kelley responded that the scope had been expanded beyond the original two, but doubted that all extant metadata schemes could be addressed.

    E. Mangan inquired if the FGDC standard had been added, and Kelley said that it had.

    B. Young commented that his concern might seem to have more to do with subject cataloging than with descriptive, but felt that with metadata, the two seemed to converge. He noted that the descriptive record provides the carrier upon which classification and subject cataloging data “rides.” His concern was that with keyword being the primary or only access to metadata records, questions about the structure and content of metadata elements seems to rarely reflect any informed concern about how well the structure of the metadata elements will support key word searching for the purpose of subject retrieval. He observed that browsers have different ways to help people, but the people who put up the metadata don’t seem to have much in the way to help users. He said a role for this task force should not be to propose changes to the standards that are looked at, but one of the things that should be included is an examination of how well existing structures and content definitions support key word searching. Also to be addressed are the hopes for automatic indexing and automatic classification that could really help libraries exploit this data.

    At this point Kelley said she wished to correct an impression she might have given in her report, namely, that the task force will be recommending changes to metadata standards. Instead, it is going to be working to inform the library community about how various metadata schemes work, how they can be integrated, what mechanisms there are for integration, and what catalogers are going to need to know to bring these structures up to full, or rather, core-level, cataloging. J. Attig mentioned that since there were SAC task forces working on these issues, it would be a good idea to set up a liaison relationship with them.

    Schottlaender remarked that once the task force got its administrative details worked out, it might be an ideal opportunity to get it “into the loop” of some of the metadata discussions, such as the Dublin Core meetings. He added that Kelley is right not to forward recommendations for changes to these standards, but there is no reason why the cataloging community should not participate in the further development of those standards.

    Brad Eden concurred, and said that such development was the next step for this task force. He said that Metadata developers are looking for input from libraries and that the people responsible for TEI are interested in what the library community thinks of it.

    Kelley agreed, saying part of the charge was to investigate ways for each community to inform the other. In fact, she said this was the purpose of the liaison relationship to the metadata communities, i.e., to be involved in information exchange. Schottlaender observed that if the library community is ever going to realize the promise that reverse engineering between the various metadata standards seems to offer, that information exchange will be a critical function for this task force.

    Kelley said that at the Dublin Core Working Group’s 5th meeting in Helsinki, there were only 4 catalogers compared with about 70 other “computer types,” but what catalogers had to say had had an important impact on the final definitions of the 15 Dublin Core elements.

    593. Agenda item 12. Report from the 1998 Preconference/Summary Task Force (Kinney)

    D. Kinney gave the committee an update on the planning process. He said that the program proposal that was brought before the ALCTS Program Planning Committee in San Francisco was 3 hours long, and Karen Whittlesey and the ALCTS Program Committee thought that there was enough material to fill a Preconference. The CCS Executive Committee wanted to get the information on the Toronto Conference and the Functional Requirements that were about to be issued and other topics on the program to as many members as possible, and they would agree to the Preconference format only if there was to be a Summary program during the conference as well. The negotiations were completed at the end of the summer. There will be a Preconference entitled, “What in the World … Cataloging on an International Level,” on June 26, 1998 and a Summary program on June 27. The tentative program is as follows:

    Welcome — Dan Kinney, State U. Of NY at Stony Brook
    Introduction and Overview — John Byrum, LC
    IFLA Section on Cataloging — Ingrid Parent, NLC
    IFLA Functional Requirements for Bib. Records
    — Olivia Madison, Iowa State
    International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR — Ralph W. Manning, NLC
    Authority Control at the International Level
    — Barbara Tillett, LC
    Project Reuse — Monika Muennich, U. Of Heidelberg
    The Unicode(tm) Standard: Its Scope, Principles, and Potential for International Cataloging
    — Joan Aliprand, RLG
    Harmonized MARC — Sally McCallum, LC
    Bibliographic Data in the International Arena
    — Glenn Patton, OCLC
    Summary: Panel Discussion, Questions and Answers

    Group Summary Program on International Cataloging – Saturday, June 27, 1998 – 9:30-11:30 a.m.

    The Preconference will be scheduled from 8:30-4:30. The cost will be $135.00, and the revised schedule will go up on the [ALCTS] webpage.

    ACRL West Germanist Discussion Group will co-sponsor the Preconference. L. Jizba said that the International Relations Roundtable is also considering co-sponsorship. MARBI and the Committee on Classification and Cataloging: Asian, African and Mid-Eastern Materials are also possible co-sponsors. Schottlaender asked if co-sponsorships would be in name only, and the consensus was that they were.

    The Chair called for other ideas for co-sponsors. He said the ALCTS Program Committee insist that speakers have their papers written out and submitted in case there is a plane delay. Consequently, the Chair will investigate the possibility of publishing the conference proceedings. He said that the Summary Program will consist of abstracts from the papers.

    Young said that in the past Preconferences have not been publicized well, and the co-sponsorship would help registration and avoid cancellation.

    Schottlaender said a no-go decision is made 20 days before the conference, but for this Preconference there are already 100 budgeted registrants so it is unlikely this would be a no-go. The ALCTS Budget and Finance Committee has sent a recommendation to the ALCTS Serials Section that it might want to consider altering the title of its own Preconference being offered on the same day so as not to draw people away from this Preconference.

    594. Agenda item 13. Report of the MARBI Representative (Gerhart)

    Gerhart reported that MARBI had finished all its business for this conference and that consequently, there would be no Monday meeting. She reported the outcome of the proposals and discussion papers before MARBI at this conference.

    • Proposal 98-1 — Passed as amended
      Discussion focused around the conflict between the 524 (Citation) field and the expanded 210. It was decided that the differentiation could be cleaned up by removing the word “citation” from the definition. Catalogers can add abbreviated titles that appear in indexing services.

    • Proposal 98-2 — Passed as amended
      Discussion on this continued to center around the implications of keeping holdings fields in the bib. record while also defining them in the holdings format. Again, the lack of adequate implementation of the holdings format meant that there is no alternative but to leave these fields in the bib. format, while adding them to the holdings. The $8 proposed to link these notes to a copy in the holdings was NOT passed.

    • Proposal 98-3 — Passed as amended
      Expanding the use of the 028 to include music publishing information. There was a slight change to clarify definition and indicators.

    • Proposal 98-5 — Passed as amended.
      Expanding subfields for the UDC.

    • Discussion Paper 106
      The solution presented for single “incorrect” dates was acceptable, but when multiple dates were involved, the solutions didn’t seem quite right. A proposal will be brought forward that looks at using field 046 to solve the multiple incorrect date problems. The 046 is where other problematic dates, such as B.C. dates, have been put.

    • Proposal 98-4 — Approved, adding more fields to the 046, with the realization that the 046 field needs lots of work, which can be done when DP 106 is written up.

    • Proposal 98-6 — Approved as written using option 1: 008 byte 29. Define the value s in the 008 that would indicate the carrier is electronic. At the last MARBI meeting, it was decided to redefine computer file, so that things that were not program-like things got coded with what they were, either as score or text.

    • Discussion Paper 104
      Will be returning as a proposal to add the 007 for tactile and/or Braille type information.

    • Discussion Paper 105
      Concerns reading programs used in school libraries, specifically where to put information about them in the bibliographic records. The discussion of this centered around understanding the particular problems that this information presents. The logical solution of having a bib. record for the program group with added entries for the books within it doesn’t work since the reading program will have thousands of books, so coming up with a work around that doesn’t break too many USMARC principles is the goal. This DP will be coming back as a proposal, with all this information in one field, to be announced.

    • Discussion Paper 107
      Dealt with putting the 856 in the authority record. Discussion centered around two topics:
      1. Does putting 856 in authority format break the basic principles of the authority record, and if so, is that okay?
      2. Would the extra trouble to create and maintain them be worth it?

      MARBI will seek input from NACO on this. Gerhart called for comments from CC:DA. R. Marker said that it was a nifty idea except that for most of our catalogs the staff side is not on the web for various reasons including response time, reliability and security, so staff would have to go outside of the record to access the URL, so it wouldn’t be clickable, and therefore, not practical. Attig noted that there are some catalogs where this is possible, so MARBI will proceed with this in some fashion. Young noted that in terms of descriptive cataloging and the creation of authority records, wouldn’t it be equally appropriate to include the name and address in the authority record for a personal name? Gerhart commented that the link might be helpful if the cataloger needed additional information about a corporate body’s history, e.g., to answer a name change question. Schiff remarked that catalogers already cite electronic resources in 670’s and the NACO standard now is to not give the URL, just cite the name of the webpage. Young suggested that for authority records for musical groups, a group portrait might be scanned in.

    The meeting was adjourned at 10:15, and called to order at 10:30.

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

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

    LC Report for CC:DA
    Midwinter 1998
    New Orleans, LA

    Prepared by Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
    Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office

    The Library of Congress will host the conference reception for ALA this summer. During the conference,

    LC will provide training and presentations, as well as hands-on work experiences. See our Web site for more information.

    The celebration of the centenary of the Thomas Jefferson Building at the Library of Congress culminated in early November with the lighting of the new Torch of Learning atop the dome of the building. Library staff are looking forward toward the next big anniversary, the bicentennial of the Library of Congress, to be celebrated during the year 2000 with the theme, “Libraries, Creativity, Liberty.“ The primary goal of the bicentennial is, “To inspire creativity in the century ahead by stimulating greater use of the Library of Congress and libraries everywhere.“ A variety of national, state, and local projects are being developed in collaboration with offices of members of Congress, the Library’s staff, the library community, and special advisory committees. Numerous projects are being considered under the broad concept of “Gifts to the Nation.” The idea is that such gifts are reciprocal. The Library shares its collections and the knowledge of its staff with the nation and, simultaneously, the Library hopes to receive significant acquisitions for its collections and other gifts from individuals, institutions, and organizations across the country. At the top of the Library’s wish list is to acquire replacement copies of books from Thomas Jefferson’s original 6,487-volume library, two thirds of which burned in 1851. We know the contents of the original collection, because of a five-volume catalog describing Jefferson“s personal library from 1815. The bicentennial is intended to be a celebration of libraries everywhere. Libraries of all kinds and sizes are invited to participate in the commemoration by involvement in “Local Legacies Projects” in which, through collaboration with Congressional offices, libraries, museums, historical societies, and other cultural institutions, LC will seek to preserve the richness of America’s heritage in regions throughout the United States. As plans and projects evolve, you can watch for announcements and further information on the Library’s new bicentennial web page. More details will also be available at the annual meeting of ALA this coming June in Washington, with the theme of global librarianship.

    Since LC relies on annual Congressional appropriations of public funds, there is always news on the budget cycle. LC delivered a budget request for FY 1999 to Congress that emphasizes its strategic priorities of automation support, improved security, and new off-site storage facilities at Fort Meade, Md., and Culpeper, Ca. Further details on the budget are waiting until President Clinton presents his budget to Congress in early February. For FY 1998, LC did receive funding to increase its book budget and to proceed with the procurement of an integrated library system (ILS) to replace its current stand-alone systems. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for an ILS was issued in July 1997 with a September closing date. Responses to the RFP are now being evaluated and LC expects to award a contract in the spring. Concurrently, implementation planning is underway that addresses key issues, such as availability of appropriate hardware and software, incorporation of necessary functionalities, establishment of local policies as rules within the ILS, connectivity of the ILS with other systems, migration of automated data to the new system, conversion of non-automated data, and central to all, training of staff. It is estimated that between 500-1,000 staff members will be involved to some extent by serving on approximately 50 project teams. The new system is expected to be in place by October 1, 1999. I was named the ILS Program Director in August 1997, but will continue my responsibilities as LC’s representative for all national and international cataloging policy activities.

    LC’s Booth
    At this Midwinter conference, LC’s exhibit booth is #645. The booth has been customized to feature the services of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, which in previous years had its own separate exhibit. At the booth, LC staff are on hand to demonstrate new features for searching LC’s catalog. As usual, Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) staff will be highlighting the latest publications and demonstrating Cataloger’s Desktop and Classification Plus and a set of the 20th LCSH. CDS will also provide information about its plans to begin public testing of Web versions of Classification Plus and Cataloger’s Desktop in a 3-month beta test during 1998. The public test will help CDS evaluate public response to the Web product versions and measure interest in these products as a fee-based online service.

    Library Services
    Beacher Wiggins, Director for Cataloging, is now back to full-time. He was also acting Director for Acquisitions until Nancy Davenport was appointed to that position this month. In Serial Records, Jean Hirons was officially appointed as the CONSER Coordinator and Maureen Landry will serve as acting Chief of the Serial Record Division with Kim Dobbs retiring this month.

    Cataloging Policy and Support Office
    In Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Tom Yee is Acting Chief for the 3 years while I serve as the ILS Program Director. David Reser joined CPSO this year as a cataloging policy specialist to focus on cataloging rules, subject headings, and classification for computer files, electronic resources, and related materials. CPSO also has a new Web site: We also moved to GroupWise for email this year and the new CPSO email address is
    The “Draft Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources” are now available (see the handout) as are the new “Guidelines for Distinguishing Cartographic Materials on Computer File Carriers.”
    I also have a handout announcing LC’s decision regarding delaying of implementation of the change to indicator value for multiple surnames until after October 1999. We also have a notice about the addition of the new data elements in authority records from USMARC Authorities Updates 1 and 2 will be implemented no earlier than May 1998.

    General Cataloging
    Our arrearage reduction goals are still on target for books to complete them by the year 2000, but that goal will need to be adjusted with our implementation of the ILS, which will involve nearly every staff person in Library Services. The new goals will be set in 1998 with Congress. We will have a big push in March 1998, for a production only month, before staff launch into ILS implementation team work.

    Core cataloging continues on a few teams in each cataloging division, but has not yet expanded.

    Approximately 66,000 machine-generated uniform title authority records for music will appear as the result of our project with OCLC.

    The Program for Cooperative Cataloging consolidated with CONSER in October. LC continues to serve as the secretariat to the organization.

    NACO celebrated its 20th anniversary at a party at LC in early November. Over 1 million authority records have been contributed by the NACO partners since 1977. April 29-May 1, 1998 will be the dates for the next series authorities training session to be given by Judy Kuhagen. Also on June 26, 1998, during ALA, Lynn El-Hoshy will provide a SACO workshop. I highly recommend these sessions to you, as both Lynn and Judy are outstanding trainers.

    A new edition of Geographic Area Codes is out with the latest changes for Hong Kong and the former Soviet republics.

    Bob Hiatt continues work on “division of the world” and just received information from Sherman Clarke from the Art librarians regarding individual works of art. He will be preparing the resulting proposals for name versus subject authority decisions.

    Harriet Harrison completed the update (not a new revision) of the Archival Moving Image Materials Cataloging Manual. December was the deadline for comments. This document will be added to the Cataloger’s Desktop.

    The January 1998 issue of American Libraries includes an announcement that LC plans to move to using pinyin transliteration for Chinese by the year 2000.

    Cataloging Production
    Cataloging for FY97 was nearly the same as for FY96, which is remarkable given a reduction in staff. Nearly 260,000 bibliographic records were created for nearly 290,000 volumes. Authority record production increased over the FY96 totals to 126,186 name, series, and subject authority records in FY97.

    More information on LC activities is available in LC’s “ALA Briefing” report. Due to time, this oral report was truncated.

    596. Agenda item 15. Report from the Task Force on Cataloging Conference Proceedings II (Yee)

    Yee reported that “the world” seems to be moving away from meetings that employ a word that connotes a meeting, which is what is required in the LCRI to consider a conference to be named. It is also moving away from employing prepositions such as “on” between a word connoting a meeting and a topic. The task force identified the following patterns of meetings that are considered unnamed, but that the task force considers as candidates for being “named”: one is the use of topic words with a term such as “titled” in a form like “A Symposium titled . . . . . .” Another pattern is to name with topic words in prepositional conjunction with a term connoting meeting but using an indefinite article and only partially capitalizing. Example: A workshop on Comparing Legal Cultures. Another pattern is to name with topic words in non-prepositional conjunction in a term connoting a meeting. Example: The 1995 British sociological conference Contested Cities. Another pattern is to use topic words in a year. Example: Solidification Processing 1987. Another is to use Topical terms and a number connoting sequence. Example: Integrated Circuits II 1996 and Integrated Circuits III 1997. Yee noted that it is the LCRI that is preventing all these examples from being considered named. AACR2 requires only that something have a specific appellation and suggests that either that be capitalized or that it employ a definite article but most of these could be held to fall into that category as long as the “and, or” in the rule in AACR2 can be taken to mean what we think it does, which is “either, or.” So it is the LCRI that the task force will be recommending be changed. They will suggest that the following list be considered evidence of appellation, which is what AACR2 requires: 1. An explicit statement such as “titled” or “entitled”; 2. Either partial or total capitalization; 3. Presence of a year; 4. Presence of a number connoting sequence of meetings. In addition, they recommended that there be a judgment if it was the intent of the organizers to name the meeting and when in doubt to consider it named.

    Yee said she would write this all up with examples. Schiff asked about the example, “Symposium titled,” would the heading start with the word “Symposium,” or would it start with the first word after the word titled? Yee said members of the task force couldn’t agree on what the name of the meeting should be after deciding that it was named. She said that the entry element did not concern them because a cross reference could be constructed from the element not chosen. The task force intends to make an explicit statement to make cross references from any name that was a candidate for the heading. They are, however, not intending to recommend what the name should be but only recommending that the decision about whether something is named or not should be broadened to include more things than have been included up to now. In response to a question, Yee said the previous task force had recommended a proposal to CC:DA that had actually been voted upon to send forward that “prominently named be removed from the rules in AACR2,” and pointed out that that is an actual change in the rules that does need to go forward to the JSC. In response to another question about the adequacy of qualifiers to distinguish among identically named conferences, Young observed that something that was not considered named under the old LCRI and was now considered “named” would have the same provisions for qualification coming into play. Yee agreed. Schiff asked if the task force would not be putting forth a recommendation to change the actual definition in 21.1B1 which actually talks about having to have consistent capitalization. Yee said that a change in AACR2 might not be considered necessary if capitalized can be said to cover partially capitalized. And if “and, or” can be considered to mean “either or,” i.e., it either has to be capitalized or it has to have a definite article but not both. Schiff pointed out that the rule states, “The initial letters of the words.” Yee agreed that perhaps the task force would have to send forward a recommendation for a rule revision. Schottlaender said he agreed with Schiff and stated that partial capitalization is not what is implied by the language of the rule. Yee stated that the task force intends to include the pros and cons for the recommendations that they are making so that CC:DA can make an informed decision. Yee said that the task force wants to warn of any problems that catalogers might foresee with the recommendations of the task force. Yee said that one of problems foreseen was that this raises the potential of catalogers having to choose between a “weakly” named conference on the title-page and a “strongly” named conference in the prefatory material, so that the cataloger might be “driven” to use a less than ideal name by the fact that it is prominent. Yee said that if other catalogers could think of any more problems with the task force’s recommendations, they would be included in the report as well. Schottlaender said that another problem might be if the rules were sufficiently broad, an unnamed conference (a truly unnamed conference as opposed to one that had formerly been considered unnamed) would end up being named. Yee responded that the task force had turned up a large variety of material that would still be considered unnamed, even if the task force’s recommendations were put in place.

    597. Agenda item 16. Report of the CC:AAM Program in Washington (Guidarelli)

    CC:AAM is going to present a program on Sunday, June 28th, at the Annual Meeting in Washington DC. The program is entitled “Vernacular Script in Authority Control Records,” and is sponsored by MARBI, CC:DA, and ASIG. The target audience is the general audience. Anyone wanting further information should contact Claire Dunkle.

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

    The next meeting will be Sat. June 27, and Monday, June 29, at the usual times.

    The Chair asked for a motion to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Susan M. Hayes