1. Seriality: JSC has asked CONSER to pursue formalizing the Conference’s seriality recommendations as rule revision proposals to be submitted to the JSC for consideration through CC:DA. Jean Hirons, working with others in the U.S. and international serials communities, including the CSSC, is leading this effort. In addition to her report to CC:DA today, Hirons will be meeting with the JSC after this Conference to brief the committee on her progress.

2. Principles: The JSC has commissioned Tom Delsey to complete the entity-relationship modeling exercise he began for the Toronto Conference in order to identify the principles currently embodied in AACR2. Tom has completed his work on modeling Part 1 of the code. He will be meeting with the JSC after this conference to brief the committee on his work before moving on to model Part 2 of the code. In parallel to this effort, the JSC has devised its own list of principles embodied in the code. At the November 1998 meeting, the JSC will compare this list with the principles identified in the Delsey report.

3. Content vs. Carrier: As per the JSC’s request, CC:DA has formed a task force to examine this issue. Martha Yee is the chair of this group. Schottlaender remarked that it was immediately clear to him that Tom Delsey’s entity-relationship analysis is directly relevant to the work of the CC:DA Task Force on Rule 0.24. He promised to make every effort to facilitate CC:DA’s getting access to the recommendations contained in that report as soon as possible following the July 1998 JSC meeting.

1. JSC has completed its first review of AACR2e (Folio Views file) and has forwarded input to ALA Editions. JSC members have just received a revised version for second review. Members have agreed to have their second review completed by July 10.

2. In April, Ralph Manning forwarded to ALA (as noted in 4JSC/Chair/60) corrections to the code identified by John Duke during his work to prepare the electronic file. Schottlaender forwarded Yee’s comments on John’s comments to Ralph Manning. Ralph will forward these to ALA for incorporation into AACR2e as appropriate.

[4JSC/ALA/25/ALA follow-up/LC response]: Definitions for “Computer disk” and “Computer optical disc” (Appendix D and Index)

CC:DA did not object to any of LC’s suggested changes, but had comments on a few items. The Committee noted that ALA’s original proposal called for the terms listed in item 6 to be added as equivalent-term cross-references in the index, not in the glossary. The Committee feels that it is appropriate for them to be included in the index. With regard to item 7, the Committee recommended changing the proposed reference from “Optical disc” to “Optical disk, Computer.” On item 14, a member questioned the propriety of the parenthetical “(sound recordings)”. Schottlaender volunteered to check on this prior to preparing the ALA response memo.

[4JSC/Rule Revision/1/Consolidated/1]

The Committee had no comments on this document.

[4JSC/Rule Revision/1/Consolidated/1/CCC rep response]

The Committee agreed that the numbers in quotations in the explanatory note for the example should not be italicized. Schottlaender noted that “(see 12.3)” should really read “(12.3E).” Members noted that in the example there should be spaces around the equals sign and that the word “Kulturegeschichte” is misspelled.

[4JSC/Rule Revision/1/Consolidated/1/LC response
4JSC/Rule Revision/1/Consolidated/1/ LC response/CCC rep response]

Schottlaender noted that JSC approval of the rules referenced in items 1 and 3 of this memo is expected soon. The Committee agreed that the phrase “printed music” should be replaced with “published music.” Members agreed with the CCC regarding transcription of examples; examples should only be transcribed when necessary, so that the possibility of transcription errors is minimized.

1. Electronic resources GMD proposal.
2. Proposals arising from the work of the Task Force on Conference Proceedings.

Ralph Manning has informed the JSC that his tenure as both Chair and Member will conclude following the November JSC meeting in England. Ralph has been an extremely able Chair who has guided the Committee through an extremely busy and productive period. Schottlaender asked CC:DA to thank him for a job well done. The audience joined the Committee in applauding Manning’s contributions. The JSC will select a new Chair at its November meeting.

608. Agenda item 10. Report of the OCLC Representative (Patton)

Due to the lateness of the hour, Patton agreed to delay his report until the meeting scheduled for June 29, 1998.

609. Agenda item 11. Report of the Task Force on Rule 0.24 (Yee)

Yee reported that the Task Force held a brainstorming session on June 26, 1998. Task Force documents are available via the CC:DA Web site.

Prior to the brainstorming session, four approaches to revising the rule were presented; Task Force members did not identify any additional approaches at the meeting. The group will investigate these approaches more thoroughly in the coming months. Task Force members identified five “facets” for analysis: frequency of publication, published vs. unpublished, content, carrier, and type of management. The group feels that rule 0.24 currently has at least two functions: instructing which chapter to use when formulating a description for an item displaying multiple characteristics and providing guidance about when to create a new record. Finally, members developed a number of goals to guide the work of the Task Force:

• To provide clarity for catalogers when deciding how to formulate a description for an item with multiple characteristics
• To provide clarity for catalogers when determining when two similar items should be described in two different records
• To provide clarity for the public and catalogers about what the object of a bibliographic record is, or what a record represents
• To ensure that the outcome of the group’s work agrees with the principles of AACR as defined by the JSC
• To ensure that the rule is expandable to cover new types of materials as they emerge
• To provide for clear decision-making by catalogers when rules conflict for an item with multiple characteristics
• To ensure that the situation in which two items represent the same expression of the same work and differ only in carrier is communicated clearly to the public
• To test revisions to confirm that they fulfill their purposes
• To ensure that rules promote the production of exchangeable records.

Yee noted that many members expressed support for doing away with the practice of assigning primacy to one format over another when cataloging different manifestations of the same expression of the same work. The Task Force is aware of its obligation to maintain the relationship between AACR and ISBD standards.

Attig asked whether the Task Force specifically discussed reconsidering the definition of edition. Yee replied that the discussion of this issue is what led to the realization that one of the functions of rule 0.24 could be to help catalogers decide when a new record is required. Attig asked if the group had set any priorities. Yee replied that the Task Force plans to use e-mail and the Web to continue its work during the next six months. Work will focus on setting priorities and separating the practical ideas from the impractical. Brad Young expressed his support for the idea that rule 0.24 should promote exchangeable records. Matthew Beacom asked whether all of the approaches to revising rule 0.24 currently under consideration involve rewriting the existing text of the rule. Yee confirmed that this is the case and added that the Task Force does not necessarily view the four approaches that they have identified as mutually exclusive. Kinney reminded the Committee that the Task Force will make its final report to the Committee in 2000.

Hearing no other discussion, Kinney called for a motion to adjourn. Upon a motion from Larsgaard, seconded by Schiff, the meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Lincicum, Intern

610. Agenda item 12. Welcome and opening remarks (Chair)

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

611. Agenda item 13. Report from the CCS Representative to the ALCTS Publications Committee (Tony Olson)

Olson passed out handouts containing the URL’s of the publication procedures on the ALCTS website, and copies of the forms needed for submission of material to be published. Olson quoted from the ALCTS Policies and Procedures Manual. It states that work prepared or sponsored by an ALCTS group must be offered to ALA before being submitted to another publisher and must be approved for publication before its submission to ALA. Examples of the types of publications that should be offered to ALCTS are guidelines, standards, bibliographies, price indexes, surveys, directories and conference and institute proceedings that emanate from ALCTS committees, subcommittees, task forces and other officially recognized groups. One exception is discussion groups and/or interest groups for ALCTS: these proceedings do not have to be offered to ALCTS for publication. This requirement of offering material for publication by ALA can be satisfied by one of two ways: the material for publication can be submitted to one of the ALCTS serial publications: the Newsletter, LRTS, or the ALCTS Papers in Library and Technical Services and Collection series. The other way to satisfy the requirement is to submit the material for publication directly to ALCTS, via the ALCTS Publication Committee. Olson talked about electronic publication at ALA. He said that it is becoming an ALCTS practice, that there will be two tiers or levels of publication, at least for electronic publications. The first level will be official publications, and these go through the same approval process that a paper publication would go through: they have to go through the Publications Committee and the forms have to be filled out, even though they may never be published in paper form. There will be a second level, which the Publications Committee has designated as “posting”: committees can put up working drafts of presentations on the ALCTS website. These will be labeled in some way as “non-official.” Olson explained that anything that is going to be posted has to be sent to Karen Muller. Over the next year or so, with the appointment of an ALCTS Committee on Electronic Communications, the procedures for “posting,” material will probably become a little more formalized.

Schottlaender asked Olson to verify if working drafts of papers would be eligible for posting. Olson said that if it was minutes of a meeting or some other information that a committee wanted to get out, that would take a different route, which will perhaps become a “third-level of electronic publication.”

In answer to a question, the Chair remarked that ALA had decided to take off location information from an official CC:DA document, posted on the CC:DA website, and there was a problem with that. This had nothing to do with ALCTS publications; it was ALA policy. Young observed that this was done because, if the locations of the meetings were posted, attendees could attend them without paying their registration fees.

612. Agenda item 14. Report from the Task Force on Conference Proceedings II (Yee)

Yee began by giving an overview of the task force’s recommendations. She suggested that the following be considered evidence of specific appellation in conference names: 1. an explicit statement that the conference is considered to be named in which words like title and entitled are used between a word connoting meeting and terms expressing the topic of the meeting; 2. partial capitalization; 3. The presence of the year the conference was held along with topical words (and a word connoting meeting need not be present); 4. The presence of a number connoting sequence in a sequence of meetings along with topical words and, again, a word connoting meeting need not be present. The task force also found that the use of and/or in the rule as it now stands to be very confusing since it is not clear whether it means consistently capitalized and/or associated with a definite article or whether it means language using capital letters and/or language using articles. The task force found that the LC Rule Interpretation seems to be reading it the second way, which means that a conference is considered to be named only in languages that do not use capitalization for every word in a proper name, such as French, and Italian, when a definite article occurs. This seems a rather obscure and confusing provision, so the task force recommends that it be dropped, and that and/or be replaced by or. Under the current rules the following should be considered to be named: the national conference on losses by theft (all lower case). The task force outlined two possible approaches to changing AACR2 to accomplish these recommended changes in practice. Task force members were evenly divided on these two options. The first option offers more guidance to catalogers about how to decide whether or not there is a specific appellation. It takes the current wording of the rule and adds just four words and makes one change in wording. The rule when changed would read: “Consider a corporate body to have a name if the words referring to it are a specific appellation rather than a general description;” “Consider a body to have a name, if, in a script and language using capital letters for proper names the initial letters of at least some of the words referring to it are consistently capitalized,” and the other change is to delete the and/or and have the rule read, “or, if, in a language using articles, the words are always associated with the definite article.” Option 2 would get rid of all that guidance about using capitalization and articles to decide and simply say, “Consider a corporate body to have a name if the words referring to it are a specific appellation rather than a general description,” and then just fall back on cataloger judgment about what a specific appellation is. The reason that half of the task force that recommends this is doing so is that the decision as to whether a conference has a name depends on the complex weighing of many different kinds of evidence that may or may not be present in any given publication including the overall presentation of the name on the title page on the covers, and/or other preliminary pages, at the top of a roster, via a logo, perhaps a repeated design feature; the consistency with which the name appears in this publication or even a series of publications and a variety of other factors which simply cannot be listed in the form of a rule. And therefore rather than trying to imply that this is a complete and exhaustive list of the evidence, maybe any reference to evidence should just be omitted, and it should be up to cataloger judgment—is it a specific appellation or not? The task force recommends either option 1 or option 2 and would like CC:DA to debate the merits and decide if it wants to recommend either option 1 or option 2. Kelley asked about "“procedural stuff,” namely how many members were on the task force. Yee answered, five. Kelley observed that there wasn’t a clear majority for either option and asked if it was correct that the consultants didn’t agree with either option. Yee replied that the 2 consultants disagree with making any changes in this regard. Members of the task force were unanimous about thinking that a change should be made but divided as to how it should be made. Kelley inquired if option 1 covered Example A: the case where there is something “titled” or ’entitled,” and asked if this meant that it would have “nameness.” Kelley said she didn’t think it did, and that both consultants didn’t feel that this was a naming instance.

Larsgaard suggested, that, since opinion on the task force was so evenly divided, perhaps neither option should be followed. Yee explained that the task force, although divided, was unanimous in thinking that a change should be made to the language in AACR2, but that the consultants were unanimous in saying that AACR2 should not be changed. Yee said that not changing anything could be considered as option 3. Schottlaender asked to be reminded about who the task force’s consultants were. Yee said they were Dorothy McGarry and Sarah Shatford Layne. Kelley asked to be reminded about who the task force members were. Yee said they were Martha Yee, Chair, Jean Altschuler, Adam Schiff, Mitch Turitz and David Van Hoy. Schiff said although he came up with the language of option A, his thinking had evolved, and that he now preferred option B. He also said that any guidance the task force gives is likely to result in a change of naming practice. He asked the committee, whether, on the basis of the examples provided by Yee, the committee felt that these were named conferences. Kelley added that she wanted to hear from those who work with conferences regularly. Turitz stated that sometimes conferences are, unfortunately, considered to be serials. He said the biggest problem was that conference names tend to change from conference to conference, making it unclear whether or not these are “real” title changes, or just name changes. Turitz said that if the rules clarified the difference between a name change and a title change, that might help resolve people’s confusion. He said he also noticed that LC’s usual policy was to catalog conferences as monographs, rather than as serials. He asked Barbara Tillett to provide clarification. Tillett said that decision was based on workflow, and asked Judy Kuhagen to amplify. Kuhagen stated that the LCRI’s were drafted as a response to user needs and preferences, i.e. access to individual data elements.

Yee pointed out that most of the people on the task force (excepting herself) catalog conference publications. Therefore, the task force’s recommendation for rule changes come from a group that regularly catalogs conference publications.

Schiff remarked that the word title used in these publications was misleading. He said that, as far as he was concerned, the title of a conference is its name; rather than the title of a publication, which could end up having the same title as the name of a conference.

Turitz remarked that there tends to be confusion when a particular conference has a theme which appears prominently as though it is the name of the conference. Yee said she would read such comments as a recommendation for option 2, because people who catalog conferences have developed almost an art over the years about making decisions like that, and the more freely they are allowed to do that, without tying them down with language, the better the results we can get from an experienced cataloger of conference publications.

The Chair asked if he was hearing that the task force was leaning towards recommending option 2, and asked that the discussion be focused on pro or con comments.

Yee was asked how she felt option 2 would affect inexperienced catalogers. Yee responded that this was an area where, if you hired an inexperienced cataloger to do this kind of work, you would get what you paid for. She said that the rules would not make up for lack of experience and that there was no way to write a rule that would guarantee results. Schuitema mentioned something that was PCC related. She said that, in PCC discussions, when cataloger’s judgment is mentioned, it is considered a very professional activity to be able to use judgment to solve a problem, to provide access the way users are going to find it. She thought Option B provides that, and it is a good example of the rules following the philosophy we are trying to promote.

Kelley wondered if the recommendation went beyond cataloger’s judgment. She said she didn’t feel that she got guidance at all on what to consider a named conference, but that she does get that with the current definition. She said that she wasn’t sure that the committee was well wedded to Option B. She said she guessed she was speaking for Option C. Schiff pointed out that in 21.1B1, this was guidance for any kind of corporate body, not just conference names and that this rule is written to provide evidence of a specific appellation.

The Chair then took a straw poll of how many were in favor of Option 2. Yee moved that CC:DA adopt Option B, and the motion was seconded. Yee remarked that there was one other part of the task force’s recommendation that had to do with the LCRI’s. She said she wanted guidance about how CC:DA goes about suggesting that LC changes Rule Interpretations. She said they recommended 1) that the statement concerning capitalization and definite article being conflicting evidence be removed and that might follow naturally from the change in the rules; 2) that LC remove the requirement that a phrase connoting the word “meeting” must be present in order for the conference to be considered “named;” 3) that LC broaden the definition of phrases that include the year to include those that do not necessarily employ acronyms or initialisms and include those that use the full year, not just an abbreviated form of the year; 4) that LC ask catalogers to use judgment as to whether it was the intent of the organizers and publishers to name the meeting, and to employ the rule of thumb, when in doubt, consider it named.

Schottlaender commented that the fourth recommendation seemed unusual because it was not the sort of Rule Interpretation LC usually issues. He asked for comment. Tillett remarked that there were a few RI’s using similar language.

Yee moved that CC:DA adopt the task force’s recommendations and forward them to LC. Hixon seconded. The committee voted to adopt the motion.

Schiff observed that there was a section of the report dealing with problems catalogers might face when trying to decide whether a conference was named, and asked if that should be discussed. Schiff said that the change in the rules would make it easier for catalogers to consider a conference named, but that they might have difficulty deciding what the name should be. Yee remarked that the task force agreed that one name would be chosen, and then cross references made to another, so that there would be access to both.

The Chair discharged the task force, with thanks.

613. Agenda item 10 (Postponed from the previous meeting). Report from the OCLC representative (Patton)

Patton updated the committee on the Guidelines to code electronic resources OCLC was preparing. He said that, over the months since Midwinter, these had become two sets of Guidelines. (“Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines,” available on the OCLC Website at http://www.oclc.org/oclc/man/9256cat/toc.htm and “OCLC Guidelines on the Choice of Type and Blvl for Electronic Resources.”

He also reported on the Russian rules harmonization project. OCLC is working with the National Library of Russia to build a database of similar pairs of records, using somewhat of the same methodology as Project REUSE, in comparing German and Anglo-American records. The Russian project is developing slowly, as “foreign,” i.e., non-Russian records, are being added to the database. Patton mentioned that at the end of the Phase One report on the project, there are some suggestions for revision to AACR2. Patton said that he would be meeting with Tillett over the coming months to decide what LC might like to do regarding those recommendations. Patton said that some would not have to be considered, as they arose from the misunderstanding that some of the example headings were prescriptive rather than illustrative.

614. Agenda item 15. Report from the LC representative (Tillett)
[Note: The following report was transcribed from a draft submitted to the secretary by the LC representative.]

AMIM Revision

Work is in progress on the revision of AMIM, the Archival Moving Image Materials AACR2-based cataloging manual. First published in 1984 to provide instructions for the bibliographic description of moving image materials held by film and television archives, the manual was the result of the joint efforts of moving image cataloging experts from archives throughout the United States and was funded in part with a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Work was carried out under the auspices of the Library of Congress and the Join Committee on Specialized Cataloging of the Council of National Library and Information Associations (CNLIA).

The aim of the AMIM manual was to adapt existing library standards for cataloging audiovisual materials to the specialized requirements of moving image archives, thereby enabling archives to utilize USMARC and national bibliographic utilities for the sharing of cataloging data. Advances in moving image technology, coupled with the expansion of television and video archives since the early 1980s, have combined with the increased application of automated technologies for cataloging in moving image archives to necessitate a review of the provisions of the manual.

The review is being conducted by the cataloging staff of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division (MBRS) in consultation with the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (both at the Library of Congress). Suggested revisions are now under discussion in the full MBRS committee, with advice and input from the Cataloging and Documentation Committee of the Association of Moving Image Archivists,. Chairperson for the MBRS Committee is Arlene Balkansky; chair of the review subcommittee of AMIA is Jane Johnson of UCLA; CPSO consultant is Harriet Harrison. The target for completion of the review is September 1998.

Individual Works of Art

As recommended by the PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) Task Force on Names vs. Subjects and an ARLIS/NA task force on the handling of individual works of art, on August 1, 1998, the Library will begin establishing the headings for individual works of art in the name authority file rather than the subject authority file. The guidelines for establishing such headings are the subject of Library of Congress Rule Interpretations that will be published in LCRI Update 1-2, 1998, and should be distributed towards the end of July.

Core Level Cataloging at LC

Implementation of core level cataloging has begun with the expectation that all teams in the Cataloging Directorate will implement core level by the end of fiscal 1998. The core bibliographic record was defined by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging and CONSER to establish a national standard that is less complete than full cataloging but substantially more complete than minimal-level cataloging. All core bibliographic records include a classification number and one or two subject access points where appropriate; all name, series, and subject access points are supported by appropriate authority work. The Library of Congress will include some data elements, in addition to PCC requirements, in all core level records it produces or copies; 504 fields for notes on bibliographic references; LC call numbers; Geographic Area Codes and language codes, if readily ascertainable; and Decimal Classification numbers for items in scope for such treatment. Like core level records produced in other PCC libraries, LC core level original monographic records carry the legend "pcc" in the 042 field.

Pinyin Romanization: Moving Toward Conversion

In September 1997, the Library announced its intention to convert to pinyin romanization of Chinese. The Library has consulted the library community for suggestions concerning new pinyin romanization guidelines and received many useful comments. Final guidelines will be issued in the near future.

The Library has accepted a proposal by the Research Libraries Group (RLG) to convert Chinese records in the RLIN files, including the over 100,000 Chinese bibliographic records contributed by LC. The Library is working with RLG to fashion an implementation timetable that will include development of conversion specifications and thorough testing procedures. This undertaking will ensure that LC and RLIN files remain compatible. OCLC is being kept abreast of this planning process.

It is assumed that machine-readable records will be converted, and that, insofar as possible, conversion will be performed by computer program. Of course, a certain amount of human review will be necessary. A small group has begun investigating which subject headings (or portions thereof) should be converted, and which should not; and also, how conversion will affect classification schedules, As few classification changes as possible will be made, following the precedent of adoption of AACR2. This evaluation is important and will take some months to complete.

Also in preparation for the conversion, the Library recently surveyed interested parties both withing LC and among its constituents regarding word division and syllable aggregation issues. The responses are now being assessed, and a strategy for resolving these issues is in development.

AACR2 in Cataloger’s Desktop

The Cataloging Distribution Services (CDS) will distribute a press release announcing a license agreement between LC and the American Library Association (ALA) for distribution of AACR2, Second Edition (1988 Revision) in Cataloger’s Desktop. CDS plans to incorporate AACR2 in Desktop during the last quarter of 1998. One of the chief benefits of including AACR2 is that catalogers will be able to look up a rule in AACR2 and then immediately see how LC interprets that rule by consulting links to the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations.

CDS will also unveil plans to beta test Cataloger’s Desktop and Classification Plus on the World Wide Web soon after ALA Annual. During the 3-month beta test, anyone interested in trying the service will have access to selected files. About 30 institutions representing different types of technical services environments will provide more in-depth feedback. The purpose of the beta test is to assess search capabilities, response time, and pricing.

Integrated Library System (LC’s ILS)

On May 15, 1998, the Library awarded a contract to Endeavor Information Systems of Des Plaines, Ill. To provide comprehensive integrated library system (ILS) software and support to the Library. The Voyager system from Endeavor Information Systems will replace many of the Library’s standalone automated systems, some of which date to the 1960s. Voyager is a client-server system that will support all standard library operations, including acquisitions, cataloging, inventory and serials control, circulation, and the online public catalog.

Planning for the ILS began in 1995 with the Shelflist Task Group, which concluded that the only feasible was to automate shelflisting at the Library was by obtaining an integrated library system. The Library issued a Request for Proposal in July 1997 and began evaluating responses to the RFP in September 1997. Concurrently with the evaluation process, the Library presented its implementation and training plans to Congress. A Congressional appropriation of $5.6 million in fiscal year 1998 will cover the Endeavor software, training, maintenance, and support, in addition to some new system hardware and other items to support inventory tracking and the initial conversion of the shelflist card file and the manual serials check-in file.

Implementation of the ILS is one of the Library’s highest priorities. The ILS will improve security and accessibility of the Library’s collections and provide inventory control for the first time. The target date for implementation is October 1999.

Approximately 300 LC staff are involved in the implementation process, including CPSO staff, and the understanding of all who are served by CPSO and others at LC is requested. After implementation we fully expect to resume business as usual, or we hope even better services to all of you.

615. Agenda item 18. Report from the MARBI Representative (Gerhart)

Gerhart reviewed the list of proposals to MARBI:

98-7: Passed, but in a different way than written. RLG had suggested an amendment to this proposal, and this amendment was passed with a slight change. No changes will be made to the 008 date field, so the only change that was passed was to add a code "x" in the 046, to allow catalogers to encode the incorrect date that is on the item. Turitz asked why the 260 $c wouldn’t be sufficient for that. Attig responded that most systems index dates from the fixed field rather than the 260. Turitz asked if the correct date shouldn’t be used to index an item, rather than the incorrect date. Attig responded that a user may only know the date on the piece, and therefore it is important, that that date, even if it is incorrect, be coded.

Gerhart said that the next proposal had to do with additional fallout from the harmonization of USMARC and CANMARC. This proposal was rejected. MARBI will be going back to CANMARC and asking them to retain fields that are needed for recon activities, and that should not be made obsolete.

The next proposal, the Reading Program information, was passed with some amendments. This proposal would add a note 526 to the MARC format. MARBI decided to broaden the name of this field to Study Program Information Note, with an indicator to say Reading Program. There will be a subfield i for a display constant.

98-14 was approved, which expanded the 052. MARBI approved a variation of option 1 by defining indicator 7 with a subfield 2 for the source code, but also approved an indicator value 0 for the US Department of Defense classification. This means that if other classifications need to be used, indicator 7, subfield 2, can be used, with an indicator value available by request from MARBI.

98-13 had to do with defining an 856 for the authorities format and this also passed, but MARBI was concerned that there are many implementation issues that the cataloging community, particularly NACO and SACO, need to discuss. LC also recognizes that the examples that were in the proposals were fairly liberal, and that they will work on the examples to make them a little more conservative. Gerhart was asked whether the addition of an 856 in an authority record would “give people a quick and dirty bib record for that material.” Gerhart responded by saying that the cataloging community would have to decide what kind of 856’s would go in these authority records, perhaps mandating that the only 856’s that can be used are official ones for the body represented as opposed to those for related resources.

At this point, the Chair interrupted Gerhart’s report, and proposed that Gerhart’s report be resumed after the originally scheduled Report from ALA Editions.

616. Agenda item 16. Report from ALA Editions (Chatham)

Chatham noted that the Project Manager, David Epstein, had left ALA Editions, and that a new Project Manager, Mary Huchting, the Managing Editor for ALA editions, had been appointed. Chatham and Huchting met with CCS about the need for the index to AACR2 be integrated into the database. This had not been planned because it was thought that it was unnecessary, due to the fact that the table of contents was fully searchable. ALA Editions was able to obtain a copy of the SGML file for the index from Bruce Johnson, which was then converted into FolioBase, with all the links established. This caused ALA Editions to lose time from the publication time table, and more time will be needed for the JSC to see if the integration of the index is complete. Jean Weihs did the indexing, and she added a few extra terms. Once the integration is approved by the JSC, the manufacturing process to get the master disk will only take a few weeks. Chatham noted that AACR2-e contains all the amendments through 1997, which are not in the print version. On the advice of the JSC, a separate subfile containing these amendments was created, which can function as a pull-down list. There is also an “About AACR2” feature, as well as an introduction to the main features of FolioBase, such as the shadow file. Chatham brought the file to ALA, having hired a cataloger from the Art Institute to check the file and to put together a plan to identify the functionality of it. Two sessions have already been run for catalogers attending ALA, with Loretta Johnson demonstrating functionalities and “problems.” One of the things she demonstrated was how to find a rule when only an example of it was known. Chatham speculated that a masterfile would be ready in early August. ALA editions also gave a copy of the file to Bruce Johnson, noting that they had already signed an agreement with the Library of Congress for them to license the file for incorporation into the Cataloger’s Desktop, enabling them to include AACR2-e in the new edition of the Cataloger’s Desktop, due in October. Mary Huchting agreed that as soon as ALA Editions had approval from the JSC, they could proceed to a master disk. There is nothing substantive to be done, but some formatting changes are needed. Chatham added that the next step was to come through with the 1998 edition of AACR2, which would include the 1997 amendments, noting that the print version would be based on the SGML file, and would perhaps be ready in late September, which might create some problems in educational institutions who wish to use the new edition.

Attig asked what the file of record for AACR2 was. Was it the SGML file or the FolioBase? Chatham said it was the SGML file.

Attig said that he understood that there wasn’t going to be a separate package for the revisions. Huchting said that the plan in the print version is to have a place in the preliminaries that listed the amendments since Amendments 1993. In the electronic file, that information is going to be part of a subfile, which will be under a button in the front end, a list of the amendments that have been passed since the 1993 amendments.

Attig pointed out that these were nice features, but they would mean that previous users of AACR2R would have to reinvest in the new edition, rather than being able to update copies they already own. He said that this would be a financial problem for many institutions. Chatham said that this was a choice between two good things. He said that they JSC was concerned that everyone wouldn’t be working from the official version, but that he would discuss the addition of updates again with the JSC. He said he realized that ALA editions didn’t have a perfect solution to this problem.

617. Agenda item 17. Report of the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) Task Force (Howarth)

Howarth thanked the task force members John Attig, Matthew Beacom, Anne Sandberg-Fox, Laurel Jizba, Mary Larsgaard, Pat Vanderberg and Matthew Wise for their active participation. Howarth noted that the task force had established a listserv, and that the major problem so far has been in obtaining a copy of ISBD(ER) from Saur, or rather, Bowker. She said that all task force members now had a copy, and that the task force now has a website maintained by Matthew Beacom. She said the website would be one of the major vehicles for communicating to, and getting feedback from, the wider cataloging community, although these communications would be more in the nature of discussions rather than proposals for rule revisions. Howarth said there would be an attempt to bring the discussions forward as expeditiously as possible in order to accommodate the JSC’s timetable, which features a meeting in November 1998.

Howarth said work on the straightforward areas would try to be completed in time for the JSC’s Novemeber meeting, but that Areas 3 and 5 were expected to be “problematic, even contentious,” and so would take more time to resolve. She said she wanted a “fair body of opinion” about these areas, which she expected to receive via the website. She said that the task force would prepare a draft of their report, which she expected to be completed in time for the November meeting. She added that, given the complexity of the problems relating to Areas 3 and 5, a final report of the task force would probably not be ready for Midwinter, so a draft would be submitted to CC:DA at that time.

Jizba asked that CC:DA recognize its responsibility to be prepared to comment on the draft at Midwinter. She said that progress on these issues was now “glacial,” and that she would hate to see these discussions bog down because of CC:DA’s failure to keep them moving.

618. Agenda item 18. Report from the MARBI Representative (Gerhart) (cont.)

Discussion Paper 110 was a discussion about trying to use the 007 for preservation issues of computer files. This was a very long discussion with many semantic problems. The discussion was not finished and will be continued on the USMARC listserv. The discussion became very technical and it became obvious that many preservation terms were not well-defined. The plan is for this paper to come back as a proposal.

In response to a question, Gerhart said that it was clear that people wanted it as an extension to the 007, rather than a new one. MARBI did not like the idea of doing a brand-new 007 just for preservation information.

Proposal 98-11 was passed but amended; it was decided that the name will not be changed in the 007 for maps; it will not be changed to cartographic materials, but the rest of the proposal passed. including the addition of two new 007’s, one for kits and one for music, even though there is no content. Gerhart said the reason was that “it makes everything align so nicely.”

Gerhart said that proposals about non-filing indicators and recording language would be discussed at a MARBI meeting later in the day. Gerhart said that, in terms of the other items on the agenda, the proposals at the end were all passed with only minor changes.

Schiff said that when Gerhart was discussing the 526 it brought to mind a question about cataloging something with awards. Schiff said he went to AACR2 for guidance about where to put a note about awards, but couldn’t figure out where to put it. He wanted to know if people should be developing additions to AACR, in the form of new notes and examples of the new notes. Gerhart said that this particular note is a kind of related resource note, almost more like an added entry, and it was difficult to determine exactly what kind of note it was. Schiff said that that held true for notes about awards. Gerhart said she couldn’t remember where people had been putting them. Schiff appealed to the audio-visual and children’s book catalogers in the group for the category such a note would fall under. Schiff said that the field 586 had been provided for it, but questioned whether a new category was needed in AACR2. Tillett said that often the question didn’t arise because awards were given out months or years after a given item was cataloged. She said the cataloging rules already provide for any kind of note that a cataloger might want to make, and that we didn’t need another rule saying so. Schiff said he didn’t know what order to put the note on awards. It was suggested that cataloger’s judgment be used. (Applause, laughter)

Turitz, suggested, “just to confuse things,” that Schiff might consider putting awards his patrons would be looking for as a series.

619. Agenda item 19. Report of the Task Force on TEI (Kelley)

Kelley thanked the members of the task force, and reminded them that they are the Task force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules. The members worked for 2 1/2 years to produced the draft report, the full version of which is on the CC:DA website.

Kelley enumerated the task force’s basic assumptions: 1) this was a report framed in the context of the Library OPAC. The task force considers that the nature of collections has changed enormously and might now well contain websites and pointers; 2) Many of the electronic objects will have metadata headers, i.e., structured self-descriptive information that will be a consideration for catalogers as they catalog the electronic resource.

Kelley said that the fact that electronic resources were going to be collected, and that some of these will be accompanied by a type of cataloging raises the question of what catalogers should do with the accompanying metadata. That was the question the task force was charged with by CC:DA. Kelley said that the task force tried to answer this question in a study on the two most developed metadata element sets, the TEI Header, as it was used in the UV electronic text project and the Dublin Core, as used in a task force pilot project. The task force attempted to evaluate both the record and the impact on the catalog. Records were analyzed element by element and compared to Chapter 9 areas, and appropriate Chapter 1 areas, and Chapters 21-25. An analysis of the MARC crosswalk was attempted as well. LC has mounted a de facto official crosswalk for the Dublin Core. There is a crosswalk developed for the TEI header at UV, which has been documented. These were the basis in the report about the success of the mapping and the effort to take a look at the impact on the catalog.

The task force’s background and methodology was to analyze impact in terms of achieving the consistency and standardization necessary to meet Cutter’s objects for the catalog, the functions of the catalog as outlined in the Paris Principles and more recently, to meet the user tasks outlined in the IFLA document Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records. Kelley reminded the committee that the functional requirements were to find, to identify, to select and to obtain. Kelley said that the cataloging rules and practices are designed to achieve the consistency and standardization that we need in bibliographic control, including authority control. The task force felt that the two metadata sets that were examined, and the context of the projects they were studied in, do not meet those standards. Not meeting the standards will destroy the high level of consistency that catalogers and libraries have achieved in the past.

Kelley told the committee that the “punch list” of conclusions in their handout may state the conclusions more emphatically than they will be stated in the final report. The conclusions are really recommended actions. Kelley said she did not intend to go over the conclusions unless people wished to, but the jist of them was that metadata cannot be loaded into OPACs without scrutiny. Kelley said the task force has tried to give guidelines about where that scrutiny is needed. The recommendations turned into a recommendation to make a recommendation to the Task force on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) to review chapter 9. But Kelley felt that she could forward one recommendation that would be of use to catalogers, and that is, how do you treat metadata, in terms of providing information or as a source of information, for cataloging? The task force could not agree on the proposed revision of 9.0B1, although they had a majority. The problem is how will metadata function in the context of a chief source of information? Anne Sandberg-Fox, in her addendum, concludes, you can take either the eye-readable title page or the underlying encoded title-page as equally potential chief sources of information. The task force could not agree on that.

The other recommendations were to continue to pursue meaningful collaboration with developers of metadata. Kelley said this would be necessary in order to better incorporate metadata with AACR2 cataloging into Union Catalogs.

Kelley said that the final recommendations dealing with chapter 9, especially the one dealing with the 856, will be referred to the Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) and AACR2.

Kelley said this was a beginning at looking at Internet resources and metadata. She said the task force report presents a good model for future task forces, and that there is a need for future task forces.

Kelley turned the floor over to John Attig. Attig said that he thought the rules already allowed catalogers to use metadata as a source of information, if not the chief source, and that making explicit things that are already there about how to use metadata as a source of information is merely fine-tuning.

Schiff asked if there would be a value in continuing the task forces’s work with other metadata schemes. Would the conclusions be the same? Kelley said not at all, a point which she must make explicit in the final draft. Attig said what was clear to them was the utility of doing this exercise with appropriate element sets. Kelley suggested that as metadata schemes emerge as mature, this committee should take a look at them as a means of offering guidance to catalogers on how to treat them.. She said the task force just didn’t have time to look at more than two, and that you couldn’t necessarily extrapolate from the task force’s conclusions.

Schottlaender said that he was glad that the task force felt that more task forces were necessary in order to review more metadata schemes. He said that since most metadata schemes are lacking when it comes to content and semantic standards, that the emerging VRA set might be worth looking at because that one is actually concerning itself with content and semantic standards. Schottlaender reported that when the topic of content and semantic standards came up at the recent Metadata Institute, there was, if not outright derision, then active indifference to them, except on the part of the VRA people.

Jizba said that the cataloging rules are going to have to come to grips with the need for standards for the summary note: 520 content. As we emphasize content over carrier, there is a need for more specific rules concerning this field, to increase mapping.

Rhonda Marker asked if we really need to ask for a rule change if the rules already allow something.

Mary Larsgaard said that there was an extremely lively discussion following the four presentations at the task force meeting the previous day, and there was a very strong interest in seeing proactive movement on the part of a new task force, perhaps the joint task force between CC:DA and MARBI.

The chair stated that the next step for the committee was to discuss the recommendations in the task force report, including forming a successor to the task force. The chair remarked that this would not be a joint task force between CC:DA and MARBI because the formation of such a task force was not within the purview of CC:DA, and because it had organizational implications that would involve three divisions. However, the chair suggested that a new, CC:DA task force could be formed, and that this could include MARBI members.

There was a motion to accept the report, it was seconded, and so moved. The chair discharged the task force and thanked them for their work.

Kelley took this opportunity to “extract the maximum embarrassment” for John Attig. Kelley said that John’s role in this report was invaluable and that it was he who made the breakthrough on what the methodology for evaluation should be, as well as managing the website. In recognition of his accomplishments, Kelley presented a certificate of appreciation to him.

The committee voted to approve the first two recommendations of the task force. It then voted on the third recommendation, which was approved, after the chair reminded the committee that the task force in question could not be an official Joint Task force of MARBI and CC:DA, but could be one upon which members of MARBI and CC:DA could serve jointly.

Kelley offered a report of the task force’s meeting of the previous day. Speakers included Stuart Weibel of the Dublin Core, Michael Fox of the EAD, Bill Moens for the CIMI projects and Willy Cromwell-Kessler for interoperability and how you bring diverse metadata sets together. This was the structured presentation. Speakers discussed why libraries might want to use these metadata sets, what resource allocation/reallocation problems were involved, including what are the impediments to using metadata. Kelley said that she thought the discussion helped everyone understand the problems and issues. Kelley mentioned that after she left, Mary Larsgaard took over the meeting, and asked Larsgaard to discuss the charge.

Larsgaard said that about 60 people attended the meeting, which was held in a room, “the size of your first kitchen when you were in college.” The proposed charge for the new committee was summarized from the many comments that came up during the meeting, and divided by Larsgaard into 5 recommendations.

Schottlaender remarked that recommendations 1 and 4 were quite unusual for a CC:DA task force. He pointed out that to recommend ways in which libraries might incorporate metadata schemes in resource descriptions goes way beyond looking at the code.

Kelley said that the descriptive community should not be precluded from commenting on the impact of metadata upon the catalog, virtual or real, and that “this is the vehicle to do that.”

Schottlaender suggested that the other recommendations permitted this, without explicitly stating it. Kelley replied that the charge was “a moving target,” but that Schottlaender’s comment would be taken under advisement.

Bruce Johnson said that CC:DA was doing this in response to an ALCTS task force that was asking CC:DA to do this, and the ALCTS board endorsed the request.

Marker said that it would be “uncomfortable” if the charge only referred to AACR2. This is not the committee on AACR2 code, it is the only committee in ALA that deals with cataloging, description and access.

Attig remarked that he had spoken to Sherman Clarke about the VRA metadata set, and that Sherman agreed that perhaps it was time for VRA to be analyzed in the same way the Dublin Core and TEI headers had been analyzed. He also said that the “joint” task force was not the place to do this; and that a new task force should be appointed.

Schiff suggested that the new task force could be charged with analyzing “the next batch” of metadata schemes.

There was a motion to form a new task force and it was so moved.

620. Agenda item 20. Joint Meeting of MARBI and CC:DA

Jacquie Riley, RUSA representative to MARBI
Matthew Beacom, Member, CCDA
John Attig, Representative of the online visual catalogers at MARBI and CC:DA Website Coordinator, today representing the Digital Resources Committee
Sherry Kelley, Member, CC:DA
Diane Hillman, MARBI Member representing LITA
Larry Heiman, SRRT representative to CC:DA
Matthew Wise, representative to CC:DA from MLA
Daniel Starr, representative to CC:DA from ARLIS/NA
David Williamson, representing LITA
Adam Schiff, CC:DA voting member
Paul Weiss, ALCTS representative to MARBI
Rhonda Marker, GODORT representative to CC:DA
Marty Scheil, NLM liaison to MARBI
Liz O’Keefe, ARLIS/NA representative to MARBI
Gerald Langford, NMRT representative to CC:DA
Valerie Gordon, representing MedLA
Cynthia Whitacre, representative from SLA
Gertrude Koh, representing CLA
Carolynne Myall, Serials Section, liaison to CC:DA
Laurel Jizba, IRRT representative to CC:DA
Carol Prankop, RUSA representative to MARBI
Elaine Hensham, LITA representative to MARBI
Kathy Glenning, MLA representative to MARBI
Michael Fox, SAA liaison to CC:DA
Catherine Gerhart, MARBI representative to CC:DA
Rhonda Lawrence, AALL liaison to MARBI
Judy Knop, ATLA representative to CC:DA
Marlyn Hackett, ALCTS/AV liaison
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS representative to CC:DA
Noelle Von Pulis, RUSA representative to CC:DA
Frank Sadowski, ALCTS representative to MARBI
Bonnie Deedee, SAC representative to MARBI
Ed Glazier , RLG representative to CC:DA
Glenn Patton, OCLC representative to CC:DA
Joan Schuitema, PCC representative to CC:DA
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST representative to CC:DA
Barbara Tillett, LC representative to CC:DA
Martha Yee, Member, CC:DA
Brian Schottlaender, ALA representative to the JSC
Brad Young, Member, CC:DA
Robin Wendler, Member, MARBI, representing LITA
Carol Hixson, Member, CC:DA
Susan Moore, MAGERT liaison to MARBI
Elizabeth Mangan, MAGERT liaison to CC:DA
Mary Larsgaard, Voting Member, CC:DA
Shirley Lincicum, CC:DA intern
Susan Hayes, CC:DA intern
Mitch Turitz, CC:DA Member
Dan Kinney, CC:DA Chair

The chair asked if there were any remaining questions about metadata concerns.

He then read questions submitted by John Attig for discussion:

1. Rule 0.24 states in part “the description of a physical item should be based in the first instance on the chapter dealing with the class of materials to which that item belongs.” It is this rule that seems to emphasize the carrier over the content in describing material. The joint steering committee has asked that this rule be revised to shift the emphasis from carrier to content. This sounds like CC:DA and MARBI are now working toward the same goal. Is this true?

Schottlaender said that for the record the JSC has not asked that the rule be shifted from carrier to content. The JSC has asked CC:DA to prepare a proposal to advance the discussion. It has not directed how it would like that discussion advanced.

Clarke said that as people are looking at the VRA Core that the content as described in the carrier is almost ignored. It becomes the secondary part of the data set.

2. The division of the descriptive rules into chapters for specific types of material is one of the ways in which catalogers have to identify the material being described. There are others:

• the General Material Designation
• the Specific Material Designation in the Physical Description Area (field 300)
• the USMARC codes in Leader /06-09
• other coded data elements in USMARC fields 007 and 008/006

Attig said that people were questioning whether the GMD had any utility. Is there movement in this area?

Tillett said that the question had gotten tabled. She was hoping to work with Jean Weihs about it since she was one of the originators of AACR2. LC is interested in re-exploring this territory because of the ambiguity of the different lists, and just the use of that element in general.

Attig said they may simplify the process by taking one of the elements out of the picture. The question on the MARC side being how do we code the GMD and the answer being no one place.

Glazier said that even today the presence of the GMD in the 245 field is an impediment to any grouping of manifestations in a single record. It is already in the way of people who have tried to include microforms in a bibliographic record for hard copy as well. You either leave it out, which suggests there is no microform present, or you include it, which suggests that there is no hard copy present.

Weiss said we have to go back and figure out the purpose of the information that we are trying to communicate. Is it for users? Is it for catalogers? The way that we solve these problems is often not the same.

Wise said even what we mean by “material” is not clear. Some communities want this to be the content of the item and others want it to be the carrier. He said that it is clear in the music community that we’ve been cataloging things called sound discs that are really computer files, and are those sound recordings or are they electronic resources? What are our users wanting to find by using that GMD?. Are they looking for the content? Are they looking for the carrier? We need to answer that before we make a decision whether to retain them.

Riley asked about the primary use of the GMD by users. Is it being used within systems to categorize?

Weiss said that users are very confused by having a non-title element in the title.

Jizba said that the GMD was set up as a kind of early warning not unrelated to the nature of item note. It was useful among people in the AV community who wanted to bring out things that were not necessarily, but could have been, carriers. If you look at the GMDs, they represent conceptually different things. There is definitely a basis for them in description, as much as description attempts to bring out content for the user in a way that will allow the user to sort and filter. Jizba added that it is very confusing to have that information where it is.

Yee said that people who like GMD’s like them because it is an early warning in collections that are primarily books. She said that catalogers like her who work with non-book materials are eagerly awaiting the day when books have to be flagged because they are so odd compared to everything else.

Schiff read the glossary description of the GMD, and wondered if the question was where to put it, perhaps after other title information or above the author or title.

Attig said he thought every system did some kind of labeling, the question was, was the labeling based on the GMD in the 245?

Tillett said that LC was reviewing the GMD because it is a case of apples and oranges. We do need to ask if it is necessary and to sort out the categories of the things we are trying to identify. Some systems in use actually use such categories to set an icon in a browse list. Tillett observed that there are some nice capabilities that online systems will be able to accomplish with encoded information, not information that is buried in a text string. She added that discussion at the Multiple Versions conference suggested that the holdings screen might be a better place for information at this level.

Glazier said that the rules for GMD’s were created in a card-based environment. Today, possibly this information could be encoded in the record in such a way as it would be up to individual systems where it displayed, as a header, a label, an icon.

O’Keefe said that the GMD that would be most useful to her is “manuscript,” which LC does not use, and that users in her library had to read far “down in the record” to discover it was for a manuscript, rather than a printed book.

Jizba said it was worthwhile to have the terms for these categories in the rules because different vendors use different terms, causing data that does not exchange well. She continued by saying it would be better for the list of natural language terms to be agreed on, because it is a classification issue and therefore a descriptive content issue.

Young said the biggest impediment towards using these data is the inconsistent criteria.

Weiss said that it wasn’t just apples and oranges, but lions, giraffes and tigers here, and chairs and tables there. Weiss said this brings up Glazier’s implicit question: is AACR2 a display standard or not? It also raises the question, going back to the Format Integration Institutes, of whether the rules, and MARC, require you to have primary format. This question also came up in the cartographic community dealing with electronic cartographic materials and they considered having a compound GMD and including both terms in the GMD.

Starr said that they already have a repeatable field, the 655, that would allow you to put in whatever you want or to combine it, if you want to use a thesaurus that allows that. In terms of the display situation, you always had cataloger’s judgment, which can interpolate information into the subfield b, to identify the nature of the material.

Weiss said a further cause of confusion is that, as a linguist, he had to observe that they can come up with the intellectual categories but that these do not always match natural language at all.

Question 3. Much of the discussion about Rule 0.24 will involve details of the organization and content of the rules. What issues does MARBI feel most concerned about? Are there issues here on which MARBI would like to be actively involved in the discussion? Would MARBI like to be kept informed so that they can determine whether implementation of any changes will have format implications?

Weiss said he hoped they did not care about the organization of the rules and stressed that it is the content or rather the result of the application of the rules that should matter.

Glazier said that one of the things included in the 0.24 discussion was the decision to test their conclusions at the end to see if they could create records that people could understand following some of the recommendations that they made, that is, if there need to be changes to the formats to make them more hospitable to hosting that kind of data.

Seriality

Questions 1-4

1. The CONSER working group has identified categories of ongoing bibliographic entities, some of which are serials. The model essentially retains the current definition of a “serial,” but includes under the umbrella label of “ongoing entities,”:

• items issued successively but not necessarily numbered (some series) or intended to continue indefinitely (sets)
• items that are updates or “integrated” (loose-leafs, online databases, and other electronic resources)

2. Assuming that this model is accepted in the cataloging rules, how could it be implemented in the MARC Formats? Are there advantages either to expanding the definition of the code that currently identifies serials (Leader/07=s) or in leaving that code defined more or less as it is now and adding new code(s) for the additional categories? How significant, in either case, is the problem of current records?

3. Another way of looking at the same issue: What is the best level in the proposed hierarchy of bibliographic entities to identify records in the MARC Leader? Is there an appropriate place to code the other categories proposed?

4. What role does MARBI want to have in the further discussions about these issues.

Weiss said the bibliographic universe is not inherently organized and that we are putting our organization upon the bibliographic universe, so that we decide if the bibliographic universe is organized that way, so it is up to us to decide how to use the distinction.

Jizba said that one of the ways monographic and AV cataloging differs from serial cataloging is that it has a certain depth of content treatment.

Weiss asked how that related to this question. Attig suggested there would be implications in moving something from monograph to serial.

Jizba said there would be implications for when CONSER studies this, that they not ignore standard practices of monographic catalogers to spend more time and effort on content than would normally occur in serial workflows.

Weiss pointed out this concerns workflow, not format.

Jizba said that there are characteristics of ongoing entities that are monographic and therefore traditionally you would expect a core level record for an ongoing entity to have more fields that are content-oriented.

Turitz said that the whole issue of the ongoing entity is better addressed as a holdings issue and that holdings are not well-addressed by AACR. Also, they are not well addressed by the MARC format, unless you consider the MARC holdings format. This is generally the problem with AACR: people try to make things into the monographic format. It’s basically a book format, and they try to squeeze serials and other formats into this one-item format when you have multiple versions, multiple items. Sometimes it might be better to handle these things through the MARC format for holdings. Can it accommodate a display for the GMD? Can it explain having different versions which the bibliographic description doesn’t do as well.

In response to a question about how to handle ongoing monographic sets, Hirons said that we should be using the same rule for ongoing multi-parts as well as for serials, but that doesn’t mean they should be coded as serials or as ongoing things in the MARC record. The CONSER working group developed a theoretical model about how they think things are issued—and issuance can be looked at in two different ways in the rules—and then how we code and display these entities.

Attig added, and how we identify them.

Yee said that she always worries about users who limit their searches to serials in our systems because they are not aware of the complexities that are inherent in doing that, especially about the different decisions in different libraries about how to treat things that look like serials, or series. All of those kinds of tricks and traps they can get into by limiting their searches. She said she’s not sure we should encourage users to do that.

Schiff said that his library is going to implement a new OPAC and public services want a “J= journal title” phrase index and the catalogers have to decide what is going to be indexed by that. Everything that is coded type S? If so, if they redefine journal to mean everything that is ongoing, that would no longer be possible.

Attig asked, at what level do we want to identify things? Where do we draw the line between the categories that we are offering users? He said that Yee’s perspective would mean coding them at a fairly high level, coding them broadly, maybe close to all ongoing entities. There are arguments for doing it less. But there are also arguments for not offering too many choices, not making the user’s life too complicated.

The chair asked if CC:DA and MARBI should have more joint meetings in the future. General agreement.

621. Agenda item 21. Reports from the floor

Attig reported that in 1992 Jizba had prepared a report on the natural history community’s use of what looked like authority information. This led to organizing a conference that led to a very interesting dialog between the two groups, an opportunity for them to talk to each other. There were reports of projects of interest to the library community, and the implications go both ways.

Jizba said that this was moved over to CCS because it had a lot to do with subject content and classification. The final report was due to the CCS Executive Committee. Jizba read “the lessons learned” because they had to do with library authority control, at least in part.

1. The natural history or systematics community has a need for authority files for personal names, corporate and geographic names, and journal titles. Currently no cumulative list of world species exists. Few standards exist for authority control, systems and natural history files. Efforts are being duplicated among different disciplines within the natural history community. Minimal interoperability exists across the systematics community’s files. The information and library needs of systemacists need to be conveyed and better understood by their library counterparts.

2. The library professionals gained an expanded awareness of alternative approaches to file building and outside-the-box thinking. There is immense potential in bringing together professionals from many different communities to explore solutions to issues common to their problem domains.

The library community gained an understanding, from a global perspective, of what librarians are trying to do. It became clear that one thing the library community had done successfully was develop standards that can be successfully exchanged.

Jizba expressed concern that, as in the case of the development of 0.24, we might be developing too much detail to the extent that we are no longer able to exchange information.

Schiff said that the conference has a website, and that the proceedings will be published in electronic form. Schiff said librarians are interested in pursuing interaction and collaboration with the systemitists, because it became clear that there were a lot of things they could learn from us and a lot of things we could learn from them.

The chair announced that Young and Yee had completed their terms on CC:DA. The chair thanked them for their participation and contributions. The chair announced the next meetings in Philadelphia, on Saturday, Jan. 30th and Monday, Feb. 1st . He asked for a motion to adjourn, and it was seconded and so moved. The meeting adjourned at 12:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Hayes