ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services


Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Minutes of the meeting held in Philadelphia, PA
January 30 and February 1, 1999

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

Ex-officio representatives (those present are named)

Brian Schottlaender, ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee
Bob Ewald (for Barbara Tillett), Library of Congress
Glenn Patton, OCLC
Ed Glazier, Research Libraries Group

ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Margo Smith, ALCTS/AS
Sarah Su-erh Elman, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM
Gabriele L. Kupitz, ALCTS/CCS/CCM
Marlyn Hackett, ALCTS/MRC
Ann Sandberg-Fox, ALCTS/NRMC
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Carolynne Myall, ALCTS/SS
Aimee Quinn, ALA/GODORT
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
David Williamson, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Lori Barnes, ALA/NMRT (absent 2/1/99)
Margaret Shen, ALA/PLA (represented by Louisa J. Kreider on 2/1/99)
Noelle Van Pulis, ALA/RUSA
Larry Heinman, ALA/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons (those present are named):

Ann Sitkin, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Laurel Jizba, ARSC
Gertrude Koh, CLA
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST
Valerie St. Pierre Gordon, MedLA
Matthew Wise, MusLA
Joan Schuitema, PCC
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
    AACR = Anglo-American Cataloging Rules
    AACR2 = Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed., 1998 rev.
    JSC = Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR
    ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
    ACOC = Australian Committee on Cataloging
    BL = British Library
    LC = Library of Congress
    CCC = Canadian Committee on Cataloging
    CCS = Cataloging and Classification Section
    PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
    CC:AAM = Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials
    ISBD(ER) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources


Saturday, 30 January 1999, 2:00 to 5:30 p.m.

622. Agenda item 1. Welcome and opening remarks (Kinney)

Committee Chair Daniel Kinney called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in Philadelphia Convention Center room 201-B. Kinney distributed a roster to Committee members for corrections and passed an attendance sheet to the audience.

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

    [CC:DA/Roster/1999 January]

Committee members introduced themselves.

624. Agenda item 3. Adoption of agenda (Kinney)

Kinney announced a change to the proposed agenda. Due to illness, Sherry Vellucci was unable to attend the 1999 ALA Midwinter Meeting, thus she will not be able to deliver the report from the Task Force on the VRA Core Categories listed as agenda item 10. In place of this report, Task Force Chair Adam Schiff will deliver a brief report from the Task Force on the Review of the Archival Moving Image Materials manual Draft Revision. Upon a motion from Mitch Turitz, seconded by Sherry Kelley, the Committee adopted the agenda as revised.

625. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 1999 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (Kinney)

John Attig noted that the document numbering for these minutes should be 599-621 rather than 599-619. Corrections forwarded to the CC:DA mailing list by Martha Yee on 13 January 1999 had been received and incorporated into the minutes. Mary Larsgaard pointed out several typographical and other minor errors. Turitz offered some information about why information had been removed from CC:DA documents prior to mounting them on the ALA web server (noted on page three of the minutes of the 27 June 1998 meeting). ALA removed room number information from CC:DA documents out of concern over publicizing the exact location of an official ALA conference meeting to individuals who may not have officially registered to attend the conference. Schiff noted that on the final page of the minutes from 29 June 1998 the world “systemitists” was misspelled “systemicists.”

Upon a motion from Larsgaard, seconded by Matthew Beacom, the Committee approved the minutes from the 1999 Annual Meeting as amended.

626. Agenda item 5. Report from the Chair (Kinney)

Kinney announced that the meeting of the Committee scheduled for 1 February 1999 will begin at 8:30 a.m., not 8:00 a.m. as listed in the official conference schedule. He noted that if the Committee has a joint meeting with MARBI at the 1999 Annual Conference, the Monday meeting will need to begin at 8:00 a.m. Kinney invited members to contact him with agenda ideas for such a joint meeting. He mentioned that ALA/ALCTS has expressed interest in seeing MARBI and CC:DA co-sponsor a program or preconference on metadata at the 2000 ALA Annual Conference and suggested that this might be a good item to discuss at a joint MARBI/CC:DA meeting.

The CC:DA web site has now been added to Barbara Stewart’s “Top 200” list.

Kinney distributed rosters for the three task forces formed since the 1998 ALA Annual Conference. He reported that the Committee currently has five task forces operating and that two additional task forces will likely be formed prior to the conclusion of this conference. He encouraged Committee members and others to sign up to serve on a task force. Kinney explained that in the past two years, a number of groups have asked CC:DA to review documents or study issues and make recommendations, prompting the Committee to form numerous task forces.

Kinney noted that 1999 marks the 20th anniversary of CC:DA.

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

Brian Schottlaender began by rearranging the order of the items listed under this topic on the agenda. Item b. became item d., item c. became item e., item d. became item b., and item e. became item c.

Report on JSC meeting, 18-20 November 1998 [CC:DA/JSC Rep./BECS/1999/1]

Schottlaender summarized the highlights of the JSC meeting held 18-20 November 1998. As of January 1999, a number of JSC membership changes have taken effect. Ann Huthwaite of Australia is now the Chair of the JSC, Margaret Stewart of the National Library of Canada is the new CCC representative, and Jacqui Norfolk is now the permanent Secretary of the JSC. In a departure from past practice, the JSC has agreed that the country hosting a JSC meeting will provide a recording secretary for that meeting in order to relieve the permanent JSC Secretary of excessive international travel obligations.

Schottlaender then provided an update on progress made on the “action items” identified at the October 1997 JSC meeting. The JSC is currently active in pursuing eight of these items.

Tom Delsey has completed his data modeling analysis of the logical structure of AACR Part I. The JSC has reviewed this document and posted it on the AACR web site <> for worldwide comment. The deadline for submitting comments is 1 September 1999. Delsey has also completed a first draft analysis of the logical structure of AACR Part II. The JSC reviewed this draft at its November 1998 meeting in Leeds, England. By March 1999, the JSC plans to post a revised version of this report on the web for worldwide comment. The anticipated deadline for comments on the Part II report is also September 1999. Schottlaender recommended that the Committee consider forming a task force charged specifically with reviewing the Delsey reports.

The JSC is currently engaged in compiling its own list of AACR principles. Schottlaender has been charged with compiling and organizing a lengthy list of principles that was generated through brainstorming exercises. Barbara Tillett has been charged with extracting the principles identified in the Delsey reports and generating a second list that can be compared with the JSC members’ list. The JSC anticipates that a formal comparison of these two lists will occur at its October 1999 meeting in Brisbane, Australia. Attig asked when these lists are likely to be shared with interested parties outside the JSC. Schottlaender speculated that the lists would probably not be disseminated to the wider community until after the October 1999 JSC meeting.

Jean Hirons is coordinating various activities related to seriality issues. Her report on seriality is due to the JSC in April 1999. It is expected that this report will provide specific recommendations for action, but not proposals for specific rule revisions. Once the JSC has had the opportunity to review the report, it expects to disseminate the report for worldwide comment in much the same manner as the Delsey reports have been disseminated. After a review period of approximately six months, the JSC anticipates that constituents will begin to forward formal proposals for rule revisions in response to the report.

A CC:DA task force chaired by Martha Yee is busy working on recommendations involving rule 0.24. She will give a full report of the activities of this task force at the 1 February 1999 CC:DA meeting.

The JSC developed a mission statement at its November 1998 meeting. This statement has been forwarded to the Committee of Principles with a request that they endorse it.

The JSC has determined that a survey of AACR use outside of the “Anglo-American” community has been done in a thesis by Pino Buizza and a follow-up article by Diego Maltese, so there is no need for JSC to undertake completion of such a survey itself. Ann Huthwaite is currently drafting a report on the internationalization of AACR that will include the survey completed by Buizza and Maltese as an appendix.

The JSC has accepted an offer from John Attig to redesign the JSC web site. The National Library of Canada will continue to host the site. Schottlaender will deliver to the JSC copies of the CC:DA brochure on formulating and submitting rule revision proposals. The JSC is very interested in developing a similar brochure in order to publicize the JSC’s own policies and procedures with regard to rule revision proposals. Both AACR2e and the print edition of AACR2, 1998 revision have now been published and are available for purchase. The JSC is now concerned with attempting to keep the print and the electronic versions in synch with one another.

At its November meeting, the JSC endorsed the following proposals: 4JSC/LC/26 with one minor revision, 4JSC/LC/28, 4JSC/LC/30 with proposed text B and some minor changes to other affected rules throughout the code to be made by the JSC Secretary, 4JSC/LC/32 with one minor grammatical revision, 4/JSC/LC/39, 4/JSC/LC/40 with proposed text B, and 4JSC/LC/42. Proposals still outstanding include: 4JSC/ALA/28, 4JSC/ALA/29, 4JSC/Rule Revision1/Consolidated1, and 4JSC/LC/46. ALA and the ACOC support 4JSC/LC/46 as amended by ALA, but the British and Canadians are entirely opposed to the proposal. In an attempt to clarify the proposal and allow the JSC to arrive at some sort of consensus, Barbara Tillett will forward a relevant issue of the Cataloging Service Bulletin to the British and the Canadians. No further action from CC:DA is needed on any of these proposals at this time.

CC:DA action is needed on the following five proposals:

  1. Definitions for "Computer disk" and "Computer optical disc" (Appendix D and Index)
      [4JSC/ALA/25/ALA follow-up]
      [4JSC/ALA/25/ALA follow-up/BL response]
      [4JSC/ALA/25/ALA follow-up/CCC response]
      [4JSC/ALA/25/ALA follow-up/LA response]
      [4JSC/ALA/25/ALA follow-up/LC response]

    At the November 1998 JSC meeting, there was substantial agreement on this proposal. Schottlaender agreed to compile the revisions suggested by the various constituents into a single follow-up document. He will post this document to the CC:DA electronic mailing list for the Committee’s review and comment prior to formally forwarding the follow-up proposal to the JSC.

  2. More than one series statement (1.5J1; 2nd paragraph now as 1.6J2)
      [4JSC/LC/37/ALA response]
      [4JSC/LC/37/CCC response/BL response/LC response]
  3. Not all parts in a series (1.6K)
      [4JSC/LC/45/ALA response]
      [4JSC/LC/45/BL response/LC response]

    The JSC has been unable to come to consensus on these proposals. ALA supports 4JSC/LC/37, as do the Australians. The British do not support it, and the CCC has withdrawn its initial support. LC has prepared another draft of this proposal and of 4JSC/LC/45, seeking to provide additional clarification. Schottlaender recommended that the Committee formally reaffirm its support for these proposals. Upon a motion from Schiff, seconded by Larsgaard, the Committee voted to reaffirm its support for both 4JSC/LC/37 and 4JSC/LC/45.

  4. Harmonization of AACR2 with ISBD(ER)
      [4JSC/ALA/27/Aus response]
      [4JSC/ALA/27/BL response]
      [4JSC/ALA/27/CCC response]
      [4JSC/ALA/27/LC response]

    The Committee discussed strategies for responding to the comments made by the BL, CCC, and LC. All agreed that the original purpose of this proposal was to harmonize some terminology used in AACR2 with that used in ISBD(ER). Recommendations involving the more complex issues associated with ISBD(ER) harmonization should be left to the CC:DA ISBD(ER) harmonization task force. Some members suggested simply withdrawing 4JSC/ALA/27 and referring all ISBD(ER) harmonization issues to the task force. Other members felt that doing this would unnecessarily delay implementation of a few key revisions, such as changes to the GMD, which the JSC and others are anxious to implement. Within this context, the Committee agreed to proceed with reviewing the responses to 4JSC/ALA/27 item by item. A lengthy discussion ensued.

    The Committee agreed that Schottlaender should prepare a follow-up memo to 1) specify that relatively straightforward terminology changes were the intentional focus of ALA’s original proposal, 2) acknowledge that many other changes are needed in the code to fully effect ISBD(ER) harmonization and that a CC:DA task force is currently developing recommendations and proposals for those changes, and 3) communicate CC:DA’s responses to the specific comments made thus far by other constituents.

    CC:DA’s itemized responses follow.

    1. App. D, Glossary

      a: LC proposed changes to ALA’s proposed Glossary definition. CCC modified LC’s suggested revision. CC:DA joined BL and ACOC in supporting the CCC version.

      b: LC notes 9 other instances of “computer file[s]” in the Glossary. Schottlaender will confirm and amend the ALA proposal as needed.

    2. Index

      a: LC notes that ALA’s proposed “file characteristics area, 9.3” should read “resource characteristics area, 9.3” and ACOC agrees. BL proposes, instead, “type and extent of resource area, 9.3,” which ACOC does not support. CC:DA agreed to remove “file characteristics area, 9.3” from its proposal and to refer the issue to the CC:DA ISBD(ER) harmonization task force for its consideration. CC:DA supports the grammar/punctuation revisions recommended by CCC.

      b: LC notes 121 other instances of “computer file[s]” in the Index. Schottlaender will confirm and amend the ALA proposal as needed.

    3. Table of Contents

      Supported by all constituents as proposed.

    4. Introduction

      Constituents noticed some typographical errors, and LC noted two additional instances of “computer files” in 0.25. Schottlaender will confirm and amend the ALA proposal as needed.

    5. Chapter 1

      LC notes that similar revision is also needed at 1.1C2, 1.3A, 1.4C8, 1.4D9, and 1.4F9. CCC suggests modification of the ALA proposed revision, which BL and ACOC support. CC:DA supports the CCC version. Schottlaender will confirm the need for the additional changes noted by LC and amend the ALA proposal as needed.

    6. Chapter 9

      a: Supported by all constituents as proposed.

      b.i, ii, iii.: CC:DA agreed to withdraw ALA’s proposed change and to refer the issue to the ISBD(ER) harmonization task force.

      b.iv, v, vi, vii: CCC notes the need for additional changes. Schottlaender will confirm and amend the ALA proposal as needed.

      b.viii: Supported by all constituents as proposed.

      b.ix: CC:DA agreed with all constituents that ALA’s proposed revision actually affects one sentence each in 9.4D1 and 9.4D2.

      b.x, xi: Supported by all constituents as proposed.

      b.xii: Constituents noted the need for additional changes at 2.7B16, 9.0B2, 9.4C1, 11.7B20, 12.7B16, and Appendix A.4E1. Schottlaender will confirm these and amend the ALA proposal as needed.

      c.i: Supported by LC and CCC. BL suggests alternative wording (cf. 6.b.i above), which ACOC supports. CC:DA agreed to withdraw its proposed revision and to refer the issue to the ISBD(ER) harmonization task force.

      c.ii: Supported by LC and CCC. LC notes additional changes needed, not all of which CCC supports. BL has already suggested alternative wording (cf. 6.b.i above), which ACOC supports. CC:DA will withdraw ALA’s proposed revision and refer the issue to the ISBD(ER) harmonization task force.

      c.iii: Supported by LC and CCC, but not BL and ACOC. CC:DA agrees with BL and ACOC and will withdraw the ALA proposed revision.

      c.iv: Supported by all constituents. All note that only the first of the changes called for in ALA’s proposed revision is necessary as the text of the rule reads differently in the 1998 revision of AACR2. Schottlaender will amend the ALA proposal to reflect this.

      c.v: Supported by all constituents. LC and CCC note the need for additional changes. Schottlaender will confirm and amend the ALA proposal as needed. Supported by all constituents as proposed.

      c.vii: Supported by all constituents. All note a typographical error in a rule reference (should be 9.2B5, not 9.2.B6). Schottlaender will amend the ALA proposal to correct this error.

      c.viii/[a]: Supported by all constituents as proposed.

      c.viii/[b]: Supported by LC, CCC, and ACOC. All note need for additional changes. BL suggests alternative wording, which ACOC does not support. CC:DA will withdraw ALA’s proposed revision and refer the issue to the ISBD(ER) harmonization task force.

      c.ix: Supported by LC, CCC, and ACOC. All note a typographical error in a rule reference (should be 9.3B1, not 9.3A1). Schottlaender will revise the ALA proposal and confirm BL support.

      c.x: Supported by LC, CCC, and ACOC. Schottlaender will confirm BL support.

      c.xi: Supported by LC and CCC. Both note the need for additional change. BL suggests alternative wording, which ACOC supports. CC:DA agreed to withdraw ALA’s proposed revision and to refer the issue to the ISBD(ER) harmonization task force.

      c.xii: All constituents support ALA’s proposed revision of 9.7B1a. LC and CCC support ALA’s proposed revision of 9.7B1b. BL suggests alternative wording for 9.7B1b, which ACOC supports. CC:DA agreed to withdraw the entire proposed revision and to refer the question of 9.7B1, including the proposed BL wording, to the ISBD(ER) harmonization task force.

      c.xiii: Supported by all constituents as proposed.

      c.xiv: Supported by all constituents. All request change from page reference to rule reference. Schottlaender will revise ALA’s proposal accordingly.

      c.xv: Supported by all constituents. All request a change from page reference to rule reference. LC notes the need for an additional change, which neither CCC nor CC:DA support. Schottlaender will revise ALA’s proposal to change the page reference to a rule reference only.

      c.xvi: Supported by LC, CCC, and ACOC. All note need for additional changes. BL suggests alternative wording, which ACOC does not support. CC:DA will withdraw ALA’s proposed revision and refer the issue to the ISBD(ER) harmonization task force.

      c.xvii, xviii, xix, xx: Supported by all constituents as proposed.

    7. Additional comments and suggested amendments

      In order to allow the Committee more time to consider additional substantial amendments suggested in 4JSC/ALA/27/CCC response and 4JSC/ALA/27/27/LC response, Schottlaender agreed to post a list of unresolved issues and recommendations for action to the CC:DA electronic mailing list for a vote by the beginning of March 1999. Schottlaender will also contact the BL to take them up on their offer to review and, as needed, suggest revisions to the examples given in chapter 9.

  5. 4JSC/BL/1-6

    1. 4JSC/BL/1 Titles of nobility or terms of honour (22.1C)

      CC:DA enthusiastically agreed to support 4JSC/BL/1 and expressed enthusiasm for the principles put forward in this set of proposals overall.

    2. 4JSC/BL/2 Members of royal houses entered under surname, etc. (22.5F1)

      Attig questioned the use of the term “proper name” because he was unsure about whether this same terminology is used elsewhere in the code. Schottlaender confirmed that this phrase is used elsewhere in the code. CC:DA agreed to support the BL proposal.

    3. 4JSC/BL/3 Titles of nobility and British terms of honour (22.12)

      Schiff noted that “von” is missing from the example “Bismarck, Otto, Fürst” in the BL proposal. Kelley noted that several examples currently given in the code are also missing from the BL proposal. Members surmised that these omissions might simply be oversights on the part of the BL and asked Schottlaender to seek clarification. Attig expressed concern about listing negative instructions first under this section entitled “Additions to Names.” He suggested that rule 22.12 be moved to the end of the section and that all of the other rules in this section be renumbered. Other members of the Committee did not share Attig’s concern about listing a “negative” rule first. Ed Glazier suggested that rule 22.12 would no longer be needed at all since it would no longer instruct catalogers to make additions to names. Agreeing with this argument, CC:DA chose not to support the BL proposal. Instead, the Committee proposes deleting rule 22.12 entirely, renumbering the rest of the rules in chapter 22, and correcting references to the renumbered rules accordingly.

    4. 4JSC/BL/4 Additions to names entered under given name, etc. (22.16)

      Glazier noted an inconsistency between the proposed rule and rule 22.16A1. The proposed rule specifies that the title of nobility is to be given in the vernacular, while rule 22.16A1 specifies that the title be given in English if there is a “satisfactory English equivalent.” As suggested in the BL proposal, CC:DA supports creating a new rule 22.16B1 and renumbering existing rules to accommodate this. The Committee disagrees with the BL on the text of the rule. To maintain consistency within the code, CC:DA suggests that the new rule read “Add, to the name of a nobleman or noblewoman entered under given name, the title of nobility (in English if there is a satisfactory English equivalent)” and that the example be revised accordingly, in keeping with the instruction given in rule 22.16A1.

    5. 4JSC/BL/5 Names of persons, See references (26.2A)

      CC:DA supports the proposal, but notes that “Sir” now needs to be removed from the parenthetical note in the corollary example at rule 22.6B3.

    6. 4JSC/BL/6 Terms of address of married women (22.15B1)

      CC:DA supports the proposal.

628. Agenda item 7. Report of the Library of Congress Representative (Ewald)

Library of Congress report to CC:DA, ALA Midwinter Meeting, January 30, 1999; prepared by Bob Ewald (Cataloging Policy and Support Office), substituting for Barbara Tillett

  1. International Activities:

    Barbara Tillett is in Germany participating in a workshop on “Bibliographic Metadata and the Challenge of Heterogeneity and Standardization” sponsored by the META-LIB Project (a cooperative project of the Niedersaechische Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Goettingen, Deutsche Bibliothek, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, and the Deutsches Bibliotheksinstitut). One of the goals of the META-LIB Project is to establish a standard set of rules for the bibliographic indexing of electronic resources based on the Dublin Core Set. Among the tasks is determine which access points and data elements need to be defined in order to make the electronic resources available and to examine how authority data can be used in this context. The META-LIB Project wants to take into account the revision activity being undertaken by both the German cataloging rules (Regeln fuer die alphabetische Katalogisierung (RAK)) and AACR. Dr. Tillett was invited to represent the AACR perspective. Following the workshop, Dr. Tillett, on behalf of LC, will be meeting with Deutsche Bibliothek staff to discuss ideas on cooperative efforts in the realm of name authority files.

  2. 1998 AACR2:

    The electronic version of the 1998 AACR2 is now included in the LC CD-ROM product Cataloger’s Desktop (1998 Update 4). Bruce Johnson from LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service will be conducting a demonstration of this product on Monday, 1 February 1999, 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Marriott Room 410. The Cataloger’s Desktop version not only contains hypertext links within the AACR2 text but also between the AACR2 text and the LC cataloging documents already included in the product.

    LC has not announced an implementation date for the 1998 AACR2, pending arrival of copies of the printed edition and the distribution of eight Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs) related to the 1998 AACR2. Three LCRIs will be cancelled: 7.7B2, 9.5D1, 24.26A. Four LCRIs will be revised: 1.1G2, 2.5C2, 9.5B1, 21.1B4. One new LCRI will be created: to state LC’s option decision on 2.5C5.

  3. Core-Level Cataloging Implementation at LC:

    LC implemented core-level cataloging on 16 November 1998. It is currently applicable to books (roman and JACKPHY languages), music (printed and manuscript), sound recordings (music and nonmusic), and serials. LC guidelines for core-level rare books and computer files will be developed later.

    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. The Library of Congress includes some data elements that go beyond the PCC requirements: alternative LC call numbers for analytics in collected sets and for bibliographies classed in “Z” (050 field), Dewey Decimal numbers (082), uniform titles (240, 130), bibliography notes (504), 041 language codes, and geographic area codes (043) if these can be readily determined. LC core-level original monograph records have the legend “pcc” in the 042 field, just like core-level record created by other PCC institutions.

    LC core-level cataloging becomes the base mode for LC original cataloging, including CIP materials. Only titles destined for the reference collections are automatically given full-level cataloging. Nevertheless, the cataloging teams are given discretion on using “core” or “full,” depending on the team’s arrearage-reduction goals, the merits of the material, or the interests of any particular user group or constituency that a team works with. LC will continue to apply minimal-level and collection-level cataloging to certain materials.

    Documentation on LC core-level monograph cataloging (Descriptive Cataloging Manual B16) is now available on the Cataloging Policy and Support Office home page <> and will also be published in the next Cataloging Service Bulletin (no. 83, Winter 1999).

    Documentation on core-level serials cataloging is contained in the Conser Editing Guide, Appendix L. Information on cataloging levels (Descriptive Cataloging Manual C1) is on the Cataloging Policy and Support Office home page <>.

  4. Data Elements in Authority Records:

    On 20 January 1999, LC implemented several changes in authority records. Among them is the nonfiling indicator in certain fields (X00/X10/X11/450/550/X51 in Names, X00/X10/X11/X50/X51 in Subjects) was made obsolete. Newly created records will contain value “blank” instead of “0”; value “0” will continue to occur as there are no plans to update existing authority records containing that value. Another change was that the language of cataloging will be indicated in newly created records by the code “eng” in subfield $b of field 040 (cataloging source).

    The 781 field for indicating the subdivision form of geographic headings was also implemented in the name authority file on January 20, but plans to have LC catalogers add the field to name authority records for geographic names have not yet been worked out. The 781 field will be added to new and revised subject authority records in mid-February. Addition of the 781 field to existing subject authority records will be done retrospectively as time permits. (Information on the 781 field will be contained in the next update to the Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings).

    Also, in mid-February, LC will begin to use subfield $v to identify form subdivisions in new subject authority records and to revise form subdivisions in existing subject authority records. On 16 February 1999, LC will begin to use subfield $v in bibliographic records for current items being cataloged. (Information on subfield $v is contained is 1998 Update Number 2 to the Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings).

  5. LC’s Integrated Library System:

    Over the past six months, 76 implementation teams involving over 300 LC staff have been working to analyze current activities and plan for the optimum transition to the new integrated library system, which LC is calling the LC ILS. LC is still on track to have all portions of the system implemented by October 1999. A major milestone came in early January with the first test load of nearly 16 million bibliographic and authority records. Additional test loads are planned before the full production load occurs in May or June 1999. The tentative schedule for LC staff to begin to use the ILS has cataloging operations going first in June, followed by circulation and reference use of the OPAC, then in October, with the new fiscal year, acquisitions and serials check-in.

    The LC Web OPAC will contain the 12 million bibliographic records that comprise LC’s holdings as well as cross-references and scope notes from the name and subject authority records related to those bibliographic records. An External Coordination Policy Group continues to stay in touch with external stakeholders and to negotiate implementation timetables and issues. An “ILS Public Web Page” <> will be introduced on 8 February 1999, to provide general information about LC’s project, frequently-asked questions, implementation timetables, etc.

  6. AMIM:

    The draft revision of Archival Moving Image Materials: A Cataloging Manual (AMIM) is now available for review and comment. The draft text appears on the Cataloging Policy and Support Office home page <>. Printed copies may also be requested from Cataloging Policy and Support Office. Comments are due 15 March 1999, and should be sent to the Cataloging Policy and Support Office email account:

    The purpose of the manual is to provide instructions for the descriptive cataloging of archival film and video within the framework of AACR2. The current revision was undertaken by LC’s motion picture cataloging staff with contributions from a subcommittee of the Cataloging Committee of the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA).

  7. Cartographic Materials:

    Editorial work is currently underway at LC on a new edition of Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2, which will replace the 1982 edition. The work is the responsibility of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Committee for Cartographic Materials (AACCCM), which is made up of representatives from the national libraries and map library organizations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Committee met at LC for six days in September 1998 to discuss and finalize the text of the new edition. The new edition will incorporate the AACR2 changes since 1982 and will be expanded to include the cataloging of remote-sensing images and cartographic electronic resource material.

  8. Pinyin Romanization:

    LC and the Research Libraries Group (RLG) have begun working together to prepare for conversion of Chinese bibliographic records in the RLIN database from Wade-Giles to pinyin, beginning in the spring or summer of 2000. Decisions on conversion of corresponding name authority records will be made following the LC ILS implementation.

    Advanced copies of Chinese romanization guidelines that LC will follow in the conversion from Wade-Giles to pinyin were distributed in November 1998 <>.

    Later this winter or early spring, LC will begin to revise the authority records for a closed-list of Chinese place names to their pinyin form. The authority records represent headings for the provinces and major cities of China. The list of places will be published in the next issue of Cataloging Service Bulletin (no. 83, Winter 1999). Once the basic authority record is revised, LC will begin to revise other authority records in which those headings have been used (e.g., as qualifiers, in references). After the authorities have been revised, the associated bibliographic records will be changed. But changes to the Chinese bibliographic records may actually occur at the time of the RLG conversion.

  9. Art Headings:

    On 1 August 1998, LC implemented the recommendations of the PCC Task Group on Names Versus Subject Authorities and the ARLIS/NA Cataloging Advisory Committee Works of Art Group on handling individual works of art. Headings for individual works of art are now established in the name authority file rather than the subject authority file following guidelines added to the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI 21.1B2, 25.3A, 25.4A, 25.5B). As a project, approximately 700 subject authority records for individual works of art that were entered under named artists were edited and copied into the name authority file and then deleted from the subject authority file.

    On 29 January 1999, my Cataloging Policy and Support Office colleagues, Milicent Wewerka and Robert Hiatt, conducted a PCC-sponsored workshop “Proposing Art Subject Headings: Subjects vs. Names File,” which included a discussion of establishing headings for individual works of art.

  10. MARC 21:

    In October 1998, the Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada announced that the harmonized USMARC and CAN/MARC formats will be published in single editions in 1999 under the new name “MARC 21.” MARC 21 is not a new format. From 1994-1997, the USMARC and CAN/MARC user communities worked to eliminate all remaining differences in their two already-similar formats. In 1997 and early 1998, updates to the formats were issued that made the format specifications identical. Announcements about the publication of the new editions of the five formats that make up the MARC 21 family of formats (Bibliographic, Authority, Holdings, Classification, Community Information) will be made when the printing of each is completed. The National Library of Canada will also be producing French editions of MARC 21. Information on the shared format is available on the official format Web sites at LC <> and at the National Library of Canada <>.

629. Agenda item 8. Nonroman Headings and References Proposal (Agenbroad)

James Agenbroad addressed the Committee as an individual member of ALA/ALCTS, not as a representative of any other body or group. His proposal has not yet been officially endorsed by any group, though he was encouraged to prepare and present the proposal by two individual members of CC:AAM. CC:AAM is aware of the proposal and is currently seeking feedback from the Committee on East Asian Libraries, the Association for Asian Studies, and the Middle East Librarians Association. Because the full text of the proposal was distributed to members prior to the meeting, Agenbroad provided a brief summary of his proposal in his presentation before the Committee.

Agenbroad proposes to add six new rules to AACR2 chapters 22 through 26. These rules will allow for the addition of access points in nonroman scripts when possible technically and appropriate to the item being cataloged. Catalogers using the RLIN and OCLC systems to catalog materials in Chinese, Japanese and Korean have routinely added such access points since the mid-1980s. More recently, RLIN has also allowed catalogers working with materials in Cyrillic, Hebrew, and Arabic languages to add vernacular script access points. Both users and libraries currently suffer from the lack of widely accepted standards in this area. Agenbroad noted that rule 1.0E already allows titles to be transcribed in the vernacular “whenever practicable.” He also amended his written proposal for rules 24.1B2 and 25.2D2 to include the word “nonroman” between the words “pertinent scripts” in the first sentence of each rule.

Attig asked whether Agenbroad was proposing to make it acceptable for records to contain only vernacular script access points. Agenbroad responded that this was not the intent of his proposal. He is proposing only to codify the practice of providing vernacular access points in addition to the romanized access points. Glazier expressed concern about codifying the practice of providing access points that cannot currently be brought under effective authority control, primarily due to technical limitations. Joan Schuitema reported that the PCC Standards Committee shares this concern and explained that this is why the committee has decided to require only romanized access points in core-level records. She added that if the technical limitations were overcome, the PCC would likely revise its position.

The Committee agreed that it would be inappropriate to act on this proposal prior to receiving a recommendation from CC:AAM.

630. Agenda item 9. Report of the Task Force on Metadata (Larsgaard)

Larsgaard provided a brief update on the work of the metadata task force. She referred members to the full text of a draft interim report posted on the CC:DA web site. < ccda/ tf-meta2.html> The task force has been discussing issues via its electronic mailing list and plans to divide into groups to continue work on its four-part charge at its meeting on 31 January 1999. Each of these groups will submit a report to the task force co-chairs prior to the 1999 ALA Annual Conference. Larsgaard anticipates that the interim report that she will deliver at the 1999 Annual Meeting will indicate what, if any, AACR2 revisions the task force intends to propose. The task force will deliver its final report at the 2000 ALA Annual Conference.

631. Report of the Task Force on the Review of the AMIM Draft Revision (Schiff)

Schiff reported that the task force met earlier in the day and developed a plan for meeting its 3 March 1999 deadline. The task force will focus on the issues of transcription, uniform titles, and main entry as outlined in its charge. Schiff requested that Kinney investigate the possibility of extending the deadline. Kinney agreed to contact Tom Yee at the Cataloging Policy and Support Office with a request that the deadline for comments be extended.

Hearing no other discussion, Kinney called for a motion to adjourn. Upon a motion from Turitz, seconded by Larsgaard, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Lincicum
Secretary, CC:DA


Monday, February 1, 1999

The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m.

632. Agenda item 11. Welcome and opening remarks (Kinney)

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

633. Agenda item 12. Report from ALA Publishing (Chatham)

Chatham reported that “the book and the electronic version are out,” and that LC has licensed the rights for Cataloger’s Desktop. Chatham said that he had no agenda, and that, instead, he would entertain questions about marketing and other decisions. He said that the revision had been very complicated, and that there had been many delays. He reminded the committee that it had been almost ten years “to the day,” since the decision had been made to produce an electronic version of AACR2. Chatham said that AACR2(E) was “an ongoing project,” in that it would be periodically revised.

Turitz asked the reason why the loose-leaf version was not published.

Chatham replied that publishing the loose-leaf publication in the binder was not cost-effective. He said that the demand for the loose-leaf version was very small, compared to the hardbound and the soft-cover, and it was no longer economically viable. ALA publications would have had to price the loose-leaf at over $100.00 in order to maintain a viable cost/price relationship, and that the demand did not support this.

Kelley asked how ALA publications was planning to handle future amendments.

Chatham said that was “a difficult, but very good question.” He said the original plan was that ALA publications would look to the original SGML file, which was the official text of the content of the book, the standard. Assuming that the electronic version would have broad appeal, ALA publications would update the electronic version, and at the same time revise the printed text. Chatham said there were economic problems with that scenario, however. He said that the electronic version could be updated almost continuously, but to incorporate those updates into a corresponding print version would be very difficult because of the costs involved. Chatham said that ALA publications had originally planned to issue an updated printed version about every eighteen months, and that the electronic version would be updated on an eighteen-month cycle. Chatham said, however, that that plan may not be practical and that ALA publications had discussed patches on the electronic version as opposed to new versions of 1.1 or 1.2. He said a lot would depend on what happens with the sales: if the demand for the electronic version is not very substantial, it may turn out that the most realistic or most viable market is through the licensing opportunities to institutions like LC or OCLC. Chatham said ALA publications would work that out with the JSC and the Committee of Principals , and the co-publishers, the Library Association and the Canadian Library Association.

Glazier asked if it would be possible to produce on a floppy disk or a CD the equivalent of update pages, so that they could be printed out by people who had purchased the paper copy. He noted that this option would avoid the expense of setting type and printing.

Chatham said that at one point it was desired to keep the two versions synchronized, but said he was not sure that that was practical. He said that what ALA publications might find themselves doing was patching the electronic version and going forward with the amendments, supplements, and packages as they had done in the past.

Schottlaender said that he found Glazier’s option an intriguing way to approach the synchronicity issue, which the JSC is very concerned about. He said that he recognized the publishing realities that attend that as a cost-and-price issue. He said that ALA might consider using patches to the e-file and just “burning them to CD,” rather than printing them, which would involve higher costs, and then letting the end user contend with printing them out and pasting them in.

Chatham responded by saying that all these options were under consideration. He said that ALA publications could not afford to reprint the book except every 18 months or so, and even that was “stretching it.” He said that another element in this discussion was the licensing partners, to the extent that when ALA publications modifies the file, they have to make sure that the partners are carrying the same modifications on a timely basis, and that creates concerns with regard to their own cost-structures.

Turitz said that he understood that the Cataloging Desktop would be made available in a Web version, and he wondered if AACR2 was going to be tied in with that and available through the Web.

Chatham said ALA publications did not have any plans for an online version. He said he would defer to Bruce Johnson to speak to that.

Johnson said that the distribution license does not permit them to distribute AACR2 via the Web. They purposely did not include that proviso in their negotiations, because those negotiations were complicated enough just getting AACR2 into the CD-ROM product. They also hadn’t demonstrated to themselves that there would be a market for getting Cataloger’s Desktop over the Web. When they have demonstrated that to their satisfaction, they will be in touch with ALA to work through the licensing realities of that situation.

Schottlaender said that he met briefly with the CCS Executive Committee and they had a brief discussion on this topic, which might merit review. He said that while it is true that ALA editions is the publisher of the book, it is worth noting Chatham’s reference to the publication being a partnership activity ultimately governed by the Committee of Principals. He said that any input that CCS Executive or CC:DA wishes to make ultimately needs to go to the Committee of Principals. He said that he was CC:DA’s vehicle to put forward recommendations, and to see that they make it to Mary Ghikas, who is both ALA representative to the Committee of Principals and Chair of the Committee of Principals. He said that he thought this process would help ALA editions “stake out a position,” and not feel like it is having to fight this fight itself.

Jizba said that the chapter on computer files was being revised, and that this would result in a substantial amount of text revision, more than has been done in quite a while. She asked how long these revisions would take, noting that it had to be easier in the electronic version. She asked Chatham if these revisions would have to be outsourced.

Chatham said that Schottlaender’s point was probably the relevant one. The publication was owned by the AACR Fund, which is managed by the Committee of Principals, and the Fund includes the COP, the JSC and the co-publishers. To the extent that the revisions are beyond the nature of the 1993 and 1997 amendments, which have been incorporated, “you step into the process of editing the text.” In that case, there would have to be involvement by the JSC and the Committee of Principals, which might mean an editor had to be appointed. Ultimately, the charge to revise the manuscript would fall to the JSC. Chatham said the task would be neither easy nor rapid, but would be very deliberate.

Jizba said that because it sounded as if Chatham had no experience with a major revision, he didn’t know how much time it would take.

Schottlaender said it was unlikely that the revision would be outsourced, but once the JSC addressed the recommendations from Toronto, and determined that what was coming down from the world-wide community was the need to completely revamp the code, then the possibility of an extramural editor would be much stronger. He said that there was an attempt in the spirit of the new JSC mission statement to fast track the revisions to Chapter 9.

Jizba said that the reason she brought up this issue was because, in working on Chapter 9, members of her group were reluctant to make recommendations for revision, because such recommendations would necessitate too much work. She said, however, that no one seemed afraid of suggesting a major revision.

Schottlaender said that avoiding “too much work” should never be a guiding principle of the revision process. Beacom said that it was important for a workable method for revision be established, be it a patch, an ftp site or a package of paper.

Schottlaender agreed that Beacom’s point was very well taken, i.e., that it was important not to be too particular about a means of delivery, because “we’re not publishers, and we don’t have to contend with the budgetary bottom line.” He said that what they should provide was a statement of philosophical support for the continued synchronicity of the editions and timely publication of the updates. He added that whether that statement should come from CCS Executive or CC:DA could be determined by further discussion.

Jizba said that the last time the amendments package was published there were a lot of complaints, and she asked Chatham if ALA Editions kept these on file.

Chatham said that they were aware of most of them, and would keep them in mind when publishing future amendment packages.

634. Agenda item 13. Report from the Task Force on Rule 0.24 (Yee)

Yee said the interim report that the committee had received was a reaction to the Delsey report, or Part 1 of the Delsey report, but given the task force’s charge, they were trying to focus on the content/carrier, and edition/manifestation issues. She said that one of the issues that she wished to raise was whether or not the committee wished to put another mechanism in place for dealing with the Delsey report.

Yee said the task force’s goals for the next six months were to examine Part 2 of the Delsey report and to focus on content/carrier and edition/manifestation issues to ensure that they work within the context of both parts of the model in trying to make recommendations about 0.24. But, Yee added, the task force’s major piece of business over the next year will be to prepare the final recommendations concerning Rule 0.24 for CC:DA consideration at both the Annual meeting and the Midwinter meeting, and for submission to the Joint Steering Committee for Fall 2000. She said that timing was one of the things the task force talked about: whether they should speed up, even though their charge allows them to wait till Winter 2000, but the response was overwhelmingly negative on the part of the task force.

Attig said that there might be an alternative strategy that the task force might want to consider, and noted that they might have something they might want to put on the table at Annual.

Yee said she had asked the task force whether or not it would be advisable to move up the task force’s final report to Annual 1999, in order to be in time for the JSC meeting in October 1999, but the response had been negative.

Jizba said the task force may still make the October deadline.

Schottlaender said he was asking the task force to remember that CC:DA had been asked by the JSC to bring forward rule revision proposals concerning 0.24 in order to advance the discussion, which only means that if the task force report comes forward as recommendations, that then gives CC:DA from Midwinter 2000 to October 2000 to get those rule revision proposals together, which means the task force doesn’t really have the luxury of waiting till Annual 2000 to continue its discussion.

Yee said that she imagined that the task forces’s recommendations would take the form of draft text for Rule 0.24, but in conjunction with more general statements about what the underlying assumptions are concerning what the entire code would look like, which the task force would not be able to draft at the explicit request of the JSC. She explained that there is at least one possible drafting of the text of 0.24 that would not assume any further change in AACR2, but two options were on the table that would assume major changes in the code as a whole, so the task force would be providing a rule revision proposal for 0.24, as well as a more general statement about the underlying change in the code based on this change in the cardinal principle.

Schottlaender said that it would depend on where the task force was in its thinking when the world-wide review of the Delsey report is complete, because the deadline for that review is deliberately set at September 1999 so the JSC can consider the input in October 1999. He explained that that means that the 0.24 Task Force and the ISBD(ER) Harmonization Task Force could receive from the Joint Steering Committee, pursuant to world-wide input, guidance as to how wholesale revision of the code is to proceed, i.e., if the JSC indicates that wholesale revision of the code will proceed, as per Delsey’s recommendations, the report of the task force could take one form; if, on the other hand, the JSC indicates that there will be no wholesale revision of the code, the report of the task force could reflect that decision. Schottlaender said that another possibility was that by October 1999, the task force may have input from the JSC that will indicate which of those two directions to follow, so that the task force’s report at Midwinter 2000 will be more informed than the task force is in a position to be at present.

Attig said perhaps the alternatives to inform the discussion would be laid out by the JSC in the Fall.

Yee said that it was possible that what she was calling an interim report at Annual, from the task force to CC:DA, might need to be in a form that could be sent forward, even though it might be called interim.

Schottlaender said it could be sent forward simply for consideration and discussion along with other input received regarding the Delsey report, including additional input from this committee.

Yee turned the discussion to the options that were currently on the table. She said that the task force had identified three functions that are carried out by Rule 0.24 that needed to be carried out in whatever revisions take place, the question being how they are carried out. She enumerated the three functions of the rule as: 1) it provides guidance in the cataloging of items with multiple characteristics that must be cataloged using more than one chapter of AACR2; 2) it provides guidance to the cataloger on when to make a new record – somewhat minimal guidance – but the reference to the physical item implies any change to the physical form requires a new record to reflect it; and, 3) it supports the transcription principle. Yee said that the task force intends to make recommendations regarding these functions, and that she thought there were three options for the first two on the table. She said that obviously reorganization based on ISBD area, recommended by Delsey, is on the table and is being discussed in other venues. She said that had to be on the table as one option for dealing with the problem of multiple characteristics, and added that some members of the task force feel that the organization of AACR2 should stay as it is, but that the committee should attempt to rewrite rule 0.24 to provide better guidance to catalogers on how to use more than one chapter, when necessary, for items with multiple characteristics. Yee went on to say that she believed there was more than one person on the task force who supports a kind of interim position, i.e., organizing more cleanly based on content, and noted that this would involve retaining the chapters in AACR2 that are fundamentally content chapters, such as maps, graphic materials, and motion pictures, and that perhaps music and sound recordings could be shifted a little so that all music is in one chapter and non-musical sound recordings in another. She suggested a starting point with the current division, and keeping the chapters having to do with content, but then “trying to fold in seriality in all chapters, trying to fold digital into all chapters when things have some other content and have been digitized in some way.” She added that Chapter 9 is probably still needed for things that are purely digital, but that Chapter 11 for microfilm could be gotten rid of and microfilming folded into all chapters. She said that the committee needed to try to draft language for Rule 0.24 that would support those three different assumptions about the code, or the first half of the code, as a whole.

Schottlaender remarked to Yee that she had referred to the “organize more cleanly option,” as an interim option and asked if she meant intermediate option?

Yee replied that she should have said intermediate, i.e., more radical than leaving AACR2 as it is, less radical than reorganizing it by ISBD area.

Schottlaender said that it would be very useful if Yee would put those three things on the table for consideration, with the attendant changes to 0.24.

Mangan asked Yee about the option of possibly just rearranging the chapters in a different order: content, then carrier, and then publication. Yee said that she had suggested that the whole code be reorganized so that a cataloger would start with what’s in the last half of the code and then proceed to what’s in the first half of the code, but she had “no takers” for that option. Yee then asked if committee members thought it would be helpful to reorganize just chapters 1-13 in a different order, implying a table of precedence about which one to use, and if CC:DA wished to consider that as a fourth option.

Jizba said that she thought the task force needed to discuss this, and that they were not at the point of saying they had three or four options, because she had a lot of other ideas.

Kelley said that she agreed with that, and that she thought the task force should present the proposals in their finality to CC:DA.

Schottlaender said that if there were seventeen distinct approaches to solving the problem, then they should be put on the table, but if they were just little tweaks, not to waste the JSC’s time with that.

Yee said that she wanted to move on to the second major function of 0.24, the question of when to make a new record. She said that the task force identified three options, but that she expected to hear that there are potentially more than that. Yee identified the first option as reconciling and codifying current practice and said that that meant looking at OCLC and CONSER Guidelines for when to make a new record, as well as the LCRI for 1.0. Yee said that these would have to be reconciled because they don’t always agree, and then there had to be a suggestion for how to get that into the code.

Yee then identified a second, slightly more radical approach, which would be to go back to the Mul/Ver Guidelines and codify those, limiting it to reproductions only, i.e., if a cataloger has two items that vary physically but one is known to be a reproduction of the other, do not make a new record for the reproduction.

Yee said that the third, even more radical approach, would be to take a look at the ISBD(ER) approach of ignoring minor variations and extending that to all materials. Yee explained that “ignore” could mean at least three things: those with a serials background could consider “ignore” to mean “leave out of the record altogether.” She said, “you could try to summarize the variations covered in your bibliographic record, for example, with multiple physical descriptions or a note that summarizes the variations, or you could suggest that variations be described in sub-records of some kind.” Yee added that with two of these three approaches, the task force would also have to make some recommendations about what was meant by “ignoring variation.”

Yee mentioned that the third function that 0.24 carries out is to support the principle of transcription. She said that the task force needed to ensure that it continues to support the principle, although the degree of support is on the table. She went on to say that most of the types of change in the cardinal principle that the task force was discussing imply changes in the code itself, so that in explaining each of these options what the task force needs to do is draft text for Rule 0.24 itself, and suggest the assumptions underlying the text about the organization of the code as a whole, giving some pros and cons. She said that the task force was going to try to find some examples of items with multiple characteristics, hopefully examples of things that occur with some frequency. Then, she explained, the task force members would try to determine what they’d like the record to look like, and then go backwards from that to where that requires better and finer negotiation in the rules where there are cases of conflict across chapters, so that they can start to see where the problems would lie in trying to bring all the rules together in a tighter way. Yee concluded by saying she was going to have her final question be, “Are there any options that you think the task force should drop because there is no chance you would support them?” but said she had decided not to ask that question.

Turitz said that in regard to looking at the Multiple Versions Guidelines from that task force, one of the guiding principles of that was not to conflict with 0.24, and, since this task force was an intent to revise 0.24, “it shouldn’t be in a circular mode.” He continued by saying that he thought the multiple versions guidelines would have been very different had, at the time, it was also proposed to change 0.24 so that it could also accommodate things other than just straight reproductions.

Attig said that he thought that what Yee had described as a strategy was more or less what the task force had in mind. He emphasized that it would be very helpful if the committee could at least get this as a discussion document, if not all the precise rule revisions for each option. He added that if it were a discussion document, the committee could forward it to the JSC.

Yee said that one of the reasons this was on the agenda with so much time was that it was thought it would be helpful if CC:DA engaged in a little bit of discussion about the major suggestion from the Delsey report, that the code be reorganized by ISBD area. She said that if the task force could get some guidance from CC:DA on this, pro or con, that it would be helpful. She said that this suggestion was the biggest proposal on the table because it was coming from other directions, and that CC:DA was the task force’s parent body, and task force members would like to know what the members of CC:DA were thinking at this point in time.

Schottlaender said that that was one of the reasons he had suggested that either a task force be created or that the charge of the current task force be extended to consider the Delsey report, if only from an efficiency and expediency perspective.

Kelley asked Yee if it was possible for her to summarize the discussion that had already taken place?

Yee said that she would refer the members of the committee to the written responses to the Delsey report, because that was one of the key issues that the task force responded to. She suggested that one of the major things that was probably worrying people is that the current chapters in AACR2 correspond to the current division of labor in cataloging departments; for example, there are people who specialize in cataloging music and people who specialize in cataloging serials. She said that she suspected that the reason we have the current organization was not necessarily a principled decision, but rather a practical decision – that serials catalogers like to have all their rules together, and music catalogers like to have all their rules together. She said that she thought perhaps the major concern about it might be, isn’t this going to be difficult for specialists to find all their rules, and isn’t this going to be difficult for generalist catalogers who have to wade through more specialized rules for music when they never do music, and that kind of thing.

Attig asked if he could briefly state the case for the other side? He said that many people were convinced by the Delsey report that there is something fundamentally broken about the class of materials entity because it no longer describes a lot of the things that catalogers are doing. He said that the virtue of the Delsey report is that it would allow the committee to redefine what “class of materials” means – from a few whole chapters to whatever categories are the targets of special instructions. He said that there could be as many of them as necessary, and they would relate to particular rules, not to a whole set of rules, and that other methods in the rules, such as the index, could be used to bring together those rules for particular categories.

Yee said that she thought that people who support reorganization by ISBD area perceive that, really, all these years, every item cataloged has had all of those aspects: every item has a content aspect, a carrier aspect, a type of publication aspect, and that this has always been an artificial division – these chapters – and has always caused problems, even before electronic materials came along. She said that it was just that catalogers were able to sweep them under the rug a little bit more easily, because if it was a content chapter catalogers could assume one carrier and one type of publication for most of the things that fell into that chapter, so problems didn’t arise as often. She noted that the advent of digital materials has just thrown everything up in the air in that regard and more and more people were realizing the error in logic. Yee continued by saying that this is an opportunity to clean up the logic of the code and also make it more open to massive change in the future, and better able to deal with anything that comes along as opposed to being rigidly tied to the categories of materials as in the past.

Schottlaender said that he found Yee’s use of the phrase “sweep it under the rug,” interesting, when one considers that the first sweep of the rug – which was perhaps the day after the code was published – was LC’s decision to throw out Chapter 11. He concurred with Yee that “it has been problematic from the get-go.”

Glazier identified himself as one of the people on the task force. He said that in Toronto, when Delsey presented the idea of reorganization by ISBD area, he was sort of stunned that nobody had presented this idea before because it seemed so logical. He said that, at the same time, he did not believe that reorganization in itself will solve the problems of 0.24. He said that it still does not automatically address the issue of materials with more than one characteristic, or how to divine precedence when there are conflicts for individual types of materials in each of these areas, i.e., when to make a new record or the multiple versions issue. Glazier said he had been arguing that we need to resolve philosophically what the solutions to those issues are before we say the best way to represent the solution is in the context of a reorganized code.

Kelley asked Glazier to turn that into an action item.

Glazier said that at the task force meeting on Friday, the point was made that the cataloging code is not linear right now – a cataloger can–t create a catalog record from A to Z by following through the cataloging code, and he added that reorganization by ISBD could streamline that process: “you know that you start at the beginning with the title paragraph and work your way through the other areas of ISBD.” But, he cautioned, within each of those areas, there is the issue, “if I have a digitized serial map, and 0.24 says go to the chapter for the class of materials, that’s three chapters, and we don’t think that’s a class of materials that this thing is.” Glazier went on to say that in some of the ISBD areas there are conflicts in those three chapters (serials, computer files, maps) about how to fill in Areas 2,3,4 etc. Glazier emphasized that his issue was, until he knew how to resolve those conflicts, it’s not going to do him any good to say, “I’ve put the computer files rules, the serial rules and the map rules for Area 3 all in one chapter, because I’ve got something that’s all three of these – what do I do with it?”

Kelley asked Glazier if the focus should be on 0.24 and if the question of the organization of 1-13 should be deferred.

Glazier said that he thought that was the charge of the task force, actually, since it is establishing the principles by which those decisions can be made. He speculated that perhaps the best way to represent that in the code is to write a set of rules for Area 3 that includes in it instructions for when there’s a conflict between the different classes of materials that are represented by one item. Glazier continued by saying that he thought that was an issue that needs a philosophical underpinning whereby we can make that resolution before we say that the best way to represent it in the code is to reorganize the code. He said that he could see a rewrite of 0.24 that advises catalogers to take the pieces from those chapters that they need, and, if they’ve got a conflict, then do X, which would mean, “you could leave the chapters as they were, if you had a rule that told you when there was a conflict, how to handle it.” But, Glazier added, it also might have the same text embedded in a rule for Area 3 that says: a special rule for maps, a special rule for computer files, a special rule for serials, and, when these are in conflict, do this, i.e., a special instruction in the chapter for Area 3 as opposed to a special instruction in the equivalent of 0.24. Glazier emphasized that we need to solve how to resolve those conflicts before we know the best way to represent the solution in the rules.

Schottlaender said that Yee’s report will let her lay out that very thing; and that she doesn’t have to answer all the questions just raised by Glazier.

Glazier said that his own feeling was that there was too much emphasis on charging straight forward to the reorganization of the rules by ISBD area without having resolved that issue first.

Patton said that he wanted to come back to Kelley’s point about an action item that caused some laughter but which he didn’t take entirely facetiously. He said that one of the things that he noticed in the task force’s discussion, is that one of the problems seems to be with the whole idea of reorganizing Part 1 into ISBD areas: some people are having trouble envisioning what that would look like, because, going back not only to AACR1, which had similar class of materials description chapters, but to the green book, the description rules were organized by class of materials, even though there were fewer classes of materials. He observed that there is an example of what that looks like, noting that the concise AACR2, prepared by Michael Gorman and revised coincident with the 1988 revision, is indeed organized by ISBD area. He said that although all of the detail that is present in the full AACR2 for special kinds of materials is not there (because that publication is aimed at smaller libraries and catalogers that may not deal with the variety of materials that larger institutions do) it could still give people an idea of what a reorganized Part 1 would look like. He said that he thought it fairly successfully deals with the Area 5 situation that you would have in that case, because Area 5 has to be somewhat different for each physical type of material. However, he continued, it doesn’t deal very well, if at all, with the issues that Glazier was just raising, of what exactly does a cataloger do with an item which would require multiple Area 3’s: it acknowledges the necessity of that, Patton said, “but doesn’t really tell you, if you’ve got a serially issued digital cartographic item, which theoretically means you have three Area 3’s, how to fully describe it.” He said there is no guidance there that says a cataloger should do this one first, followed by that one, followed by the other one, but in terms of a general idea of what would that kind of publication look like, Patton suggested that if people haven’t looked at the concise AACR2, it might be a useful thing to do.

Watson said that as he reads the Delsey report, especially the key issues and the recommendations, it seems like in Recommendation 1 Delsey is talking about the reorganization according to ISBD area as primarily being useful in terms of facilitating integration of rules for new forms. He noted that Delsey talks about how difficult it is to extend the code to accommodate the introduction of new media, so that reorganization in and of itself might make revising the code, or extending the code, easier, but it doesn’t solve the problems Glazier was talking about. He said that one of the fascinating parts of the report is Table 1, which bears looking at, because it heads in the direction of trying to at least identify, if not solve, the class of materials problem, and a table like that is something that seems like it would need to go along with 0.24. He said that task force members were of the opinion that the Delsey model tends to be fairly hierarchical – that’s where the discussion led off into talking about whether one needs to choose or not. Watson continued by saying that the problem with a faceted approach was that “you need to decide and then add things in.” He asked if it was possible to come to some sort of understanding that each aspect – form of content, form of expression, physical carrier – would simply be incorporated into the record without needing to divine exactly what it is and what multiple characteristic takes precedence over the other. He suggested that catalogers could have a code that would allow the incorporation of all that, and observed that it would be a little more democratic and less hierarchical. He also suggested that everybody take a look at Table 1, because it would make everyone’s “synapses pop in new ways.”

Schottlaender said that the description of the Delsey model as hierarchical he had heard a lot recently, and that he just wanted to note one thing: one can take a lot of issue with the details of the Delsey model, “but if you think the Delsey model is hierarchical, what you are saying is that the code is hierarchical; it’s not his model for what the code ought to be, it’s his model of what the code is.” He noted that there might be a different approach to structuring rules that is not as hierarchical as this approach.

Jizba commented that the modeling technique used by Delsey comes out of computing, and to do a theoretical model like he’s done and then move it into a physical model, which is a program model, “you have to take hierarchies into account and you have to push things into categories whether they need to be or not, and you begin to see that when you look at the multiple characteristics.” Jizba continued by saying, “if you try to look at some of those boxes he’s made and deal with multiple characteristic things, the boxes don’t work; so he has used a model and applied it to the rules which are more like a network of decisions rather than a set of hierarchical decisions.”

Fox said that he wanted to comment on the logical structure of the entity relationship diagrams that Delsey drew, saying it is true that he’s trying to capture what’s in the code, but “when you compare the hierarchical relationships that he depicts and then you map them against the landscape– the real world – they don’t link up.” He said that there is this principle in the military, “if the map and the terrain don’t agree, you believe the terrain, and that’s the kind of situation that we identify here.” He said that there is this hierarchical ordering: that this type of content mostly appears in this type of carrier and has these other characteristics, but when these are deconstructed, that, in fact, there are multiple, many-to-many kinds of relationships – it’s not just a set of one too many. He then observed that, “if you deduce that this is textual, then you can infer all sorts of other things about all those other facets that are identified there,” and he concluded by saying, “when you look at the terrain you see, in fact, that that’s not the case; the proverbial computer file-serialized-map just blows that logical model out of the water.”

Glazier said that in that context, it is proving that the rules don’t solve the problem, as they are. He said that one of the things that Yee said, that was mentioned briefly at the task force meeting, was the reliance of catalogers of individual material types on the chapters for those materials. Glazier then suggested that a model for a change in that particular paradigm was the change in the MARC formats, where formerly there was a separate physical format and then they were combined into one format, and, “although it is a large volume, it’s a whole lot smaller than eight separate format documents together, and it removes a lot of redundancy in the same way that a reorganized code of this kind would do because the tag groups roughly equate in some context to ISBD areas or can be mapped to these.” Glazier observed that catalogers have functioned with a combined reorganized form as opposed to eight formats, format integration helping a lot in that now they could use fields that had been specialized fields anywhere they need to use them; so that if there are rules that wind up being appropriate for things that they hadn’t paid attention to before, in theory they could wind up being relevant.

Attig said that he thought the MARC analogy could be taken a step farther, and that, “as we look at the rules we may very well find that the things that are in individual chapters are in fact general rules because they are in all the relevant chapters.”

Schiff said that he thought that was true, but also that if AACR is reorganized based on ISBD area, those specialist constituencies that want the rules in one place will find a way to consolidate them in some other manual and publish them all together.

Schottlaender said that they won’t need to because they’ll have electronic AACR.

Glazier said that that was not a reason not to do it.

Hirons said that she wanted to mention something that she had intended to include in her report later, but felt it was better to talk about it right now. She said that she endorsed the reorganization of the code by area so that seriality can be integrated into the code, because, now, every one of those special chapters is written for monographic items. Hirons mentioned that there are no guidelines there for the level of specificity of the data, or for how to handle changes in the data. She reported that at the ISBD(ER) meeting, the group finally got into the realization that there is another kind of edition statement that wasn’t included in there, and that this is needed in Chapter 9. But, according to Hirons, the discussion of basic concepts about types of edition statements shouldn’t be in Chapter 9 – it needs to be in a basic chapter on the edition statement because it applies throughout the entire code and so do the rules for seriality. Hirons said that she thought that as more things go electronic, “we’re going to have not just serials but ongoing types of changing things and we are going to need more of these basic rules throughout, how is this handled in each area of the record, where is this important, and how specific to be.”

Beacom said that it may be that if there is an integration of the rules, people will want to have format specific guidance, but they might not want to have so much a compilation of the rules for their particular object, say, maps, as much as a manual that helps them describe how to go about cataloging those, sort of on the lines of the CONSER Manual. He said that it won’t be so much a repetition of the rules in a pulled together way, but there might be some guidance about decision-making and process in a manual, for, say, map catalogers or for music catalogers, and that might be a positive thing to expect.

Attig said that Glazier’s point was a valid one, and that the committee had got some fundamental things to decide about how to resolve conflict, because that is what all this is. He said that he thought the example Glazier chose, as Patton pointed out, is fairly simple to resolve: all you need to answer for Area 3 is in what order do you do it. However, he said he thought that the hardest problem to solve is source of title because there “you are going to run into absolute conflicts; it’s not that you have to decide which one to apply first if both apply, but, how do you make a decision if you can only apply one rule or the other, and those are going to be harder to resolve.” He said that he thought that the committee had been focusing on one of the recommendations of the Delsey model and suggested that the discussion be turned to how CC:DA wants to deal with other aspects of the model, as a committee.

Kinney said that they would turn to a discussion of the possibility of forming another task force and asked Yee if she thought that, since her task force had partly responded to the Delsey report, if she would be overburdened if the committee expanded the charge? Yee indicated that she would be.

Schiff asked if 0.25 should be looked at as well. He said it sounded like some of the things being talked about are already described in 0.25, even if it only gives examples of things that have two characteristics rather than three, but it does instruct to repeat Area 3, and in a certain order.

Attig said that he thought there were several rules that were related.

Jizba said that there was more than one 0.2X rule that is involved, so that the task force was going to go ahead and do that anyway.

Yee asked Schottlaender if, as the representative to the Joint Steering Committee, he would say that when the JSC asked the task force to consider Rule 0.24 they meant all attendant rules.

Schottlaender said that he thought that what the task force came forward with on 0.24 was going to be heavily mitigated by the need for a whole bunch of other guidance and changes. He said that the task force should go on to 0.25, 0.26, 0.27, as appropriate, to surround the issue of 0.24, because 0.24, as the cardinal principle, would, de facto, touch a lot of other rules.

Kinney said that what was needed was a motion to constitute a new task force on the Delsey model. Larsgaard so moved and Turitiz seconded, after which the committee voted to approve.

Kinney said that he would pass around a sign-up sheet, and announced that this would be a task force on the review of the Delsey report, and that their report would be due at Annual since the review period is in September. He then announced a break and said the committee would resume the meeting at 10:20.

The meeting resumed at 10:22.

635. Agenda item 14. Report on the IFLA Conference in Amsterdam (Patton)

    (Note: The following report was transcribed from a draft submitted to the secretary by the IFLA representative.)

Report on the section on Cataloguing, IFLA 1998, Amsterdam

ISBD-related Activities

A review group for the ISBD(S) chaired by Ingrid Parent of the National Library of Canada has been at work for several months. Their goal is a revised edition by the IFLA meeting in Jerusalem in 2000. U. S. participants in the review include Edward Swanson (serving as editor), John Byrum and Dorothy McGarry. Work on the revision also involved the IFLA Section on Serials and is being coordinated with current work in revising AACR2 and with current ISSN activities.

The ISBD Review Group (chaired by John Byrum) has begun a review of the effects of the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records on existing ISBDs. An initial review of the ISBD(M) indicated that some elements currently required in an ISBD description will be made optional to conform with the FRBR recommendations. Work continues on a similar review of the ISBD(G). The group is also considering consolidation of the ISBDs into a single, unified document. The first step involves providing guidance for applying the existing ISBDs to materials to which multiple ISBDs apply (for example, a serially issued, digital map). Dorothy McGarry also serves as a member of the ISBD Review Group and Glenn Patton will assist with the “multiple” ISBDs evaluation.

In cooperation with the UBCIM office and following the model used for UNIMARC documentation, work has begun on a project to make the current ISBDs available via the UBCIM web page. Initially, the ISBD(G) and the ISBD(M) will be made available with others to follow (pending successful resolution of copyright issues).

The Amsterdam conference included a standing-room-only workshop on the ISBD(ER). John Byrum reminded attendees of the process through which the ISBD(CF) had been transformed into the ISBD(ER)and (in the absence of Ann Sandberg-Fox) reviewed the principle changes. Lynn Howarth (university of Toronto) presented preliminary results of a survey concerning the adoption of the ISBD(ER) by national bibliographic agencies. Sten Hedburg (Uppsala University) reviewed the relationships among the various media-specific elements (the General Material Designation, “Type of resource” designations in Area 3, and the Specific Material Designation) and Maria Witt (Mediathèque de la Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie) described her experiences in using the ISBD(ER) to catalog CD-ROMs.

Section on Cataloguing Open Forum

The Section’s Open Forum, also standing-room-only, consisted of four presentations centered around the theme “Library Catalogues: Responding to User Needs.” Ralph Manning, National Library of Canada and current chair of the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR, reviewed current activities related to the revision of AACR2, including the International Conference on Principles and Future Development of AACR.

Stefan Gradmann, PICA, presented a paper titled “Cataloguing vs. Metadata: Old Wine in New Bottles” in which he explored the fundamental differences between the two and how these differences affect the role of librarians. Peter Noerr, EduLib, reviewed an examination by the European Library Automation Group (ELAG) of user benefits to be derived from the four-level bibliographic model of the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Thierry Giappiconi, Bibliothèque de Fresnes, described the use of authority records to improve users’ access to the catalog. The public library in Fresnes, which will inaugurate a new building in 1999, is the first public library in France to fully incorporate authority data produced by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France into its catalog.

Section on Cataloguing Projects

The Working Group on Guidelines for OPAC Displays reviewed an initial draft of the proposed guidelines at its Amsterdam meeting. Dorothy McGarry chairs the group with Martha Yee serving as a consultant charged with preparing drafts for review by the group. Their final report is expected for vote next summer following a worldwide review October 1998-January 1999.

Work continues on a revision and expansion of Anonymous Classics. Phase I of the project, a revision of the existing document covering mainly European literature, is nearly complete. Phases II and III will expand coverage to Latin America and Africa and to Asia, respectively.

The Working Group on Form and Structure of Corporate Headings achieved a breakthrough during the Amsterdam meetings. The group, chaired by Ton Heijligers of the University of Amsterdam, has abandoned its previous goal of a revised edition of the existing IFLA document after coming to agreement that the UBC concept of a single form of corporate name acceptable worldwide is no longer relevant in the current environment. Instead, the group has recommended that the Section support the work of the IFLA UBCIM Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records (MLAR) in building a virtual authority file. In support of that effort, the FSCH working group plans a study of corporate headings created according to various national cataloging rules. The study will test matching and linking several headings for the same corporate entity and the feasibility of deriving a set of principles and basic guidelines for corporate headings. Barbara Tillett serves as recorder and assistant chair of this working group.

The Working Group that is revising Guidelines for Authorities and Reference Entries is also coordinating its work with the MLAR working group. A draft of the second edition is being circulated for review with the expectation of submitting it for approval at the next IFLA meeting. Barbara Tillett will revise the introduction which she prepared last year. The group is also collecting additional examples to cover headings for all types of materials. Glenn Patton serves as a member of the working group and Barbara Tillett acts as liaison to MLAR.

The section is also assisting in the planning of the International Conference on National Bibliographic Services, an invitational conference to be held in Copenhagen in November 1998. This conference is a successor to a similar one held in 1977 and will evaluate and update that conference’s recommendations on the preparation of national bibliographies.

At the Amsterdam conference, the Section initiated a new project on Metadata. The Working Group on the Use of Metadata Schemes (chaired by Lynne Howarth and including among its members, Dorothy McGarry, Glenn Patton and Lois Mai Chan, who represents the Section on Classification and Indexing) will not attempt to create a new Metadata scheme. Rather, it will attempt to develop guidelines to help cataloging in using Metadata schemes versus traditional cataloging, to compare the ISBD(ER) and FRBR recommendations with principal Metadata schemes, such as the Dublin core, and to provide a liaison function between the Section and other groups, including the Section on Information Technology, the IFLA Internet Interest Group, ISO TC46SC9, and various national cataloging agencies and committees.

IFLA UBCIM Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records and ISADN

The Working Group on MLAR/ISADN met twice during the conference and updated their report, which will be further revised by Barbara Tillett and submitted to USCIM for publication in September. The proposal from this WG is to develop a virtual authority database from the various national authority files and to provide links among the records for the same entity by embedding the associated record numbers and perhaps text strings for the authorized forms for computer linking. This obviates the need for an International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN) in the near term and allows the working group to test the concept sooner without the overhead of an international body to manage the infrastructure needed for creation and maintenance of ISADNs. However, further explorations into the ISADN will also be pursued.

As a part of preliminary investigations of a standard number, members of WG became aware of other projects related to international standard numbers for persons and corporate bodies. The music rights world has created and is using a CAE number (compositeur, auteur, editeur - composer, author, publisher), which is undergoing a metamorphosis into the IPI (Interested Party Information) System. CAE was developed by SUISA in the 1970s for purposes of providing royalties to its members - a database of society affiliation for its members plus additional names, all tied to a distinctive one-up number, completely dumb with 10 digits plus a check digit, for the name by which an entity is known. Numbers do not change with society affiliation changes. Societies register their members and have to check whether a person or company already has a number before allocating a new one, but this is not well controlled. There is also a need to identify entities (human and corporate), independently of their names, so the IP (interested party) entity emerged with its number for the entity. The WG MLAR/ISADN will complete its work with the final report and a new group will be formed to address the ISADN, working with this SUISA and INDECS group as well as a committee of the International Council of Archivists that is working on a number for the archival community.

General Conference Activities

The IFLA Opening Session began with a living tableau of Rembrandt’s “Night Watch” with the players marching on stage with music and a little dog. It ended with a game of networking that involved throwing balls of colored yarn from one person to the next throughout the auditorium and up into the balcony – holding on to the yarn and then throwing the ball to other people. The crisscross of yarn soon made a huge net. To extricate themselves, participants passed the net from aisle to aisle starting at the back of the balcony moving towards the stage. It was great fun.

At the IFLA Closing Session it was announced that the 2003 IFLA conference will be in Berlin and members of their organizing committee threw little Berlin bears to the audience. Other future meetings are schedule for Bangkok in 1999, Jerusalem in 2000, Boston in 2001, and Glasgow and Edinburgh in 2002.

Reported by Barbara Tillett, Library of Congress, and Glenn Patton, OCLC

636. Agenda item 15. Report from the Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) (Howarth)

Howarth said that the task force had a very productive meeting, and covered a lot of ground, particularly based on the receipt of additional information, the responses to ALA 27. She said that in addition to having a number of observers at the meeting, the task force welcomed Martha Yee and Jean Hirons; since their input to the task force was very crucial and very important; they’ve been added to the task force’s listserv so that they can continue to contribute to the discussion. Howarth reported that the task force worked through the document in its entirety and said she would present, with the permission of the chair, a summary of the discussion in order to give some sense where the task force was moving in response to ALA 27.

Howarth announced that the task force has been charged with a detailed revue of ISBD(ER) and with noting areas in which Part 1 of AACR2, Chapter 9 and Appendix 9 – the glossary in particular – are not in conformance with ISBD(ER), the task force’s charge being to propose rule revisions to harmonize AACR2 with the ISBD(ER). She said that in the report there is a little bit of background to the ISBD(ER) and noted that the next steps would entail having various countries consider how they may harmonize their cataloging codes with the ISBD(ER), and vice versa.

Howarth said that the task force itself met first at Midwinter a year ago and talked about the kinds of approaches it could take. She said that the first real meeting, in terms of getting into the meat of the matter, was at ALA Annual in Washington, and added that the greatest challenge for this task force was in getting a hold of copies of ISBD(ER). Howarth told the committee that it was not until September that everyone on the task force had a copy, and that the task force had made a recommendation to encourage Saur and their distributor, Bowker, here in North America, to make it more readily available.

Howarth told committee members that they would see in the report the areas that were identified for particular review and harmonization with AACR2R: sources of information, the edition area, the type and extent of the resource area, and, along with Area 3, Appendix C in ISBD(ER) with recommended general material designation, resource designations and specific material designations along with their definitions. She said the task force looked at Area 4 of ISBD(ER), Area 5, and Area 7, and they particularly noted the challenges of 0.2, e.g., the definitions, which in AACR are potentially subject to incorporation within Appendix D, the glossary of AACR2R. The task force agreed to work in teams of two to three members with one person drafting proposed changes and the others responding. Howarth described how task force members used their listserv to have everyone give their feedback on particular suggestions for revisions, and also to provide an opportunity to discuss certain issues that were much more specific than certain rule change proposals.

Howarth said that in terms of their discussion as a task force they had not yet come to a consensus regarding 0.5 and ISBD(ER), dealing with sources of information, because they felt that they required considerably more discussion around that area, but they do have a proposal from a team from the task force that they are going to continue to discuss, so they would envision seeing that addressed in the final report along with the report from the Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules. Howarth reported that the task force had a very lively discussion, with Jean Hirons contributing, around Area 2, the edition area, not the least of which was: what, indeed, is an edition? When is something considered to be a new edition and warranting a separate bibliographic record? Howarth said that they started off on a very strong and hopeful note looking at a 9.2B2 and they had consensus on that with a slight wording change, but subsequently went on to consider such things as dynamic resources, specifically, what would be, in fact, defined as a dynamic resource? What is a dynamic resource in terms of a remotely accessed item considered within the framework of serials? Howarth reported that the task force decided that they would continue their discussion and see if they could tighten up the proposed rule revisions within that section, and went on to say that they also agreed that it was important to have examples that would reflect as much as possible the state of the art relative to new technologies.

Howarth said that the task force had some consensus on a supposed change that they’d done, i.e., 9.2B8, multiple edition statements, but again got bogged down by the question of what, in fact, is an edition, and also by getting into the murky waters of multiple versions. She said they would continue to tighten up the proposed changes that they’ve made and also to refer to discussions that have come along in response to ALA 27.

Howarth told the committee that, as far as Area 3 is concerned, the task force had agreed in principle that the resource designations from ISBD(ER), Appendix C, seemed to be a sound idea for incorporation within AACR2R. However, Howarth said, they do feel that they want to review the list to ensure that it is indeed appropriate to the code and to finalize the wording in 9.3B1 and 9.3B2. She said that they also want to consider what is the appropriate location for terms from appendix C in ISBD(ER), within AACR2R.

Howarth reported that, in terms of the publication, distribution area, the task force had had a lively discussion around the phrase, “consider all resources available by remote access to be published.” The question was, should the instructions regarding published computer files be pulled out and put into a new rule that would stand as the overall framework and would apply throughout the other rules on place, publisher and date? Howarth added that the team that was responsible for Area 4 is going to redraft that to reflect the wording in that discussion, so that would be coming forward as a proposed new rule. Concerning 9.2B9, 9.4F3, 9.7B7, the proposed changes based on edition statements and dates for dynamic resources, she said that the task force again discussed what is an edition, how to deal with dates relative to resources that are changing, based on frequent updates, and asked, but what is a frequent update with a website, in comparison with a frequent update for a serial publication? Again, what the task force found was that they needed to more clearly distinguish between different kinds of dynamic resources, keeping in mind issues of seriality and issues of remote access materials, i.e., just because they are remote access doesn’t mean they are dynamic. Howarth said that what the task force was concerned about with the proposed 9.2B9 was: there are certainly situations where you would want to have an edition statement, for example, based on language, but the way that rule reads, it seems to imply that if you have a remote access item then do not transcribe an edition statement, and that certainly was not the intent. So this rule revision, Howarth reported, has gone back to the team working on Area 2 for redrafting.

Howarth said the task force next looked at multiple copyright dates, and, moving through to 9.4F4, the task force had proposed a new rule there, which they had consensus on. For Area 5, the physical description area, Howarth said, there were a number of items that were proposed. In the responses from the CCC, the Australians, the British Library, and the Library of Congress to ALA 27, there was quite a bit of work done on Area 5 by the team responsible for that. Howarth said that the task force felt that, given the recent arrival of the responses to ALA 27, they would like to have the opportunity to review the responses and to reconsider what they have proposed. She noted that, in some cases, it would be consistent with what was proposed, but in some cases there may be some changes required, and that it was very important to update the examples to reflect newer technologies.

Schiff said that he had seen a few questions on Autocat dealing with DVD, and that he didn’t know whether that is considered a video format or a compute file format. He wondered if, in the task force’s process of revision, task force members might take that into account so that that type of material can get into the rules.

Howarth said she would refer that to her colleagues working on Area 5.

Attig said that he just wanted to give a general reminder that Schiff had gotten into an area that was beyond the task force’s charge, technically, because, in fact, ISBD(ER) did not deal with that type of thing. He added that that doesn’t necessarily mean the task force can’t choose to deal with it anyway. He said that he thought that the committee had to realize that ISBD(ER) is several years old and there are some things it hasn’t dealt with yet.

Jizba said that they can certainly try to work with it, noting that it’s going to mean changes and also that it’s going to get into Chapter 7. She said the task force might be able to find a compromise, short-term way of dealing with it just by referral or other means.

Sandberg-Fox said they were aware of different technologies – the DVD technology had already been spoken about – but they used the term “computer oriented” and that was a term that they felt would take in the different technologies.

Yee asked if she were not right in recognizing an 0.24 problem here? She said that “we have content and we have carrier” and that they are dealt with in two different chapters in AACR2. She added that she thought all these things were converging on the Joint Steering Committee, coming from 0.24, ISBD(ER) and other directions.

Attig said that this one was a little more complicated because “what you’ve got is a carrier that can be covered by more than one chapter, i.e., it is a video disk, it is a computer disk.”

Wise reminded committee members that, if they start looking at other chapters, Chapter 6 is going to be involved in this, too, as well as a lot of other chapters.

Jizba said that it also affected Chapter 1.

Howarth said that this somewhat illustrates the discussion the task force had yesterday, and remarked, “So much for time frames.”

Schiff said that the reason he raised the issue was because libraries are getting these things much more commonly and people are asking for guidance.

Howarth said that she thought the Area 5 team has that duly noted. She then suggested that the discussion move to the section on dimensions. She prefaced this by saying that the task force recognized that the specific material designations were still up for discussion and that this section was specifically focusing on dimensions. She said that what generated a considerable amount of discussion was what she referred to as the mix n’ match of metric and imperial, and went on to explain that there is a concern that AACR2R become a more internationally applicable code. She noted that this was reflected in the proposal and the discussion that arose around dimensions; that is, provide an option. The rule itself, Howarth said, suggests giving the dimensions in imperial measures or in metric measures as appropriate to the North American context, but the option is to give the dimensions in metric terms. She noted that one issue was that, from a user’s perspective, it may be very important for them to know what kind of equipment they may need to accommodate a particular format. She added that there were some who suggested that dimensions are not necessarily looked at by users in any event, but “they were quickly rousted out of the room.”

Howarth continued by saying that another issue was shared cataloging: there was a concern about getting a record that would have imperial measure, that would have metric measure, so the task force had a long discussion about that. She said that they were looking at two issues which are running parallel, so it may be a really important principle that AACR2R more broadly internationalize. She said that by the same token the task force had some pragmatic considerations, and they could not be intertwined as they are running in two very parallel tracks. She noted that although there was very strong consensus for including metric as an option, it may be that the task force eventually “cop-outs” on this and that they come back to CC:DA and say: “Here is the majority opinion and here is the minority opinion.”

Howarth said that when they got to the notes area, there was a lot of discussion about the mode of access and how detailed that should be. Then, she said, they got into a lot of discussion about systems functionality and what is the code there to do, as opposed to what is the MARC format there to do, the code being a descriptive code, whereas the MARC format is a communications format. She conceded that they are very separate but, nonetheless, there was a discussion about the overlap there. She said that the task force felt that it would be useful to look at the responses to ALA/27 to inform the discussion on the notes area, and added that one thing they did reach consensus on was the need to update the examples. Howarth said that she would like to commend Laurel Jizba for working through the glossary. She noted that the glossary is definitely a work-in-progress, but that Jizba had agreed to stay the course as the task force feeds information back to her.

Howarth then reported that the task force talked about some of the issues that had been raised by the Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules, being sensitive to the recommendations made by Kelley’s task force.

Howarth said that the last thing that the task force discussed wasn’t really the last thing; it was the first thing. Members of the task force were mindful that, if they had difficulty in obtaining ISBD(ER), it was possible that many committee members didn’t have ISBD(ER), so they made the decision to cite the existing AACR2 text, the existing ISBD(ER) text, and then put in the proposal, because it wasn’t always clear where the changes were being proposed. She said the task force would ensure that in the final report things will be clearly designated as to what is new, so committee members don’t have as much to read through, but can, instead, focus on the issues and the exact change.

Howarth concluded by saying that the bottom line for the task force was that, although they felt they had been able to accomplish a great deal, given that they have had additional information coming back to them, responses to ALA 27, and given the fact that 0.24 and the work that is ongoing with serials is very important to what they are doing – given all that and the new material that has been received – they would like to request from CC:DA an extension on the work of the task force, with a final report at the June Annual meeting. Howarth projected the following schedule: revisions drafted by the end of February with a preliminary report to review by mid-April; then the task force will have a conference call round that and aim to have the final report completed by mid-May, so Kinney can distribute them a month before the ALA Annual. Howarth noted that since the JSC is meeting in October, they hope that that would be an appropriate framework.

Schiff moved that the committee accept Howarth’s recommendation and extend the task force for another six months so that it can give its final report at ALA Annual; the motion was seconded and unanimously moved. Schiff asked Howarth if those committee members with feedback should send it to her.

Jizba said that she was particularly interested in anybody who has comments about the glossary terms, which is only a first draft. She said that the task force will be adding a definition for serial editions which is actually in the text of the ISBD(ER), but not in the glossary of ISBD(ER). She added that people could e-mail her directly if they have problems with terminology or even terms that aren’t included now that are likely to show up in the text; she noted that “file type” was one that the task force had just discovered.

Howarth invited committee members to take a look at the task force’s web site. She said that she would welcome comments and any examples, examples being one area where the task force thought it would be more useful to have input from the external community.

Attig commented that Howarth had mentioned internationalization implications, with regard to dimensions. He said that his reading of the ISBD(ER) text raises that issue much more strongly with regard to SMD terminology, so he suggested that the committee take a look at what is being proposed for SMD’s and think about whether that is going to be recognizable by any users.

637. Agenda item 16. Report on the CONSER “Seriality“ Analysis (Hirons)

Hirons said that she wanted to begin by telling the committee a little bit about the process, noting that the process has changed since she reported at Annual last year. She said that, basically, four groups were set up, and then those groups sent in their final reports, which were on the CONSER Website as of January. The CONSER AACR task force met on Friday from 9-5 to review some of the major issues in the reports, as well as some of the things that weren’t addressed in them, to get a sense of the main issues that really needed to be resolved.

Hirons said she was going to write a report to the JSC, which was going to have fairly specific recommendations, but not in the form of rule revision proposals. She was doing so, she said, because there are some important decisions that have to be made in the international community, such as the reinstitution of latest entry cataloging, in some cases, and there was no point in going through the process of rule revisions if it is only going to be shot down internationally. She said she thought that the task force really needed to get out the basic ideas and concepts and get some harmonization and agreement on those, and then they could go forth with actually revising the code.

Within that report, she said, there will also be a section on some of the potential MARC implications. She told the committee that she is planning to work on a MARBI discussion paper, perhaps for discussion at Annual, which might start looking at what are some of these implications, just to get everybody starting to think about them, in terms of our catalogs.

Hirons asked the committee to recall that at Annual there was a discussion of the fact that the task force had decided not to redefine serial to incorporate the entire ongoing world, but instead to use the term “ongoing” to bring together both serials and other types of things such as databases, loose-leafs, and websites that don’t have specific parts but that do exhibit change and keep going over time.

Hirons said that the task force on ISBD(S), when they met in November, agreed with the concept; they agreed to extend their charge to incorporate these entities, but they didn’t like the term “ongoing.” She explained that this term just doesn’t work very well internationally, so the task force had been playing around with others, such as “serial-like entities” and “serials and other continuing resources.” Hirons speculated that if the code were rearranged, into, for example, the edition area, there might be a sub-chapter on serials and other continuing resources, where the types of editions that apply to these types of things could be mentioned. Hirons explained that the task force was grouping together types of publications, that, because they are ongoing, have got to be thought about in terms of the specificity of detail that catalogers are going to give in them, as well as how catalogers are going to handle change in them, since they don’t all have to have exactly the same rules applied to them. This is the benefit, Hirons observed, of not calling a looseleaf a serial.

Hirons announced that the definition of serial that the task force is working with at the moment is “a bibliographic entity that is issued in discrete parts usually bearing numeric or chronological designations and that has no predetermined conclusion,” and commented that this is close to the current definition, but is a little looser. She mentioned to Jizba that the task force had a bunch of definitions in their report for things like database, so obviously collaboration was needed.

Hirons next spoke about ideas for changing the description. She said the task force would endorse the rearrangement of the code by area, and would also like to suggest to the JSC that they consider a three-part code rather than a two-part code. Hirons specified that the first part would cover the description of an item and also when a new description is to be made, because either the edition changes, or the title changes, or the format changes, and stressed that the task force thinks all of that should be together. Hirons explained that the second part of the code would be choice and form of access points for that work, and the third part would be how to relate this work or manifestation to other works or manifestations. The reason for this, Hirons said, was that the task force thought that this would raise things like links up from those note areas where nobody thinks too much about them, and also that this would give more of an emphasis to relationships – all this being a consideration for the JSC.

Hirons continued by saying that, in order to incorporate the integrating publications such as the loose-leafs and databases which are not in the code, the task force would begin by using Hallam’s Rules for Loose-leafs and then expand or change some of those in the areas of electronic resources that are integrating as well.

Hirons reported that the task force will be recommending rules for the description of electronic resources that are serials or continuing entities, such as electronic journals, databases, and probably websites, including also the latest publisher in Area 4, along with the original publisher. Hirons added that this is one of the things that has been a really big issue with the task force.

She said also that the task force was looking at title changes, specifically, how to improve the rules for title changes and for making a new description. She said that the task force had decided to change the language to incorporate the ISBD(S) language of major and minor change, and added that she thought it was a good time to do that because if latest entry is reinstituted, in some cases, it’s not going to necessarily mean a new record, so the language can’t always refer to making a new record, but, rather, to when is there a major change or a minor change. Hirons said that the task force had come up with some ideas for a rule which adds more specific minor changes that deal with the placement and form of the corporate body and the title.

Hirons also said that the task force was working on a general wording that would allow more judgment, perhaps based on changes that convey the subject, scope, and purpose of the serial, and taking into account the topography, title and other places. She said that the task force had also decided to change the “in case of doubt” to “consider it to be minor,” noting that right now, it would be, create a new record.

Hirons reported that one of the major things the task force decided on Friday was not in the Group 3 report at all. She explained that what was suggested in the report that Crystal Graham and she wrote was that not all titles are equal, and added that they would really like to see a way of creating a uniform title for administrative reports under the word “report” or its equivalent in another language. She pointed out that this would mean that catalogers would not create successive records every time the corporate body changed its placement in the title or the frequency changed, because these are reports where nobody really cares about the title: they know the corporate body and they want the report of that body. She added that these titles are not the equivalent of journal titles; consequently, the task force is looking for ways to create records that are going to be much more user-friendly and much more cost-effective.

Hirons admitted that one of the biggest problems for the task force has been dealing with electronic journals, and mentioned that on the whole issue of latest entry cataloging vs. successive entry cataloging they have had a lot of creative thinking during the year. She informed the committee that there have been three different reports up on the CONSER website: one by Sarah Shatford-Layne on incorporating entry, one by Hirons and several colleagues on the succession of latest entry records and one that is a benchmark proposal that Hirons co-wrote with Regina Reynolds and Gunther Franzmeir. She said that the task force wasn’t going with any of those recommendations right now, but confirmed that they did finally come up with a way of dealing with electronic journals. Hirons asked the committee to remember her model, which had successively issued things over here and integrating things over there, and noted that successive things have discrete parts but integrating things don’t: they get subsumed under the whole. The problem, Hirons explained, is that electronic journals kind of bridge that area and the difference is the presence of the title on them. She added that electronic journals are different from databases and loose-leafs, because within the electronic journal is the article and the article is cited under the title at the time the journal was issued. She said the task force finally came up with a solution to the problem of electronic journals: the presence of the title, the original title, is going to determine whether catalogers do successive or latest entry. Hirons explained that in cases where each title change is represented by a whole new site, which is the case with JSTOR and some of the Wiley and Academic Publications, the task force has decided that, if the original title is retained anywhere in the site, successive entry should be done, because it’s still more likely that that kind of case would be cited under the original title. She emphasized, however, in the cases where: 1) there is only a home page of a single title; 2) either the earlier titles are all reformatted or the title never was anywhere else in the site; and, 3) there’s only now one title associated with the item in hand, catalogers should do latest entry because these kinds of thing would look much more like a general website, anyway. She added that at this point they become more like a database where there’s only one title associated with them.

Hirons went on to say that the task force thought that most of the electronic journals that are going to fall into that latest entry category are probably not going to be scholarly journals, and that this is still going to be an issue for ISSN.

Schiff asked, from the perspective of authority control, when Hirons was doing latest entry, was she willing to set up two uniform titles? Or was there going to be one uniform title with a cross-reference from the earlier title?

Hirons responded that uniform titles were a real good question. She said that whether to even apply them to anything that has latest entry cataloging is one of the problems the task force has been looking at, noting that catalogers did not have this kind of uniform title when they used latest entry originally, nor was it applied to loose-leafs, or by monographic catalogers cataloging databases. She wondered if uniform titles should even be applied to a latest entry, or should catalogers apply one and not change it if the qualifier changes, but keep it as it is, and then, if the title changes, reassess the need for a uniform title at that time?

Beacom said that he had just a little question regarding the source of title, which was, does this distinction that Hirons had developed require that the whole item be the source of title?

Hirons said that it does. She said the task force really felt that for electronic journals catalogers do need to use the entire item as the source of title and that even though this source is chosen when it is cataloged originally, a cataloger can’t necessarily go back to the same source to decide whether the title changed later on. Hirons emphasized that catalogers have got to take a very different approach to cataloging these publications.

Schiff said that he didn’t want to get into talking MARC, but asked if the 247 were going to be revived?

Hirons replied that it was already in the CONSER editing guide, and it was in MARC, adding that it never went anywhere.

Schiff asked Hirons if she were saying, for non-serial entities like web resources, where the title changes, that same mechanism would be used?

Hirons said she would suggest it.

Glazier asked if there were occasions for cataloging the current version vs. a catalog record that may exist for an archived version?

Hirons said that that was a good question, and that the task force had thought about it a lot, which was why the task force was trying to retain successive entry as much as possible, because somebody may have archived this under the title it had at one time. She added that what the task force is trying to do would at least alleviate that problem. But, she said, “the task force does feel like, if there’s only one title associated with it now, and the other title is totally gone, even though you may have archived it under that title. . . . you would still give your 247 for it. The access is there.” Hirons continued by saying that one of the other things that she forgot to mention that is a little critical is that the task force is advising doing away with the concept of the chief source of information, at least for ongoing materials, replacing that with a chief source of title, and suggesting also that catalogers not be so concerned about prescribed sources for other areas of the description. She said that for electronic publications and such, the task force feels that, whereas for a printed serial they can come up with a prescribed order, they are not sure that they can do so for electronic journals. She said that the task force could not come up with any consensus that the homepage was the preferred source and that that may have to be left to cataloger’s judgment but, of course, “you always say where you took it from, although finding the terminology to say where you took it from is another issue.”

Kelley asked what happens to the principle of transcription in all of this?

Hirons said that one of the task force’s principles has been to get away from careful transcription of a single issue. She said that for a fixed item, such as a printed journal, catalogers can certainly transcribe more carefully than they can for an electronic journal on a webpage that can change its whole format, so that the rules for printed and other types of tangible serials could be more specific. She added that the task force feels that “we are not describing a single issue, we’re describing a work.” Hirons reported that one of the things the task force is trying to build into the rules on description is the concept of the latest issue consulted, given in the 936 field, building that right into the record, so that “we not only say the earliest issue consulted, but the latest as well.” Hirons said that the task force is also advocating the use of angle brackets in the code, and added that “we at CONSER have been using those for years to say ‘this is the latest information to which this applies.’”

Hirons told the committee that the task force was looking at ways to describe the entire item, keeping in mind “the way we catalog here, cooperatively, with people being able to change; that dynamic record can be updated and changed over time, if you have a better way of doing it.” She added that she thought that transcription for electronic serials has to be very loose, in some ways.

Schottlaender made an observation on process. He pointed out that Hirons’ report was due to the Chair of the JSC on or about 1 April, and that the JSC would probably take a month to review it, after which it would be posted for world-wide review, as have been the Delsey reports. He said that he was thinking about timing, and that this might be a case where there should be “a review task force sort of waiting in the wings the minute that report’s available, because if you wait till Annual, you’re not going to have an awful lot of time to do your review.”

Hirons said she was thinking of the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging and whether members of that group might be part of that.

Schottlaender explained that it wasn’t necessary to appoint a task force to review the report before the report has been written, but added, “that if you wait to actually be in virtual receipt of it, since it’s going to be posted to the web, you’re really going to have to be attendant to moving quickly, because the JSC hasn’t been specific about how long it will be put out for review.” He added that if, after the CSSC meeting in the afternoon, there is some agreement that getting ready to do the review sooner than later makes sense, then volunteers might be solicited for a task force that could be ready to go the minute the report is available.

638. Agenda item 17. Report on the Publication of the Joint CCS/CC:DA Preconference “What in the World ... Cataloging on an International Scale” (Kinney)

Kinney reported that he had a meeting on Saturday with Karen Muller and Brad Eden, editor of the ALCTS Paper Series in which Muller explained that there’s a slight chance that the proceedings might be published by Annual, if the editing can be completed by April, so the plan is to have the papers sent to Brad Eden one at a time, so the deadline could be met.

Attig said that maybe this was the time to let the committee know that the publication of the previous conference, AACR2 2000, was published, and was available in the ALA store, although possibly already sold out. He added that the papers of the Toronto conference were similarly available.

Schottlaender said that he wanted it known that no member of the JSC gets any royalties from those publications.

639. Agenda item 18. Report from the MARBI Representative (Watson)

Watson said that he wanted to give the committee an overview of the actions that MARBI has taken in its last two meetings here, and to ask for input on a couple of questions.

He mentioned that on Saturday he had distributed CC:DA/MARBI Rep 1999-1, and that the intent with this document was to provide the committee with a way to record a “box score” for actions that MARBI has taken.

Watson said he just wanted to move through the list of proposals quickly, and then return to one particular proposal, for which CC:DA input has been requested.

Proposal 99-04 – Definition of field 007 for tactile materials. The MARC bibliographic and holdings formats were approved with minor changes.

Proposal 98-15R – To make obsolete number fields in the MARC bibliographic format was rejected.

Proposal 98-16R – Non-filing characters, to be discussed.

Proposal 99-07 – Field 263 and year 2000 compatibility in the MARC bibliographic format, passed.

Discussion Paper 113, was discussed. Watson commented that, since he was somewhat new to MARBI, he quickly realized that the discussion papers were there simply to raise questions about a particular issue with the possibility that a more specific proposal would be brought forward to the committee at some point. He noted that these are not voted upon, just discussed “in a rather lively manner.”

Proposal 99-01 – The enhancement of computer file 007 for digital preservation reformatting data was passed as amended.

Proposal 99-02 – Making field 004 repeatable, did not pass, but will more likely return to MARBI at Annual, as some of the people are going to work on alternatives that they feel will be more acceptable.

Proposal 99-03. – RLG asked for unspecified values in the Leader, in the MARC holdings format, that passed unanimously.

Proposal 99-05 – definition of field 040 in the MARC holdings format, passed.

Proposal 99-06 – Repeatability of subfield u in 856. The proposal that subfield u be made non-repeatable, if two URL’s need to be recorded passed, with a split vote of five to three.

Discussion paper 112 was discussed, and Watson said that the committee would like to see some proposals brought forward that would propose subfields to record URL’s and URN’s in various fields other than the 856. He added that he didn’t think the committee had a strong sense that it would actually approve those proposals if brought forward.

Discussion paper 111, to be discussed.

Returning to Proposal 98-16R, Watson explained that it concerned non-filing characters in MARC formats, revised. Watson said he would like to request that people look at it and then offer some input. Watson noted that MARBI did approve the definition of two new control characters, from ISO 66-30, that will be used to indicate a non-filing zone and that this would be a direct substitute for the non-filing indicator technique that has been used up until this point. Watson explained that this would be a different way of indicating non-filing zones within the MARC record, and that this proposal would make obsolete the indicator that denotes the non-filing character in all the fields where that is currently applicable.

Glazier pointed out that the part Watson didn’t mention was that the proposal will allow non-filing characters for those fields where there was no non-filing indicator.

Watson agreed, saying the proposal would accommodate four additional situations where the non-filing indicator cannot currently be defined because the indicators are already being used for different purposes. He continued by saying that the question that MARBI would like some input on from the CC:DA community (noting that it has also been referred to SAC and others) was that, as the proposal has come forward before MARBI, it defines the non-filing zone in certain fields, in certain subfields, and only at the beginning of those subfields. Watson explained that the question was whether or not the non-filing zone would be useful and/or applicable elsewhere, i.e., should it be opened up to be used in other places? Watson said, as he understood it, that that is currently what is being done in UNIMARC where the control characters enable people to create non-filing, non-sorting zones anywhere they want within the record. For example, he said, one of the things that was brought up at the meeting was in a transcription of a title where a cataloger might be using “sic” or be providing some expansion inside of brackets – these non-filing characters could be used to take that away.

Schiff said that he was thinking also about the implications for certain uniform titles where the word “the” in a sub-part or sub-series is dropped off.

Yee reminded the committee that, currently, “for all uniform titles we drop ‘the’ even at the beginning, so I have to call my film ‘Strada’ not ‘La Strada,’ which makes us look really lame,” and wondered if this meant that we could go back and possibly revisit that as well?

Watson explained that the technique, if implemented, and even without moving it around, would theoretically call into question all of the cataloging conventions that currently have the cataloger dropping articles. He asked, beyond that, are there instances and situations where the cataloging community might like to see this zone implemented elsewhere, not at the beginning of field 700, subfield t, for example, but embedded in, for example, the 245 subfield b, or notes, or elsewhere?

Attig said that he thought that the reason why MARBI was asking for help was because a fairly simple set of conventions can be written of what to mark around at the beginning of a field or subfield. But, he continued, beyond that, there has got to be a set of guidelines so that everyone is doing the same thing. He added that what MARBI wants to avoid is, potentially, things like having to mark every comma. He explained that the question is, “how do you strike a compromise between having no rule and saying you mark what you feel you need to in your context, and a rule that says you have to mark literally everything that you don’t want to file on? So that we’re looking for characters that might sometimes be filed on and sometimes not, so that you’d have to have particular rules for how to do that. And that’s what stopping us – can we come up with a reasonable set of semantics for how to use this?”

Schottlaender said that he thought in considering that question, one needs to be really precise about the phrase “non-filing,” because what is largely meant, when getting into the middle of a field, is non-indexing, and that’s a different concept.

Attig said that it can also affect sorting.

Schottlaender said, “We don’t file on sic.”

Attig said that, probably filing wasn’t the right word.

Schottlaender agreed.

Attig said that sorting was different from indexing and was also applicable, and added, “When you have to sort a string, you have to know whether to include in the middle as well as in the beginning.”

Swanekamp asked if this proposal applied to the authorities format as well?

Attig said that he believed it was across the board.

Watson said it applied to all MARC formats.

Jizba turned the discussion back to discussion paper 112, having to do with URL’s and URN’s. She mentioned that the ISBD(ER) Harmonization Task Force was talking about putting the URN into the Note area, as numbers borne by the item, because some task force members see it as an access point that needs some reference out of the bibliographic description. She said the task force would like any kind of input on that as they worked along. She added that it could even mean that a footnote that explains the context in which it might show up in something like MARC coding would be necessary.

Watson said that he needed to read the proposal a couple more times himself. He asked would people be willing to take a look at it when they get back home, and send questions and comments over the list? He agreed with Schottlaender, saying, “it gets a little tricky when you start using the different words,” and noted that several participants pointed out that the function of the question is non-filing but not non-indexing. As an example, he said that, “the English word ‘the’ might not be indexed on any place in the string, but the characters we are identifying are the ones not-indexed when they occur at the beginning of a string.”

Schiff said that he didn’t know whether a task force was needed for this or not, but cautioned that there could be some implications in terms of the rules, of implementing this, particularly of cases where the RI’s call for uniform titles to drop off the word ‘the.’

Attig said that that was currently in the rules.

Schiff said, in that case, ’if you can mark that out, you don’t need that uniform title, which basically repeats the same thing without the ‘the’.”

Attig replied, “But that’s only if you want to reconsider it,” and added that the proposal doesn’t require that recording conventions be changed.

Yee asked if this was a potential solution, too, for the problem that most current systems are having now, i.e., dealing with parenthetical qualifiers, in that as soon as a parenthetical qualifier is added, it immediately becomes part of the heading and can’t be ignored in sorting, so it can’t be treated as a secondary filing element for sub-arrangement. Yee noted that it is one of the things that makes people hate serial uniform titles and asked, if this were a potential solution or was this only for articles?

Glazier said, “Sometimes ignored and sometimes not ignored using these characters.” He noted that if it were marked out to be ignored then it wouldn’t be there and added that, “you couldn’t do a sub-arrangement because the data, would, in essence, not exist.”

Schiff remarked that it would be displayed, perhaps.

Unidentified guest (outside of microphone range) asked if the indicators would become obsolete.

Watson said what MARBI did was, approve the definition of the two new control characters, but deferred a vote on making the indicators obsolete, as well as in specifying exactly which fields and subfields this would occur in. He said that, in answer to what Yee was saying, there are other situations where an agency may not want to include other words internal to a string in indexes or in sorting the string, but this technique is not proposed to be used for those needs. He added that there would have to be broad agreement on a list of words and rules for use in those circumstances. He observed that this technique could be used in a wide variety of ways, so that prior to going ahead and specifying just where it could be used, there was a desire to get comment from various groups on whether it should be restricted to those situations where non-filing characters are to be indicated, or opened up a little more broadly to other uses.

Kinney asked if MARBI was asking CC:DA to study that document, with a task force?

Watson said he didn’t think they were asking for anything so formal.

Kelley said it sounded like Watson was asking for a rapid response, but stressed that CC:DA was not “signing off on anything.”

Fox said the proposal had not been fully accepted, and noted that while Section Three of the document, which has the proposed changes, has four parts, the committee had only voted to accept the first part, which has to do with the X characters for non-sorting. He noted that the other parts, about making existing non-filing characters obsolete, and including a definition and application of the technique to other fields, were still up in the air.

Attig said that he believed that MARBI’s intent was to turn any information they get from whatever group into a proposal and that would be up for discussion at Annual.

Watson said that he would also like the committee’s reactions to, and possible ideas for, a joint CC:DA/MARBI meeting at Annual. He said that Kinney had mentioned one agenda item, which was a program, and added that if the committee had any other suggestions for a joint meeting in New Orleans, he would be happy to pass those along as well.

640. Agenda item 19. Report on the Guidelines for OPAC Display (Yee)

Yee said that the Task Force on Guidelines for OPAC Displays was set up by the IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control, with the Section on Cataloguing as the lead section. She said that the Sections on Cataloging, Bibliography, Classification, Indexing, and Information Technology were represented with members, and that commentators were appointed from a number of sections and roundtables.

Yee reported that the first meeting of the task force took place at the 1997 IFLA Conference in Copenhagen, with a follow-up meeting discussing a draft of the guidelines that was held at the 1998 IFLA Conference in Amsterdam. Yee said that she drew up the draft guidelines, in the capacity of consultant to the task force, with the input from task force members and commentators.

Yee told committee members that they all should have gotten the website via the list, and that comments should be sent to Dorothy McGarry, on or before April 30th, 1999.

Yee explained that the reason that the guidelines were put it out for review was that it was necessary to get a wide range of input and comments from people from various cataloging traditions, because this is an international set of guidelines. She said the task force wanted comments from people from various cataloging traditions using various formats in order to make the final guidelines meet the needs of libraries across the world.

Yee explained that, following the review, comments would be considered in the revision of the document and a final version would be presented to the Standing Committees of the Sections on Bibliography, Cataloging, Classification and Indexing and Information Technology for a vote.

Yee said that the primary purpose of producing the guidelines was to bring together recommendations on a corpus of good practice to assist libraries in designing or redesigning their OPACS. Noting that existing OPACS demonstrate differences in their range and complexity of their functional features, Yee said it was considered important to make recommendations on displays in order to work toward fulfilling recognized functions of catalogs. She said that the hope is that the guidelines will serve to educate system designers and non-cataloging librarians concerning the display assumptions that underlie cataloging practices, such as parenthetical qualifiers, uniform titles, corporate and personal names, the creation of see and see also references, various methods of demonstrating relationships, use of USMARC format display constants, and the like.

Yee described the guidelines, saying that they are in two main parts. She said that the first part consists of a list of general principles, while the second part contains more specific recommendations concerning displays of the results of name searches, classification searches, and title searches.

Yee observed that CC:DA might be particularly interested in Principle 25, which reads, “ISBD and cataloging codes based on it, such as AACR2, are display standards that have been adopted internationally, and, as such, they should be followed in ordering and labeling the elements of bibliographic record displays. ISBD punctuation should be added automatically to displays as required by the different national MARC formats.” Yee said that she should tell the committee that Dorothy McGarry pointed out that it would be more accurate to refer to the ISBD punctuation as being required by cataloging codes rather than by MARC formats, and that she would take that back as one of the first suggestions for revision resulting from the worldwide review. Yee added that what she was trying to get at was that there are different assumptions about system-supplied ISBD punctuation that are made in different contexts.

Yee concluded by saying that she hoped everyone had a chance to look at the guidelines at the website, and that she would like to open the meeting for discussion, and hear committee members’ ideas about whether CC:DA should respond collectively somehow, to the guidelines.

Kelley asked when the deadline for comments was.

Yee said it was April 30th of 1999, adding that it was another one of the quick turnaround things.

Kinney observed that since some of the recommendations and principles are actually subject cataloging, he was aware that SAC and the Catalog Form and Function Committee also got an invitation to participate. He asked how committee members think that should be handled.

Yee said that she should have pointed out that these are fairly broad guidelines and that they cover more than descriptive cataloging. She wondered if there were any precedent in the past, where a cooperative effort has been necessary?

Schottlaender said that a joint task force could be formed.

Kinney said that he was willing to contact the Chair of SAC, provided CC:DA votes to establish a task force.

Kelley said she thought this was a very good opportunity for CC:DA to comment on display, but that she didn’t quite know what the mechanism would be for the committee to respond in time.

Turitz said that he believed that RUSA also has a Catalog Form and Function committee, and wondered if they should be informed about this.

Kinney asked for a motion to form a task force to respond to the IFLA document.

Kelley moved that a task force be formed to respond to the IFLA document, by the deadline, during the world-wide review period.

Larsgaard seconded.

The motion was unanimously approved.

Larsgaard commented that her experience with the CC:DA Task Force on Metadata, was that it was quite large, seventeen or eighteen. She requested that this task force be quite small, say, three or four persons. She cautioned that, otherwise, Kinney would be “driven mad” trying to get in touch with everyone and said that it was literally a couple of months after the task force on Metadata had been made official before she had a full roster.

641. Agenda item 20. Report from the floor, Announcement of next meeting, and Adjournment (Kinney)

Kinney said that the next CC:DA meeting would be in New Orleans, on the Saturday and Monday, of the last weekend in June. Kinney asked if there was a motion to adjourn.

Turitz moved that the meeting be adjourned and Kelley seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Hayes
Secretary, CC:DA