CC:DA/M/642-659

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Daniel Kinney, Chair
Matthew Beacom
Carol Hixon
Wayne Jones
Sherry Kelley
Mary L. Larsgaard
Adam L. Schiff
Mitch Turitz
Sherry L. Vellucci
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 present:

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

ALA Liaisons present:

Sarah Su-erh Elman, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM (represented by Hideyuki Morimoto on 6/26/99 and Wen-Ling Liu on 6/28/99)
Gabriele L. Kupitz, ALCTS/CCS/CCM
Mark Watson, ALCTS/LITA/RUSA MARBI
Marlyn Hackett, ALCTS/MRC
Ann Sandberg-Fox, ALCTS/NRMC (absent 6/26/99)
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Carolynne Myall, ALCTS/SS
Aimee Quinn, ALA/GODORT (absent 6/26/99)
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
David Williamson, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Margaret Shen, ALA/PLA
Noelle Van Pulis, ALA/RUSA
Larry Heinman, ALA/SRRT

Non ALA Liaisons present:

Ann Sitkin, AALL (absent 6/26/99)
Judy Knop, ATLA
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Laurel Jizba, ARSC
Gertrude Koh, CLA
Valerie St. Pierre Gordon, MedLA
Matthew Wise, MusLA
Michael Fox, SAA
Cynthia Whitacre, SLA

Notes:

1. The minutes do not necessarily record discussion in the order in which it occurred. Material has been rearranged to increase comprehension and to collocate items related to specific topics for clarity.

2. Due to background noise, inconsistent use of microphones, etc., tapes of the meetings are of variable quality. The secretary regrets any loss of detail.

3. In CC:DA minutes, a “vote of the Committee” indicates a poll of those Committee members appointed in their own right rather than those representatives of a particular constituency. These votes are a formal representation of Committee views. The Chair rarely votes except to break a tie. The term “straw vote” indicates a poll of the ALA and other organizational representatives to CC:DA who are present. Such voted are advisory and are not binding upon the Committee. Where no vote totals are recorded, but a CC:DA position is stated, the position has been determined by consensus.

4. In CC:DA minutes, the term “members” is used to apply to both voting and non-voting appointees to the Committee. Where a distinction is necessary, the terms “voting members” and “representatives” are used.

5. Abbreviations used in these minutes include:
   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
   BL = British Library
   LC = Library of Congress
   CCS = Cataloging and Classification Section
   PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
   AMIM = Archival Moving Image Materials: A Cataloging Manual
   IFLA = International Federation of Library Associations
   SAC = ALCTS/CCS/Subject Analysis Committee
   CPSO = LC, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
   ISBD(ER) = International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources
   FRBR = IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

Committee Chair Daniel Kinney called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in Radisson Grande Ballroom A. Kinney distributed a roster to Committee members for corrections and passed an attendance sheet to the audience.

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

[CC:DA/Roster/1999 June]

Committee members introduced themselves.

644. Agenda item 3. Adoption of the agenda (Kinney)

[CC:DA/A/40]

Kinney announced changes to the proposed agenda. Due to a family emergency, PCC liaison Joan Schuitema was unable to attend the 1999 ALA Annual Conference, thus she will not be able to deliver the report from the Task Force on the Review of the Logical Structure of AACR, listed as agenda item 17. Kinney removed this item from the agenda. Due to a lack of properly functioning audio equipment at this meeting, agenda item 8, Report from the Task Force on Rule 0.24, was rescheduled for the 28 June 1999 meeting. To provide more time for the 0.24 Task Force report, Sherry Vellucci, Mary Larsgaard, and Glen Patton agreed to deliver their reports (agenda items 10, 11, and 13) at today’s meeting. Upon a motion from Larsgaard, seconded by Adam Schiff, the Committee adopted the agenda as amended.

645. Agenda item 4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 1999 Midwinter Meeting, Philadelphia, PA (Kinney)

[CC:DA/M/622-641]

Schiff pointed out the misspelling of the word “systematists” in item 625. Several members informed the secretaries of other typographical errors. Laurel Jizba clarified a statement attributed to her in item 633. Upon a motion from Larsgaard, seconded by Sherry Kelley, the Committee approved the minutes from the 1999 Midwinter Meeting as amended.

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

Since the 1999 Midwinter meeting, the Task Force on the Review of the AMIM Draft Revision and the Task Force to Review the IFLA Guidelines on OPAC Display have submitted their final reports. Kinney commended these task forces for accomplishing their work so quickly and noted that the Web played a critical role in enabling the rapid preparation and dissemination of these important reports. A task force charged with planning a two-day preconference on metadata for the 2000 Annual Conference (Chicago, IL) has been formed. This joint task force will have members from CC:DA, SAC, MARBI, and several other ALCTS committees. A task force to review Jean Hirons’ report on seriality has also been formed. A memo addressed to Tom Yee at CPSO requesting that LCRI 21.1B1 be rescinded has been drafted and submitted to the CCS Executive Committee for approval at this conference. CC:DA will hold a joint meeting with MARBI on Monday, January 28, 1999 in the afternoon (during MARBI’s scheduled meeting time). The proceedings from the preconference sponsored by CC:DA at the 1998 ALA Annual Conference have not yet been published.

Kinney concluded his remarks by sharing his primary goals for this meeting: to forward at least an interim report on rule 0.24 to the JSC, and to complete as much work on ISBD(ER) and AACR2 harmonization as possible.

Kinney asked John Attig to report on the CC:DA Website. Attig reported that as the CC:DA Website has increasingly become the main repository and distribution point for Committee documents, he has been struggling to determine the most useful format for CC:DA documents. HTML and Adobe’s portable document format (pdf) seem to be the main contenders, but each has its own drawbacks. After some discussion of the issues, members agreed that pdf is the most desirable format to use for CC:DA documents at this time. Attig urged members to make sure that they have the latest version of the freely available Acrobat reader software.

647. Agenda item 6. Report of the Library of Congress Representative (Tillett)

Library of Congress Bicentennial

The Library of Congress will celebrate its Bicentennial in the year 2000 and hopes to make its 200th birthday a national celebration of the important role libraries play in our democratic society. For the most complete and up-to-date Bicentennial plans, check the Web site at <http://www.loc.gov/bicentennial/>

National Digital Library: Digital Futures Group

At the Librarian’s request, Deputy Librarian Donald Scott established a task force in summer 1998 to consider the implications of integrating digital resources into the Library’s core activities. The work of the task force resulted in the formation of the Digital Futures Group, co-chaired by Associate Librarian for Library Services Winston Tabb and National Digital Library Director Laura Campbell. The Group has chartered three teams to address issues of content and collection development, infrastructure development, and access tools. The work of the three teams was presented to LC staff at a combined Cataloging Forum/Reference Forum on April 22. In its budget request for fiscal year 2001, the Library intends to include a substantial request and justification to support the digital library.

Integrated Library System

In May 1998 the Library of Congress awarded a contract to Endeavor Information Systems, Inc. for their Voyager integrated library system.

Since January 1999, over 400 people working on the 76 implementation teams have all made great progress, and we are still on target to have all the components up and running by our original target of October 1999. We are conducting several test loads of our records in preparation for the production load and the results have been very helpful in refining our preprocessing programs for loading bibliographic and authority records, as well as patron records, vendor records, circulation charge records, and open orders. Formal training began in April with classes on OPAC and staff searching taught by our cadre of excellent volunteer trainers from among LC staff. Starting June 1 we began cataloging training. Approximately 3,000 LC staff members will be trained through October in the various modules (cataloging, circulation, OPAC, and acquisitions/serials check-in). Cataloging, circulation, and OPAC are scheduled to go live in August, and acquisitions and serials check-in on the LC ILS will begin in October.

LC’s bibliographic and authority records will continue to be distributed during the transition. Please see the Cataloging Distribution Service announcement about the plans for the MARC Distribution Service. The official master CONSER database will remain on OCLC, and LC will continue to provide maintenance for those records. The LC ILS Local Database will reflect all records for materials in LC collections, as well as all authority records. A special database in the LC ILS will be established to continue the production of the Handbook of Latin American Studies, and a master database will be maintained for the production of the Library of Congress Subject Headings.

Over 2,000 PCs have been replaced and loaded with the latest Voyager software – a huge effort accomplished by the Automation Planning and Liaison Office (APLO), the ILS Workstation Group, plus many volunteers from divisions library-wide and staff from the Information Technology Services (ITS). The Library installed its two new ILS servers during February, and a performance benchmark was conducted in April. The benchmark included documentation of the system’s Y2K compliance. The results from the benchmark will be used to optimize performance of the system.

As important steps in capturing our manual inventory information, the Library will have three Requests for Proposal (RFPs) out for bid this year: 1) data transfer from the Library’s sheet shelflist to the Library’s card shelflist (announced in early June), 2) conversion of the card shelflist holdings information into the LC ILS (to be announced in late summer or early fall), and 3) conversion of holdings information from manual serials check-in files into the LC ILS (to be announced in late June or early July).

The Library introduced a public ILS home page on February 8, 1999 available at <http://lcweb.loc.gov/ils/>

MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data

In 1997, the Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada harmonized the USMARC and CAN/MARC formats. They have now joined their MARC documentation to form MARC 21. Over the next several years, all USMARC products will be renamed MARC 21. The first of the new products to be published under the new name is MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data (1999), 2 vols., loose-leaf. The Cataloging Distribution Service will distribute the English version of MARC 21 publications worldwide, except in Canada. The National Library of Canada will distribute the English version in Canada and the French version worldwide. MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data is scheduled for shipment by mid-July 1999; a display copy will be available at the LC exhibit booth. Next on the publishing schedule is MARC 21 Format for Authority Data, expected to be available by ALA Midwinter 2000.

Cataloging Directorate

Cataloging Policy and Support Office

LC Classification
During the past six months the following schedules were published: A, KE, M, PR-PS, PZ, and the P Tables and the following were delivered to the Cataloging Distribution Service for publication: 1999 editions of K, KF, KJV-KJW, and PB-PH. CPSO staff are actively working on proofing the LCC database for probable publication this year of BL-BX, KDZ, KG-KH, and KJ-KKZ.

The revised subclass HM was published in Additions and Changes, List 273 (Jan./Mar. 1, 1999). LC catalogers began assigning numbers from this revised classification for sociology in February.

On May 17, 1999, LC began using the newly developed set of standardized form division tables for all of the law classification schedules except KD, KE, and KF. The tables, numbered K1-K24, are contained in a new publication K Tables: Form Division Tables for Law, now available for purchase from the Cataloging Distribution Service.

Draft classification schedules for KB, KBR, and KBS are nearing completion. Work on KBP has begun.

Subfield $v
LC monograph, serials, moving image, and sound recording catalogers began explicitly subfield coding form subject subdivisions with $v instead of $x on February 17, 1999.

Subject Authority Records
There is an ongoing project to re-code instances of form subdivisions as $v in existing authority records in LCSH. 781 fields for the subject subdivision forms of geographic names are being included in new and revised geographic subject authority records. LC plans to add this 781 field to all existing subject authority records for geographic headings as part of a special project to begin later this year. CDS began the distribution of subject subdivision authority records for free-floating form subdivisions in February. However, distribution of these records was suspended in mid-March because of a programming problem, but we are again in production.

PREMARC Heading Integration Plan for the LC ILS
In the Library’s existing local online systems, the PREMARC File includes about 4.7 million bibliographic records created prior to the adoption of AACR2. These records, since they reside in a separate physical file, have heretofore not been taken into account for daily cataloging activities such as headings maintenance. The descriptive and subject headings on these records may differ from current practice and for the most part have not been assessed with respect to accuracy or completeness. Under the LC ILS, the records from PREMARC will be included in the database along with all other bibliographic records for materials held by the Library. The Cataloging Directorate is responsible for maintaining the overall quality of the LC catalog and to this end has developed a plan for treatment of these records in the database. It basically proposes that the headings on these records will be assessed, heading by heading, and brought into conformity with current descriptive and subject cataloging practice. The content of the records (the bibliographic description) will not be assessed.

Excluded from the heading integration plan are about 1.47 million records which were replaced by external records and loaded into PREMARC to replace counterpart records in that file. These records in general are much closer to current cataloging practice and the headings generally meet AACR2 standards for accuracy and form. They will become subject to regular bibliographic heading maintenance by cataloging staff on Cataloging Day One of the ILS.

The Cataloging Directorate is currently forming a new database maintenance unit within the Cataloging Policy and Support Office to perform quality sampling, removal of duplicate records, and maintenance of holdings and item records; to handle necessary cleanup of records originating in PREMARC, shelflist conversion, and general bibliographic problem resolution; and to carry out PREMARC heading integration projects, perform global updates to headings, and generally maintain ILS authority records. It is anticipated that most of the heading integration plan will be accomplished within five years after Day One of the ILS. The very first headings to be assessed will be those, generally subject access points, which were established in earlier decades and now are considered offensive by contemporary standards (e.g., Yellow peril, Jewish question, Savages, etc.).

Until each heading has been assessed and brought into alignment with current practice, it will be identified by the addition of a character string, [from old catalog] at the end of the last subfield in the heading that will serve to mark it as originating from the MUMS PREMARC File. The addition of this label will result in split files for many headings, but it is essential to enable the CPSO maintenance unit to identify those access points which are candidates for the integration plan, as well as to alert end users of the LC catalog that the Library does not consider them to be current standard headings.

Although LC catalogers will now consider headings on PREMARC records as part of the universe when establishing headings in AACR2 form, this will NOT be a requirement for NACO participants.

Bib File Maintenance (BFM)
In response to inquiries from PCC participants and the expectations raised by the implementation of the Library of Congress’ integrated library system (LC ILS) the Cataloging Policy and Support Office is issuing the following announcement regarding the NACO requirements for reporting of bibliographic file maintenance (BFM).

The Library will continue current policies for BFM while we evaluate new features of the ILS, namely global update. Changes to existing name authority records or newly created NARs that affect Library of Congress bibliographic records will continue to be reported according to the procedures and guidelines provided in NACO training classes. This allows us time at LC to work out new procedures within the Cooperative Cataloging Team. We realize there are some maintenance reports that global update will not cover and we will probably want to work out arrangements for continuing some report.

We hope to centralize the Bib File Maintenance at LC to alleviate the workload on all the NACO libraries, and we will have announcements about this as soon as we complete our evaluations and design the new workflows.

Pinyin Romanization
The Library of Congress and RLG are working together to prepare for conversion of Chinese bibliographic records in the RLIN database to pinyin. LC is now identifying bibliographic records in the Chinese script which need to be loaded into RLIN for conversion. The target for their conversion is the spring of 2000. The Library has sent draft specifications to RLG. The draft will be used to write a computer program which will perform as much of the conversion as possible. The program should also be able to change headings for the most frequently used Chinese conventional names. A copy of the draft specifications was also sent to OCLC .

Changes to subject headings that contain Wade-Giles romanization are being evaluated in the Cataloging Policy and Support Office. Class numbers will be retained whenever possible, and the reference structure will be utilized in the classification schedule to lead the user to the proper location. Beginning later this year, probably around October 1, subject headings in the Subject Authority File will be converted to pinyin. Related changes to classification schedules will begin to initiated at the same time. Topical subject headings will either be converted just after subject authorities, or at the time bibliographic records are converted. After that date, new subject headings with romanized Chinese words will follow the new pinyin romanization guidelines.

In recent weeks, the Library has heard from librarians and automation experts from several institutions who have recommended conversion of Name Authority Records in advance of conversion of bibliographic records. The Library has held several strategy sessions in recent weeks and is attempting to rework its time-line to respond to these concerns. Possible scenarios for conversion of authorities will be presented during meetings to be held at ALA, and input will be widely sought.

The Library has also begun a related project to bring Chinese conventional place names into conformance with the forms currently recommended by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. CPSO changes headings for geographic locations, one province at a time, along with the cities therein. Then catalogers then change related authority records. As of June 1, 24 provinces and major cities (including Beijing) have been changed; only six more remain to be changed.

Up-to-the-minute information about changes can be found on the CPSO home page at URL: <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/china.html>

Further information regarding the pinyin conversion project is available on the Pinyin home page, which was recently mounted on the Library of Congress’s Web site to provide a vehicle for significant documentation and up-to-date news. The address is: <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin>

Arrearage Reduction Efforts

Music and Sound Recordings III Team (MSR III), Special Materials Cataloging Division, continued processing the materials of three main sound recording arrearages. The materials of each project are either being cataloged on or will be loaded to the Cuadra Star database in LC:

45s Project: The processing of the125,000 discs that began in 1997 was completed in March 1999. The inventorying of 364 remaining items will require specific language expertise. The acquisition of 25,000 additional discs was received in late March and cataloging of the works began one month later. MSR III staff and summer temporary staff will work on this arrearage.
AFRTS: The cataloging of the Armed Forces Radio and Television Series discs continued in 1999. This year 4,490 items have been processed which brings the overall total to 66,734.
Cassettes: The processing of the cassettes in the collection continued in 1999. This year 983 items have been processed which brings the overall total to 43,947. The copyright cassette arrearage has been processed and the work now focuses on new receipts.

In March 1999, MSR III began working on three new initiatives to help reduce the Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division arrearages:

LPs Arrearage: In late March, processing of the discs began and 589 items have been cataloged. The discs are being inventoried on the Quadra Star database.
MOPIC Copyright paperwork: A backlog of 7,241 pieces of copyright paperwork in the Moving Images Section’s collection was processed. The material was sorted, boxed, labeled, and inter-shelved in the existing collection. As additional material is received it will be processed accordingly.
National Public Radio tapes: The processing of the 25,000 7" and 10" reel-to-reel tapes began in mid-March. To date, 318 items have been cataloged on the Quadra Star database.

Special Materials Cataloging Division

Computer Files/Microforms Team

The Computer Files/Microforms Team continues cataloging of Library of Congress online sites and cataloging of some Internet resources through the library’s BEOnline Project, as well as regular cataloging of tangible computer files. The first set of BEOnline records was released in February and distributed in April. We are investigating the feasibility of joining OCLC’s CORC project. With the distribution of the latest Library of Congress Rule Interpretations in April, we dropped the word “laser” from the 300 field (physical description area). Meanwhile the tangible computer files continue to pour in. So far this fiscal year, the team has received over seventeen hundred, and the total of items awaiting cataloging has increased by close to 200 to a total of 6,002.

Music and Sound Recordings Cataloging

Phillip De Sellem was promoted to team leader of the Music and Sound Recordings II Team in April.

Progress continued with the joint project between LC and OCLC which enables LC to load copied records from the OCLC database. These copied records for the sound recording collections will be loaded into the ILS sometime after the ILS implementation. The successful loading of the records will have a positive impact on the recorded sound arrearage reduction efforts.

Music Cataloging Sabbatical

The Special Materials Cataloging Division continues to make its Music Cataloging Sabbatical available to qualified music catalogers. The sabbatical is an opportunity for working music catalogers to come to the Library of Congress for three to six months and receive one-on-one training with a senior music cataloger in cataloging sound recordings. The participants will also participate in various arrearage reduction projects. If you would like more information, please contact Susan Vita (svit@loc.gov) or Phillip De Sellem (pdes@loc.gov).

NUCMC

NUCMC was successful in gaining approval and support for the Montana manuscript repositories project which will be known as the Montana Union List Project (MULP). The cooperative pilot project explores the feasibility of making the archival holdings of Montana repositories more accessible to researchers via the NUCMC World Wide Web Gateway, and in the process, creating a union list of collections in Montana repositories.

The NUCMC Web Page continues to be a success, averaging more than five thousand hits per month. The WWW gateway hits normally total more than twice that amount per month.

The position of chief remains vacant. The posting was closed on March 31 and the interviews are expected during the month of June.

Cataloging

Geography and Map Division staff are serving on several committees that are planning the conversion to the integrated library system. As one aspect of the conversion process there will be a bulk transfer of atlas records coded as type "a" (language material) to type "e" (cartographic material); revised versions of these records will be distributed by the MARC Distribution Service (deletes of the language material records and “new” cartographic records).

Work continues on the revision of Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2. The second edition will be expanded to cover the cataloging of remote-sensing images and electronic or digital cartographic resources. The guidelines for cataloging early cartographic material will also be expanded.

The Library’s American Memory Website now includes more than 2,200 maps. Recent additions include Mapping the National Parks, the completion of 65% of the railroad maps, and the addition of the panoramic maps which were acquired since the second edition of Panoramic Maps of Cities in the United States and Canada in 1984. Scanning of the Civil War maps will begin this summer

Geography and Map Division staff worked with the Cataloging Policy and Support Office to implement the use of subfield $v for form/genre subdivisions. Implementation was scheduled for May 1st, but technical problems have resulted in a delay until August 16 when cataloging in the integrated library system begins. In the interim, changes are being made to the subject authority file for geographic form subdivisions and headings.

National Audiovisual Conservation Center

Planning continues for the construction of the National Audiovisual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia. M/B/RS staff are meeting with architects, engineers, and other consultants to develop the requirements and draw up plans for the renovation of an existing building and construction of new nitrate vaults and motion picture conservation laboratory. A vital component of the Center will be a state-of-the-art digital audio preservation facility. Carl Fleischauer of the Library’s National Digital Library Program has come to M/B/RS and has begun the planning and testing of this operation

AMIM Revision

The comment period has ended for the draft revision of Archival Moving Image Materials: A Cataloging Manual. The purpose of this manual is to provide rules for the descriptive cataloging of archival film and video within the framework of AACR2. The LC AMIM Revision Committee is currently examining the comments received in order to consider them in the final revision process. Committee members are Arlene Balkansky (chair), Laurie Duncan, Pearline Hardy, Stephen Kharfen, Marzella Rhodes, and Betty Wilson, all M/B/RS Moving Image Processing Unit staff. Bob Ewald, CPSO senior cataloging policy specialist, is serving as CPSO liaison to the revision committee during this process. The following organizations were among those who reviewed the draft revision: ALCTS/CCS CC:DA, ALCTS Media Resources Committee, Association of Moving Image Archivists Cataloging and Documentation Committee, Music Library Association Bibliographic Control Committee, National Library of Medicine Cataloging Section, and Online Audiovisual Catalogers Cataloging Policy Committee.

M/B/RS Recorded Sound Section

Cataloging
A key component of the M/B/RS recorded sound cataloging strategy has been the acquisition and use of external resource data. After several years of negotiation, the Section acquired compact disc data from MUZE, INC. The Division is in the process of completely revamping its procedures for the processing of CDs, utilizing MUZE, OCLC copy when available, and copyright data to create cataloging on the LC Integrated Library System.

The other major acquisition of data was the cataloging created by National Public Radio for the 25,000 audiotapes of cultural programming held by the Library. Technicians under the guidance of a cataloger have begun editing the data and adding shelf numbers, while M/B/RS Recording Engineers make preservation copies of the original tapes, many of which suffer from sticky-shed syndrome. It is hoped that the entire collection will be cataloged by the end of next year, though the preservation effort will take much longer.

Of the many changes that will be brought on with the August 1999 implementation of the Voyager Integrated Library System, one of the more significant new procedures will be the assignation of shelf-numbers for CDs. In the past CDs, like LPs, have been shelved by the manufacturer’s label and number. The new procedure will simplify shelving and space planning tasks, eliminate confusion in assigning label-name shelf locations, and make retrieval from the stacks easier as well. In addition, the new procedures call for putting 2nd copies into a separate shelf-number arrangement to allow them to be shelved in separate locations for security purposes.

Major Cataloging Project of 1998/99

• Reviewing and cleaning the Cuadra STAR database of the Altschuler Collection of 78rpm discs (78,000 bibliographic records).
• Joint SWAT Team project with the Special Materials Cataloging Division to sort, sleeve, label and input the 45 rpm disc collection (120,000 items) into Cuadra STAR. Complete except for the non-Roman labels, the project has resulted in 88,000 STAR records. Work is underway on an additional 25,000 discs acquired this year.
• Input of the film synchronization disc collection (400 items) into the new Merged Audio Visual Information System (MAVIS) currently being utilized by the M/B/RS Moving Image Section. This database consists primarily of records for the Library’s nitrate film holdings and the safety copies produced by the M/B/RS Motion Picture Conservation Center in Dayton, Ohio. Film synchronization discs were produced in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s by companies like Vitaphone, Pathe, and Paramount, for synchronized playback with motion pictures. With the data for these rare recordings on MAVIS, both the audio and moving image elements for hundreds of early films have been united for the first time.
• Creation of new Library-wide procedures for the processing and custody of books with accompanying sound recordings. The new procedure splits the physical items to insure proper storage for the sound recording, avoiding the need for expensive customized binding required to house them together. The bibliographic record will include additional 050 fields for the sound recording shelf-numbers, and a note indicating that the recording is shelved in the M/B/RS Division.
• Some important collections cataloged this year include: the Library’s vast holdings of Andre Kostelanetz radio broadcasts; the Marine Corps Combat Collection of actuality, oral history, and interview recordings from the WWII Pacific theater; unpublished recordings from the Leonard Bernstein Collection; radio transcription discs produced by the Works Progress Administration; recordings made by the inventor of the disc record, Emil Berliner; 78rpm jazz test pressings; Voice of America recordings of the Newport Jazz Festival.

Acquisitions
Sound recording acquisitions included a collection of 25,000 45rpm discs, a complete run of 78s made by American violinist Maud Powell, unpublished recordings of Boyd Raeburn, and rare 78rpm discs on the Polish/American label, Polart. Considerable efforts were made during the year on future acquisitions, including the Bob Hope Collection, the Quincy Jones Collection, a major jazz LP collection and Malcolm Rockwell’s nearly-complete Hawaiian music archive.

Ellen Hahn is acting chief following the resignation of Linda Ayres.

Several reference aids addressing topics frequently requested by researchers were added to the Prints and Photographs Reading Room home page. They include two illustrated lists offering selected images relating to women’s rights (Votes for Women: The Struggle for Women’s Suffrage: Selected images from the Library of Congress and Pictorial Americana: Women’s Rights, 1859-1913: Selected Images from the Library of Congress).

Also recently available from the reading room home page are new pages describing two projects administered by Prints and Photographs Division staff: the Caroline and Erwin Swann Foundation for Caricature and Cartoon and the Center for Architecture, Design and Engineering Project.

648. Agenda item 7. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Schottlaender)

JSC Mission Statement

The JSC Mission Statement was approved by the Committee of Principals at its March meeting. As anticipated, the Committee of Principals (CoP) asked us to incorporate a statement about meeting user needs. Thus, the Mission Statement, which is posted on the Web at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/index.html, now reads:

In support of effective cataloguing practice, the Joint Steering Committee develops and maintains the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules according to established principles for bibliographic description and access. To this end, the Committee works in a timely and proactive manner to formulate a cataloguing code that is responsive to user needs and changes in the information environment, and that results in cost-effective cataloguing.

In February and March of this year, Ann Huthwaite, Chair of JSC, began drafting a “White Paper” on AACR2 Internationalization. At the CoP meeting in March, it was agreed that it is really more appropriate for the CoP to consider those issues. Thus, Stuart Ede of the BL will convene a group with representatives also from LC and the NLC. Sally Strutt will serve as the JSC liaison. The group’s report is due at the next CoP meeting. Huthwaite will continue work on the White Paper, although it has been put on the back burner for the time being, given the press of other business.

Concise AACR2

Ann Huthwaite learned at the CoP meeting in March that the next concise edition of AACR2 was scheduled to be published in June 1999 and that Michael Gorman’s manuscript included changes he had made to chapter 9 in anticipation of AACR2 and ISBD(ER) harmonization. Since Concise is intended to be an abridged version of the main text, not a variation on it, it requires JSC review and endorsement. The CoP agreed with the JSC that incorporation of changes in Concise with regard to chapter 9 would be premature. JSC agreed to review and comment on Concise within 30 days of receipt of the manuscript, a task which was completed in April. Thanks to Bob Ewald’s thorough review of the document on the JSC’s behalf, over 1,000 differences between AACR2 and Concise were identified and forwarded to Gorman. He has amended his manuscript to correct most of these differences, and he revised manuscript has been reviewed by Ann Huthwaite and again by Bob Ewald and found to be in compliance with the main text. It is now forthcoming from ALA Editions.

Harmonization of AACR2 and ISBD(ER)

Because we have not yet completed work on harmonizing AACR2 and ISBD(ER), the JSC has developed the following statement for distribution to the Anglo-American Cataloguing community:

The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC) has decided in principle that the rules in AACR2 should be brought into harmony with international standards. Work is currently underway to seek closer alignment with the International Standard Bibliographic Description for Electronic Resources (ISBD (ER)). Substantial amendment of the rules in Chapter 9, as well as changes to other rules in some sections of the code, will be necessary. While a significant change will be the general replacement of the term ‘computer file’ with the term ‘electronic resource,’ including in the GMD, it is clear that wholesale replacement of one term for the other would be neither correct nor desirable.

The American Library Association is taking the lead on reviewing the two standards. Brian Schottlaender, ALA representative to the JSC, has done considerable preparatory work, which has been reviewed by the other JSC constituent representatives. There is already agreement on many of the proposed changes. A task force of the ALA Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) is now preparing a series of recommendations towards harmonization, and will submit its report to the JSC in July.

It is hoped that final agreement on the revisions will be reached at the JSC meeting in October 1999 in Brisbane. The next revision package will contain the amendments endorsed at that meeting.

AACR2 Updating Schedule

At the CoP meeting in March, these principles with regard to rule revision were agreed to:

• Changes to the text should be disseminated as soon as possible after rule revisions are agreed on by JSC. The practice of waiting until there are sufficient revisions before distributing amendments is to be abandoned.

• Changes to the text of the print and electronic versions should be synchronized.

• Changes to the electronic version will be fully integrated.

There was a lot of discussion about the revision cycle. It was agreed that we should aim for a yearly cycle in the first instance, timed so that rule revisions resulting from JSC meetings (which lately have been towards the end of the year) can be disseminated quickly. An end of year deadline should be aimed for.

The publishers agreed that changes to the printed version could be mounted on a Web page from which AACR users could print them off, perhaps free of charge (because of the expense involved in administering a charging mechanism). It was also agreed that the option of purchasing printed amendment packages from the publishers should also be available. The publishers are going to look into the technical issues so that they can be ready for the first round, following the JSC meeting in October. The CoP is planning to have a teleconference in September to finalize the process for distributing amendments.

Reports for JSC Consideration

• The logical analysis of the code, parts 1 and 2 (a.k.a. the “Delsey Report”): comments due to JSC by September 1999.

• “Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality” (a.k.a. the “Hirons report”): now available on the Web at <http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html#seriality>, comments due to JSC by September 1999.

• The CC:DA 0.24 T/F Report: minimum of interim report due to JSC by September 1999.

• The CC:DA ISBD(ER) Harmonization T/F Report: due to JSC by September 1999.

Status of Rule Revision Proposals

• [4JSC/ALA/25] Definitions for “Computer disk” and “Computer optical disc”: accepted, but needs summarizing.
• [4JSC/ALA/27] Harmonization of AACR2 with ISBD[ER]: pending.
• [4JSC/ALA/28] Works that report the collective activity of a conference, etc. (21.1B2(d)): pending.
• [4JSC/ALA/29] Entry under corporate body (21.1B1): pending.
• [4JSC/BL/1-6] British nobility: pending.
• [4JSC/LC/37] More than one series statement: pending.
• [4JSC/LC/45] Not all parts in a series: pending.
• [4JSC/LC/46] Definition of “monographic series”: withdrawn.
• [4JSC/Rule Revision/1/Consolidated/1] Rule Revisions: pending.

649. Agenda item 8 (formerly item 10). Report from the Task Force on VRA Core Categories (Vellucci)

The purpose of the task force was to evaluate the relationship between AACR/MARC and the VRA Core Categories. Some mappings between VRA Core Categories to MARC have already been developed and these will be used as a point of departure. Issues of VRA metadata in AACR cataloging records will be examined and the task force will compare the VRA Core with PCC computer file guidelines, Dublin Core, FRBR, and the Delsey model. The task force will spend the next few months preparing four discussion papers, which will be due by September 1999. It is clear that the developers of the VRA Core Categories are struggling with many of the same issues as were raised at the Toronto conference on the future of AACR.

650. Agenda item 9 (formerly item 11). Report on the Proposed Joint CC:DA/ALCTS-NRMC/MARBI/SAC Preconference on Metadata (Larsgaard)

Proceedings of the preconference will be published by ALCTS as part of its paper series. It is challenging to attempt to plan a program on such a dynamic topic an entire year in advance. The draft program has been approved by the ALCTS Program Planning Committee; this will be posted on the task force’s Website. The program will continue to grow and change in the coming months. The budget will be presented at the ALCTS Budget and Finance Committee meeting on 27 June 1999. This will be a two-day preconference. $235.00 is the anticipated registration cost. OCLC has agreed to sponsor coffee breaks.

651. Agenda item 10 (formerly item 13). Report from the OCLC Representative (Patton)

CORC Project

This project seeks to assess and refine technology developed by the OCLC Office of Research. The objective is to develop and refine best practices for selecting and providing access to networked electronic resources. Currently, there are approximately 200,000 records in the CORC database. Approximately 80 institutions in seven countries are already participating in the project. OCLC plans to limit participation to 200. The CORC system is being refined rapidly in response to participants’ feedback. OCLC hopes to build on this project to bring other promising Office of Research projects into more mainstream use.

Pinyin Romanization Conversion

OCLC is working closely with LC and RLG on this project. OCLC “day one” for using pinyin romanization in records will occur no earlier than March 2000. OCLC is working to develop effective approaches for dealing with conversion of existing records, including non-Chinese records that contain Chinese headings.

Hearing no other discussion, Kinney called for a motion to adjourn. Upon a motion from Turitz, seconded by Larsgaard, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Lincicum, Intern

652. Agenda item 11 (formerly item 9). Welcome and opening remarks (Kinney)

The chair welcomed the committee members and guests, and announced that there would be changes in the order of the Agenda.

653. Agenda item 12 (formerly item 14). Report from the Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) (Howarth)

Howarth thanked the members of the task force for their work. She said she wanted to “walk through” the report, in order to get a sense from CC:DA members if the task force was headed in the right direction.

Schottlaender indicated that he was comfortable with that process.

Howarth began by saying that ISBD(ER): 0.5 Sources of Information, was still under discussion by the task force. She went on to report on work done on AACR2R Chapter 1: General Rules for Description:

• 1.4D9 – The wording was revised, deleting the words “unpublished computer files.”

• 1.4D6 – The rule was left as is, but a second example was added.

  Attig remarked that he didn’t really see what the second example added to the rule. He said, in terms of illustrative value, it seemed to be equivalent to the first one.

  Schottlaender said that examples should be added only if they illustrate something not expressed in another example.

Howarth continued by reporting further revisions to Chapter 1:

• 1.4F9 – The wording was revised deleting the words “unpublished computer files.”

  These words were deleted from 1.4C8, 1.4D9 and 1.4F9 on the grounds that it made sense to consider all electronic resources to be published.

Moving on to the edition area, Howarth said that the wording of 9.2B1 was revised. Additionally, the words “For direct or remote electronic resources . . .” were deleted. Two examples illustrating edition statements were added.

• 9.2B2 – Howarth said that the wording was revised; additionally, the word “significant,” in the phrase “e.g., significant additions or deletions to content,” was deleted.

• 9.2B3 – The wording was revised, the words “for the edition area” were deleted, and an example of a cataloger-supplied statement was added.

• 9.2B4 – The wording was revised, but Howarth indicated further revision was needed. She noted that proposed revisions to 9.2B1, 9.2B2, 9.2B3 and 9.2B4 were intended to make a distinction between major and minor changes to an electronic resource where only the former would be considered a new edition.

• 9.2B8 – A new rule was proposed to cover the case where an item consisting of multiple carriers has different edition statements on different carriers; however, Howarth indicated revision was necessary. She said that she and the members of the task force would appreciate feedback from CC:DA members.

• 9.2B9 – A new rule was proposed to deal with electronic resources that are frequently updated. Howarth said that the task force will be discussing the most appropriate wording for the new rule and that it would reflect ISBD(ER).

Howarth emphasized that the draft “in progress” brings together: 1) stipulations in Area 3 of ISBD(ER); 2) the responses from JSC constituent members to 4JSC/ALA/27 and subsequent CC:DA discussion (1 February, 1999) as summarized by Brian Schottlaender; and, 3) comments submitted by task force members. The task force favored using the expanded list of designations in the ISBD(ER)[see Area 3 and Appendix C of ISBD(ER)], as a starting point and also suggested several changes.

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

• 9.3 – Resource Characteristics Area. Howarth noted that the British Library (BL) had proposed designating this as “Type and Extent of Resource Area.”

• 9.3A1 – Punctuation. The wording of the rule was revised, with word “extent” replacing “. . . the number of records, statements, etc. . . .” in the 3rd sentence.

• 9.3B – Resource characteristics, referred to as “Type and Extent of Resource” by the British Library.

• 9.3B7 – Designation, referred to as “Type of Resource” by the British Library. Howarth noted that revised wording making the designated terms mandatory for remote access resources was further revised, omitting the words “remote access” from the phrase “remote access electronic resource.”

  Howarth said that here a directive was added that gave catalogers the choice of optionally naming the type of direct access electronic resource being cataloged.

  Howarth then discussed the presentation of the hierarchy of terms, and suggested that the committee consider whether or not the term “electronic remote-sensing image data” might be better placed under “electronic image data” rather than “electronic representational data.”

  Howarth read the part of the rule which instructs catalogers, if none of the terms in the hierarchy are appropriate, to supply a brief term beginning with “electronic.” She told the committee that the provisos for adding terms come from the ISBD(ER), and were meant to serve as guidance in place of an uncontrolled list. She said that, otherwise, the committee would either need to think of an agency/body that would monitor terms, or else require that only the terms given may be used.

• 9.3B2 – Howarth said that the British Library’s revised wording for this rule was preferred, and noted that it substituted the phrase “. . . number of files that make up the extent . . .” for the phrase “. . . number of files that make up the content . . .”

Area 4 — Publication, Distribution

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

• 9.4B2 – Howarth reported that the task force had proposed a new rule, “For direct and remote access electronic resources, publishing, distributing, etc., activities include all types of publication, production, distribution, issuing and release activities. Consider all direct and remote access electronic resources to be published.” Howarth added that the words “direct and” were to be deleted, and the note stating that “1.4B1 may obviate the need for the first sentence of this proposed new rule,” was to be disregarded.

• 9.4C1 – The wording was revised, with the words “of an electronic resource” being substituted for the words “of a published computer file.”

• 9.4C2 – The draft of the task force’s final report featured a new rule which prescribed naming the place of issuance or release as the place of publication for electronic resources which named no publisher, distributor, etc., but Howarth asked the committee to disregard it.

• 9.4D2 – The draft deleted this rule, which instructs catalogers not to record the name of a publisher, distributor, etc., for an unpublished computer file, but Howarth instructed the committee to disregard the deletion.

• 9.4F2 – The draft deleted this rule instructing catalogers to give the date of creation of an unpublished computer file, but Howarth instructed the committee to disregard the deletion.

• 9.4F3 – The draft contained the instruction to renumber this rule as 9.4F2, but the restoration of 9.4F2 rendered this instruction inappropriate.

Multiple Copyright Dates

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

• 9.4F4 – A new rule was proposed for items with multiple copyright dates which apply to various aspects of the production, none of which apply to the publication of the item as a whole.

Area 5 — Physical Description Area

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

Howarth pointed out that draft Rule 9.5A2, which covers items with different types and/or sizes of carriers and proposes alternative approaches to description similar to those now in 1.10., should be numbered 9.5B3.

Specific Material Designation

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

• 9.5B1 – Howarth said that an option here was to omit the word “electronic,” if the GMD is used. However, she said, the task force also recognized that the GMD is itself optional. Howarth said that the second option that the task force proposed was something put forward for the British Library to consider: this was not to use the word “electronic,” in fact to omit it completely, “given that the context of the record itself will have covered that, Area 3 will have covered that, and the GMD, if it is used, will have covered that.”

  Attig asked, “Just to clarify, are we talking about options for what to include in the rule, or are we talking about including options in the rule?”

  Howarth said the former.

  Attig asked if Howarth were putting forward two different alternative readings of the way the rule should read? When Howarth indicated assent, Attig asked if he might argue strongly for a third option, which was, to leave the text of AACR2R as it is, i.e., to use “computer” as the adjective for specific material designations. He said that his rationale for this was, first of all, since Area 5 is used only for direct access materials, the problems with computer technology do not apply to Area 5. He said he believed that the computer disc terminology more closely matches common usage, and that electronic disc will not be understood, and that this is an area where common usage ought to govern. He said he’d like to see CC:DA consider this, and try to take a position.

  Jizba said that the task force did ponder this for a long time and that this proposal, which uses “electronic” in the SMD, did represent consensus.

  Kelley asked, “Just as a point of clarification, didn’t we say there were two possible wordings that we were considering here? So where’s the consensus?”

  Jizba suggested that Sandberg-Fox should speak to what the ISBD(ER) does in this area.

  Howarth said, responding to Kelley’s question, “The preference from the task force would be Option 1, but we’re essentially acknowledging the concerns of the BL by saying there is another option.”

  Sandberg-Fox said that she had to admit that the ISBD(ER) group did not debate the preference for “computer” over “electronic” and that they were perfectly happy to incorporate “electronic” right through from Area 3 as well as into Area 5. She said she thought the debate – “which was really no great debate” – was that if there is a GMD, do not use the term “electronic.” She noted that there were a number of people on the review group that preferred that over carrying the word “electronic.” She explained, “So the debate was about do you keep it or don’t you keep it? But there was never a question about using or retaining ‘computer’ in this area at all. I would say, based on what I remember, was that there was a preference for not having ‘electronic’ in the terminology in the SMD, and that most people preferred having just the terms, just the SMD without the word ‘electronic.’ ” Attig said that he believed there was already the option of not including the word “computer.”

  Schiff said that he had a copy of AACR and said it was on p. 232. “Optionally if general material designations are used, omit ‘computer’ from the specific material designation.”

  Schottlaender remarked, “So if the task force’s consensus was for Option 1, the word ‘computer’ would simply be changed to ‘electronic’ throughout, which I, personally, think results in a bunch of very bizarre phrases. And then one would have the option of omitting the word ‘electronic,’ which is sort of a marriage of Options 1 and 2.”

  Schiff said that he had to say that he didn’t like the term “electronic” in this area at all. He explained, “I’ve talked with other colleagues and the attitude has been ‘what’s an electronic tape cassette?’ People will think that’s something you put in to play music. It seems very clear that these are things that you have to have a computer to use, so why not be clear about that?”

  Howarth said that one of the things the task force could do would be to make explicit the three options they’ve just put out and open that out for more discussion.

  Kinney asked if committee members wanted a straw poll on continuing the use of the word “computer” versus changing to “electronic”?

  Schiff said that he thought there was a strong sense that “we should keep ‘computer’ in the rule, but make it optional to omit the word ‘computer’ if the GMD is used.”

  Howarth said she was a little confused. “If our GMD is electronic resources, and you’re saying omit ‘computer,’ if the GMD is used . . .”

  Schiff said that he thought that was what the group was saying, and asked, “Is there the sense that there’s a conflict between having electronic resource as the GMD and the word “computer” in the SMD?” He said that he thought that the word “computer” really supports the current terminology of the industry standard more than using the term “electronic” in the SMD.

  Howarth said that what made sense, then, is simply having “computer” but no option for omitting, and asked if that would be the sense of CC:DA.

  Schiff said that he didn’t have a problem with omitting the word “computer” as an option, because the GMD, electronic resource, was enough. Schiff added that he would be happy to drop the option.

  A straw poll was taken in favor of retaining “computer” and removing the option to omit.

  Howarth (counting hands) said that the consensus seemed to be to retain “computer” and remove the option. Howarth referred the committee to p. 19 of the draft, i.e., Rev. wording and examples. She pointed out the revised text and noted that the first three examples had been deleted, and three added.

  Attig asked for clarification. He asked if the result of that revision would be “that you would use 1 CD-ROM as the SMD.”

  Schiff said, no, it would be 1 computer optical disc.

  Attig asked if the remaining examples made it clear that the optical disc formats were to be used as qualifiers?

  Howarth said that the task force would take a look at that.

Format Characteristics

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

• 9.5C1 – Howarth said this concerned the inclusion of sound and color, and that the task force had agreed to that.

• 9.5C2 – Howarth said this concerned optionally giving other characteristics and that the task force made a very slight wording change within the example. The task force deleted “number of sides used,” “recording density,” and “sectoring,” because they felt that these phrases were somewhat redundant. Howarth said that the task force felt that they wanted their colleagues to use whatever was appropriate, and that they don’t want them to see this as a prescriptive list. She said, however, that the task force will leave in the examples.

  Howarth remarked that the task force had had to advise CC:DA, that in proposing this, they were going beyond ISBD(ER) in recognizing that there may be other physical characteristics. She said, however, that “given we are about to go into a new millennium, there is no time like the present to ‘go where others have feared to tread.’”

  Schottlaender asked to go back to 9.5C1. He said that, if the sense of the committee was that Option 3 in the previous instance, the deletion of the option to exclude the word “computer,” is the preferable option, then they don’t want to be saying “electronic chip cartridge, etc.”

  Howarth said that the task force would change all such terms.

  Schiff said that in the current rules there are some examples about what recording density means. He asked Howarth if the task force was proposing to delete those? He said that in the current rule, recording density was defined somewhat as number of bytes per inch, single, double, etc. He asked Howarth if what the task force was saying was that recording density is so commonly understood now that it is no longer necessary to define what it means?

  Howarth said that the examples would show what it means.

  Jones asked, “Since the idea is to use this area only for direct access resources, was there any discussion in the task force about whether, and how, to record other physical details for remote access, like sound and color and that sort of thing?”

  Howarth said that the task force had not discussed that specifically. She said that, presumably, one could give that information in a note.

  Schff said that maybe a rule was needed to say, “If necessary, give other physical details in a note.”

Howarth pointed to page 20, Section D, Dimensions, and said that the task force had actually brought this forward, to Midwinter. She explained that the proposal was to include metric measure as an option, and that there was strong support for the inclusion, to facilitate the greater internationalization of the code. She said that one of the things the task force discussed, however, was essentially putting in, “Optionally, give the dimensions in terms of centimeters.” Howarth said that this would just concatenate, and examples would be given with each of the sub-elements.

Area 7 — Note Area: System Requirements and Mode of Access Notes

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

Howarth said that the task force reviewed its proposal, which was within the first note, where the elements are “nature and scope,” “system requirements,” and then “mode of access.” She said that the task force had proposed moving “system requirements,” and “mode of access,” in that order, followed by “nature and scope,” but had decided after discussing it to “leave well enough alone”; so the task force is withdrawing that proposal, and will stay with the original order.

Howarth continued by saying that on p.27, the task force had recommended some other proposed changes in “notes.”

Attig asked, “In 9.7B1, under system requirements, you are proposing to add a sentence, and some examples?”

Howarth said, “yes, definitely” and added that the rest would be as is, and that the major proposal to reorder would be withdrawn.

Schiff said that it didn’t seem as if most people are putting the URL into this note, and that perhaps the actual address ought to be left out.

Howarth said that, “yes, we did remove them,” and added that the other notes, beginning on p. 27, are, for the most part, added examples. She proposed, following Schottlaender’s suggestion, that the committee have a look at them, “and be a little more rigorous in our edits.”

Other Notes

Proposed Changes to AACR2R

• 9.7B6 – Statements of Responsibility. Howarth said that on p. 28, this was just a clarification of what could be included in statements of responsibility, and that the examples were there to reflect that.

• 9.7B8 – File Characteristics. Howarth said that, on the bottom of p. 29, there was a rewording of the rule. She asked the committee to note the inclusion of the Type and Extent of the Resource, the words “type” and “extent,” reflecting the BL and ISBD(ER) wording.

• 9.7B20 – Copy being described, library’s holdings and restrictions on use. Howarth said that the task force was going to do some rewording of this rule, and that they would get back to the committee on that.

Howarth asked the committee to look at the draft glossary on p.31. She said that the task force had some concern that there were a lot of terms included in the glossary and a lot of terms proposed for inclusion; she reported that the task force’s sense was that more would be useful, rather than less, and added that it would be helpful if committee members indicated whether or not they were in support of that.

Attig said that he believed it was true that the JSC has fairly clear guidelines for criteria that a term must meet before being a candidate for inclusion in a glossary. He suggested that the committee run the terms against those criteria, and added that he saw no point in submitting terms for inclusion in the glossary if, because they did not meet the JSC criteria, they were not going to be acceptable.

Jizba said that, as far as she knew, the major criterion was that the term in question be used in the rule, and that all terms under consideration were used in the rule. She said, however, that it was going to be time-consuming to construct definitions for them, and that it would be helpful to know sooner, rather than later, how much work the committee wants the task force to do.

Kelley asked to have a sense of how long this would take, on some kind of timeline.

Jizba said that she could do it in the next two weeks, but that she’d have to clear some things out of her schedule.

Schottlaender said that, given this daunting list of possible terms for inclusion, “an awful lot of effort should not go into this.” He noted that even if the criteria are such that they allow for the inclusion of some of those terms, he thought it would be preferable for the JSC to see this document and decide for itself which terms it thinks needs adding to the glossary.

Jizba asked if the JSC would get just the list, without the definitions?

Schottlaender said yes.

Jizba asked if there were a term or terms that needs to be there?

Schiff said he thought there were some on this list that should be included, such as remote access vs. direct access.

Howarth said that she thought this discussion was one that could be carried on electronically, rather than taking the time of the committee. She continued by saying that there were three recommendations that came forward from Sherry Kelley’s Metadata Task Force and that the task force has addressed two of those. She said that the one the task force had not specifically included is a response to a URL/URN in Area 8. She said that she thought the feeling was that there were other mechanisms under development for dealing with those.

Kinney thanked the task force for the work they had done and for being gracious in the face of “all the work we kept throwing at you.” Kinney then asked Schottlaender what would be most helpful for him. He said that the committee could be asked to act on the document as it stands, with the exception of the list on p. 10 that Larsgaard was going to work on, and the appendix which could be done electronically. He suggested that the task force be entrusted with “any of the wordsmith work,” and the examples, but then asked if the committee would rather “see it in total.”

Schiff said that he would like to see it in a final form so that committee members could discuss any changes they wanted to make. Kinney said that the work had to be done before Schottlaender went to Brisbane in October, which meant that the committee should act on the report by July, since two more task force’s reports were coming up in August.

Howarth said the purpose of the discussion that morning was to see the things about which there was a consensus. She admitted that there was some wordsmithing to be done, and that a whole section, “Sources of Information” was missing, but said she thought the report was “generally in good shape.” She concluded by saying she was very comfortable with July.

654. Agenda item 13 (formerly item 8). Report from the Task Force on Rule 0.24 (Yee)
Note: Thanks to Shirley J. Lincicum for her report of this agenda item.

Yee summarized the issues that the Task Force attempted to address in its recommendations. The Task Force focused on revising rule 0.24 to address two main issues: describing items that have multiple characteristics and describing expressions of works that exist in multiple manifestations, but are essentially identical in intellectual or artistic content (a.k.a. format variation). In its report, the Task Force presents four options for revising rule 0.24 to handle items with multiple characteristics and five options for revising rule 0.24 to handle format variations. During the course of Committee discussion, two additional options were added for format variation, yielding seven options in all. Yee reported that in its meeting on 25 June 1999, the Task Force agreed to drop option four for dealing with multiple characteristics in favor of amending option two to include a phased approach to implementation. She also mentioned that the Task Force plans to reorder some of the options in its final report. The Task Force has provided sample text for each option and intends for the Committee to select text from among the options for both multiple characteristics and format variation to construct a suggested revised wording for rule 0.24. In addition, the Task Force recommends other specific changes to be made to the code. Yee proceeded to describe each option.

Options for dealing with multiple characteristics:

1. Revise rule 0.24 to specify that description be based first on one of three “forms of issuance” (monograph, serial, or integrating entity) and subsequently on the other chapters in part I. Content and carrier would be treated equally and the current organization and fundamental content of part I would be maintained. Existing chapters would be expanded and/or additional chapters would be written to deal with issues presented by new formats, etc.

2. Reorganize part I by ISBD area as recommended by the Delsey report, Part I. Rewrite rule 0.24 so that content, carrier, form of issuance, relationship to other manifestations, and publication status (published vs. unpublished) are emphasized equally in formulating description.

3. Reorganize part I to place “content” chapters first, “carrier” chapters second, and “form of issuance” chapters third. Rewrite rule 0.24 to prescribe that precedence be given according to the chapter appearing first for items that display multiple characteristics.

Options for dealing with format variation (multiple versions):

Yee reminded the Committee of the definition of manifestation from the FRBR report and noted that the Task Force had not spent much time discussing the question of format variation and serials, so there might be a bias toward monographs in the Task Force report.

1. Revise rule 0.24 to remove the term “physical” and indicate that it is permissible to base description on an original rather than a reproduction when that is possible without research into the nature of the original.

   Turitz asked whether this would permit cataloging of an original from a reproduction. Yee responded no, the intent was to allow a new record describing a reproduction to be generated based on data in the record for the original. This option would require that new records be created for reproductions.

2. Codify current practice as found in OCLC and CONSER guidelines as well as in LCRI 1.0 in AACR2R.

3. Codify guidelines presented in the CC:DA multiple versions task force report (MULVER guidelines) in AACR2R, which allows for a single record approach for reproductions, but not for any other type of change in manifestation.

4. Codify the ISBD(ER) approach of ignoring minor physical variations at or below the SMD level in AACR2R.

5. Follow a single record approach for any manifestation variation, whether it is a change in physical format or a change in distribution information, as long as it is not connected with a change in the expression of the work.

6. Make no changes to rule 0.24 to deal with format variation

7. Provide all conceivable options and allow libraries to make local decisions about which option they will follow based on local needs.

In addition to formulating these options for revising rule 0.24, Yee reported that the Task Force also recommends that rules for the GMD be made more compatible with rule 0.24 and that an introductory chapter containing more detailed information on the underlying principles of the code be added.

Yee concluded her remarks by reminding the Committee that the JSC had specifically requested that CC:DA make the first attempt to address issues surrounding rule 0.24. She urged the Committee to take full advantage of this historic opportunity to resolve long-standing issues with the code by taking strong and decisive action on the Task Force recommendations.

Larsgaard moved that the Committee endorse option two for multiple characteristics. Beacom seconded this motion. After some discussion, members called for a straw poll on the options. Option one received no votes, option two received 31 votes, and option three received two votes in the straw poll. Tillett requested that Yee remove the term “edition” from the wording of option two. Yee agreed and indicated that she intended to rely on the FRBR definition of expression. The Committee unanimously approved the motion to endorse option two for multiple characteristics, omitting the word “edition” from the proposed text for rule 0.24.

Attig noted that options two, three, or four for handling format variation would codify only current U.S. practice and reminded the Committee that other constituencies neither follow nor endorse these practices at this time. Schottlaender reminded the Committee that the JSC had specifically asked CC:DA to examine and report on rule 0.24 because of a general dissatisfaction with the rule. Schiff sought clarification regarding how remote electronic resources would be handled under these options. He noted that the recommendations seemed biased toward remote electronic resources that are reproductions and did not seem to fully address works that are originally issued as remote electronic resources.

Discussion of the format variation options focused on option five. Many members seemed to favor this option because it provided the most support for a single record approach to cataloging multiple manifestations of the same expression of a work. Several members questioned whether this option was addressing primarily the underlying structure of bibliographic records or rather how information would be displayed in the catalog. Yee felt that the option addressed display more than record structure, but other Task Force members disagreed with this assessment.

Larsgaard called for a straw poll on the format variation options. Option one received one vote, option two received nine votes, options three and four received no votes, option five received 22 votes, option six received no votes, and option seven received two votes.

Noting an apparent lack of consensus on the options for handling format variation, Schiff moved that the Committee forward the two options receiving the most votes in the straw poll to the JSC and Larsgaard seconded the motion. Schiff withdrew this motion during the course of discussion when it became clear that many would prefer to achieve consensus on a single option.

Several members asked for clarification about the details of option five. The Committee concluded that fundamentally what was being considered were the following underlined sentences found on pages 37, 38, and 39 of CC:DA/TF/Rule 0.24/4: “1. Create a new record for each expression of a monographic work. 2. Create a new record for each incarnation of a serial work. 3. All changes to an integrating work should be described on one latest-entry record.” Because there appeared to be considerable disagreement and lack of understanding about the content and meaning of the detailed text supporting these three sentences, the Committee felt that the Task Force should continue revising this text and submit it to CC:DA for final action later in the summer. In particular, members felt that the criteria given in the report for identifying changes in expression needed refinement. The Committee also recommended that the Task Force consult with the serials cataloging community to better define what is meant by the word “incarnation,” as used on p. 38 of the report.

Wise indicated that the Music Library Association could not support option five as written because it seemed to prohibit the creation of new records based on differences in manifestation alone. He pointed out that those who acquire and use sound recordings of musical works often care very much about differences at the manifestation level and rely on having these differences described clearly in the catalog. It was unclear to him how this could happen under option five. In response to this concern, the Committee agreed that it would be desirable to add an optional provision allowing for the creation of new records for new manifestations when needed.

Upon a motion from Turitz, seconded by Hixson, the Committee voted seven to one to endorse option five in principle, amended with an optional provision to allow libraries to create new records for new manifestations if needed and to remove the word “edition” from the proposed text for rule 0.24. The Committee charged the Task Force with revising the supporting text for option five. The revised report is to be submitted to CC:DA by July 30, 1999, so that the Committee may take final action on the report prior to the October 1999 JSC meeting.

655. Agenda item 14 (formerly item 16). Report on “Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality” (Hirons)

[http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/ser-rep.pdf]

Hirons said she was excited about the vote the committee took on the reorganization of the code, because it was the course that her group was recommending as well.

Hirons began by discussing and clarifying terminology. She said that there were some publications that are complete as issued, and that they are being called “static,” i.e., no seriality. But, she said, for a large number of other types of publications, “be they monograph or serial, as they are now defined, these publications exhibit some form of seriality.” She said that this means they are not complete as first-issued; that something may change over time, and that a cataloger may have to think about the level of specificity that he/she puts into a record. Also, she added, that there might be a need for some control over this, be it serial control, internal control, etc.

Hirons said that under the “successively issued,” there were not only serials there, but multi-parts, i.e., successively issued publications. However, Hirons said, her group did not think that having categories of just static “successively issued” and “integrating” is what is needed in the code. Rather, she said, the first thing needed was to define something as finite or continuing. She said that her group was defining two levels, whereas Yee was “kind of combining them as one.” First, Hirons said, one must decide whether something has a predetermined conclusion, or is complete as first issued. She explained that if something is continuing (the term replacing ongoing, which was not internationally accepted), it has no predetermined conclusion. She said that in the AACR2R type of publication model, which now refers to just monograph and serial, one sees definitions, first, of finite and continuing, and within each of those, there is the form of issuance. She explained that, if something is finite, but not complete as first issued, “it may be completed in a successive way or an integrating way, and the same thing with continuing.”

She said that these concepts could be organized in the code as follows: there could be an introductory chapter, “which is what the 0.24 group has recommended, and what the serials group is recommending,” and in that chapter there would be the definitions of continuing resource, serial, integrating resource, etc., so that the decision of what a thing was would be right “up-front.” Then, she continued, within the rules, there would be the distinctions as they are applicable. Hirons said that she thought “we could get it all in there.”

Hirons next explained how her group was defining “serial.” She said they had decided a year ago not to do a radical revision of “serial,” but to keep serial “sort of the way it is now,” as “a bibliographic resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, usually bearing numeric and/or chronological designations” – she said they have used the term “usually” in order to incorporate unnumbered series, and to “loosen it up a bit” – “and that has no predetermined conclusion.” She noted that the terms “no predetermined conclusion” had been used because they seemed softer than “and is intended to continue indefinitely.”

Hirons said her group had defined electronic journals as being serials because they have discrete parts, even though “they kind of look like that integrating entity on the model.” Nevertheless, she said, the articles within an electronic journal are discrete, and, unlike the updates of a looseleaf, they are cited, indexed and abstracted, and so remain discrete; therefore, they will continue to be called “serials.”

Hirons explained that part of this, although it might not be theoretically pure, was a practical thing for groups like the ISSN who have to make a decision on what they are going to assign ISSN’s to. She said the group really wanted to keep electronic journals as serials, even through they “don’t look quite like they used to.” However, Hirons acknowledged, items of this type can’t always be cataloged in the same manner, so the group is recommending the use of both successive and latest entry. Successive entry would be used for anything that is issued successively, e.g., successive entry would be used for an electronic journal if the earlier titles are retained within the document.

But, Hirons reported, latest entry would be used for integrating resources and for electronic journals in which the earlier titles no longer exist. Hirons said that this was a big issue, i.e., how to combine successive and latest entry. She said “we may end up with different manifestations of the same work, in different forms. We may end up with the print being cataloged as successive and the electronic as latest, and how we link and deal with this is not an easy issue.”

Hirons summarized her remarks by explaining that they described “in a nutshell,” how new resources should be handled in the code. She then went on to say that other large goals were harmonization with ISBD(S) and ISSN, and minimizing title changes. She said her group had made some very specific changes to the recommendations to the rule on what would be considered to be a minor title change. She said that she had heard some discontent from ISSN and from members of ISBD(S), and explained that this was an area where “we will have to sit down at the harmonization table and go over this.” Hirons said that for words that indicate type of publication such as newsletter and magazine, that are added or dropped at the end of the title, such an addition or deletion would not be considered a major change, even if it was within the first three words of the title. She said this type of title was a problem in the international community, especially in other languages, such as French, where the word “magazine” comes first in the title.

Hirons went on to say that the other major change that her group suggested was that the addition, deletion, or change of the corporate body anywhere in the title be considered minor. She said that this would help a lot with annual reports and administrative reports “where the corporate body comes and goes or the positioning of it changes,” without changing the nature of the work. She reminded the committee that if there were a change in the name itself, then a new record would be required. Hirons then elaborated on what she meant by change, in this case. She said that change meant from a full form to an abbreviation or acronym, as long as it was the same body. She emphasized that if it were a change that requires a new name authority record, then a new record would be made.

Hirons said that in case of doubt, “consider the change to be minor,” and reminded the committee that, at present, “in case of doubt” was considered to be major.

Hirons said the intent was to refocus more on the work, and get away from some of the meaningless title changes as much as possible, but she admitted that there was no perfect way of doing this. Hirons added that she thought this was the biggest problematic area for harmonization, and that “we’ll see where we go with that.”

Hirons continued by saying that another goal of the report was to take a more holistic approach to the cataloging of serials. She reminded the committee that AACR2R says to transcribe very carefully from one issue, and that perhaps this was not the best way of dealing with something that could go on for fifty years or more. She said that the group was recommending that the concept of the chief source of information be done away with, and that that may be something that has to be done so that the code can be reorganized, or it may be a result of that.

Basically, Hirons explained, the recommendation was to take an area by area approach, i.e., look at that area, see what is needed in that area, and deal with it that way. She said the group already recognized that there were certain areas, such as Area 3, and the dates in the publication area, where the description is from the first and the last issue. She said the two areas that the group especially thought needed improvement were the title, and the publishing data.

Hirons told the committee that what she and Reynolds had recommended was something kind of radical, noting that this was not the recommendation of any of the task forces that looked at this issue. She said that she was recommending that the description be done from the latest issue of the serial, recognizing that the earliest title is needed for stability, for links, and for a way of referring to the serial. Hirons said she was talking about successively issued publications that undergo minor changes, not major changes that would require a new record. But, she continued, when minor changes occurred, the earliest title would be moved up into the uniform title if it wasn’t already present in a uniform title in the record, while the last title would be in the 245.

Hirons said that the uniform title would be a stable title, one that can be used for links to other works, for citations, and for added entries in other publications. At the same time, she explained, the latest title in the 245 would be an easily searchable way of recognizing how the title is currently being issued, which is extremely important for acquisitions, and for reference, since citations come from the latest form of the title.

Hirons pointed out that since the group was recommending some major revisions to the minor title change rule, the titles could vary quite a bit. She added that she thought this recommendation would work well with the key title internationally.

As for the publishing statement, Hirons said, the group was recommending that both the earliest place and publisher, and the latest, or current place and publisher be given. She emphasized that this information needed to be searchable, rather than be “buried in a 500 note.” She reminded the committee that serial records are used in many ways, e.g., for Acquisitions and for control, so that having this data in searchable fields was extremely important. Hirons then informed the committee that there was only one proposal in the MARBI discussion paper as it is currently written, and that proposal is for multiple 260 fields.

Hirons continued by saying that her group had also recommended “lots of little things,” such as changing the rule for other title information to only give other title information when it includes the acronym or initialism, or if the statement of responsibility is embedded in it, and noted that this was consistent with the rule interpretation. Also, if the subtitle were given, it would be given in a quoted note, which is what used to be done under AACR1.

Hirons said that another recommendation was for omitting introductory words, such as “Welcome to,” and “Disney presents,” that are showing up on a lot of web pages; the cataloger should try to find another source without those words.

Regarding the organization of the code, Hirons said that the recommendation was for an introductory chapter, and for the reorganization of Part 1. She added that her report also included a consideration to the JSC, that maybe there should be a three-part code. Hirons explained that with a three-part code, the first part would deal with description, the second part with access points, and the third part with relationships. Hirons said that the group felt that this three-part structure was needed since, as Vellucci’s work has shown, relationships should be made explicit in the catalog. In AACR2R, she said, “the links are buried in notes.” She added that she thought that if the rules emphasized relationships it would help those who design catalogs to understand the importance of relationships. Hirons went on to say that the other major consideration that she had been advised to work on was the benchmark proposal. She said that German catalogers were extremely interested in the development of a benchmark, which would mean using the key title, or perhaps the uniform title when there is no key title, as an international benchmark for making a new record, so that a new record would only be made when changes occurred in that area. By doing that, Hirons said, the international sharing of records would be facilitated; she noted that it is a real problem sharing records if the beginning and the ending dates of what is contained in the record don’t match. She said that the benchmark proposal was going to be revisited in August, so that when the harmonization meeting took place in the Fall, it could be further considered then.

Schiff said that he didn’t disagree with omitting the introductory words, but that that would just make one other exception to the rules, and he wondered if the committee would like to write a rule that was applicable in all other cases.

Hirons said that she thought this was one of the things that would happen if the code were reorganized: the rules would become more principled, so that any time there were these kinds of words, whether on a motion picture or a website, the cataloger would know that they are not intended to be part of the title.

Jizba said she thought that was already in Chapter 9.

Hirons said, “we tried to apply that to serials, but there was some reason why we couldn’t.”

Jizba said that she had a question on relationships to other works and manifestations. Referring to Hirons’ statement that “some things are buried in notes,” Jizba said the reason why some things are buried in notes, at least from a monograph perspective, was that the cataloger hasn’t had time to do research or to figure out what those relationships are. She said that if Hirons were proposing extra research beyond what was needed to do at the moment, that would be different.

Hirons said that she wasn’t proposing that at all. She said that she meant, “when you do know the exact entry, and we do for a lot of our links . . . that this is a physical link perhaps to the other record in your catalog, and this is an important thing for catalog design and for understanding that now you are going beyond this item to another item.”

Schottlaender asked Hirons if she could say a little more about the harmonization meeting?

Hirons said that Ingrid Parent, who is the chair of ISBD(S), and who is also very active in ISSN, is planning to have a harmonization meeting in the Fall, either before or after the JSC meeting. Hirons said she was also unsure as to whether the JSC needs to agree on what it thinks about AACR2R, “and then we come to the table with ISBD(S), and ISSN and harmonize further, or do we get together first and think how this thing is going to work internationally, and then JSC has some idea where to go.”

Hirons added that Ingrid Parent had received a grant for this, and that it was going to be in Washington, but that she didn’t know who would be invited, but guessed it would consist of the ISBD(S) community, someone representing AACR2R, and someone from the JSC. Hirons said that since this was a seriality thing, she assumed that she would be invited, as would be the ISSN community. She said that it would make sense to do it after the JSC meeting, because then the representatives for AACR2R can come to the table and say, “Here’s what we would like, and now how does this work with the other two constituencies?”

Glazier said that he didn’t necessarily disagree with the issues on title changes and publishing statements, but that he was thinking about the impact on the utilities of trying to match records, since those are areas that are used for matching. He described a potentially problematic situation: “If someone has a title that they are cataloging they may not find a record for the same title because of the variations, and they may create a new record, or they may find a record which looks like it might have been the same thing, but they can’t tell because they didn’t have that version.” Glazier said that this would impact trying to match records in OCLC for duplication purposes and in RLIN for clustering purposes; that it would be hard to identify whether these are or are not the same thing when they vary precisely in those areas where the matching is done.

Hirons said that this was a matter for concern, but that this was why the earliest title and the uniform title would be retained and that this might mean that different indexing needs to be done. She said that the other thing was in the 260 field, recognizing the earliest place and publisher; and added that her discussion paper, which she proposed and sent up to network development, had different subfield coding in it, so that the earliest place and publisher would always be subfield a and subfield b, and there would be different subfielding for the others. She emphasized that the information would still be in the record.

Attig asked wasn’t it true that the cataloger would continue to provide access to all the variations?

Hirons said yes, “to all the 246’s,” and continued by saying that the one big difference would be that rather than the latest title being in the 246, it would be in the 245, with all the intervening variations in the 246’s. She emphasized that it would “still all be searchable.”

Hirons was asked how she would envision series relating to this issue since numbered monographic series are serials: would she envision, on the successive entry for the serial, one series authority record or two?

Hirons said this would have no impact on series, because “this is exactly what you do right now: you give the latest variation of the series in the 490 field and you use the uniform title for the series in the 8XX.” Hirons emphasized that this was perfectly in harmony with series; “you decide your series title from the first one [inaudible], and you create an authority record for it.” Hirons said, however, that “if, on the piece you are doing the title varies, you’ve got the 490.”

656. Agenda item 15. Report of the Task Force on Seriality and AACR2R (Jones)

Jones said that the task force to study the report was set up in May, just after the report was issued by the JSC, and it met for the first time on Saturday, after the CC:DA meeting, to go over logistics, deadlines and timelines. Jones said that the task force’s charge was to look at Hirons’ report in some detail, and that they were going to focus on the AACR2R aspects of it, because there were a lot of recommendations in there as well about MARC 21, that the task force is not going to be looking at that. He said that in the original charge the task force was supposed to be actually writing rule changes, but, having talked to Schottlaender, he now thought that was something the task force was not going to do.

Originally, Jones said, the task force was aiming to have September 17 as the deadline for the final report, to have it submitted and to have CC:DA look at it, so that it could go forward, with any changes, to the JSC on September 30th. Jones said that he didn’t know if it would be possible to make that deadline.

Attig requested that CC:DA be given a little more time to consider the report, and suggested a submission date to the committee of September 1st.

Jones said the task force would aim for that.

657. Agenda item 16 (formerly item 18). Report of the Task Force on Metadata (Larsgaard)

Larsgaard gave a summary of the status of the Task Force on Metadata, (which she had discussed in a previous meeting). She reported that the task force went through the first four of five charges (for which at Midwinter they formed four working groups to proceed via e-mail), and said that the chairs of the working groups had each presented a very brief summary of their work in reports which are available at the Annual report on the Web. Larsgaard reminded the committee that the task force will be out of existence at ALA Annual in the year 2000. She went on to say that their efforts for the coming twelve months will be directed towards: 1) completing charges four and five, which have to do mainly with how the OPAC interoperates with all the other network tools that provide information; and, 2) recommending changes to AACR2R as appropriate. Larsgaard said that the task force will obviously be paying a great deal of attention to what the JSC comes up with in the Fall. Finally, Larsgaard described a presentation of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and its carrier, the Xtensible Markup Language (XML) given by Eric Miller, assisted by Diane Hillman. This presentation was about RDF, XML and why librarians should care one way or the other. Larsgaard said that the presentation would be up on the Web, and that she would send the URL to the AACR listserv.

658. Agenda item 17 (formerly item 12). Report from the MARBI Representative (Watson)

Watson said that for purposes of the report, he would refer members of the committee to CC:DA MARBI REP 1999-2. Watson said that in this document he had briefly summarized information about what had been discussed at MARBI, noting that members could find more information at the URL in the first paragraph of the report.

He reminded the committee that MARBI discusses two types of documents: discussion papers and proposals. Watson went on to define discussion papers as papers that are brought to the committee to generate discussion, explore ideas and approaches, and resolve problems, and which are then turned around and often made into proposals that come back to the committee. He said that it was only actions taken on proposals that actually result in changes to the MARC format.

Watson said that, out of the seven different documents that were discussed at this conference, five of them were discussion papers, so that very little action was taken to change the MARC format, but there was a lot of interesting discussion. Watson said that, under “Action Taken” for each of the discussion papers, “you can simply write the word ‘discussed.’”

Watson said that he thought the discussion papers of most interest to the committee would be Discussion Paper 114, Seriality and MARC21, and, for those who catalog works of art, or surrogates of works of art, or materials related to works of art, the Discussion Paper #115, anonymous artists’ relationships, which raises some very interesting questions and issues. Watson also said that Discussion Paper 118, the non-filing characters in MARC21, was one the committee had already heard about. Another one was proposal 99-08, defining URL/URN subfields in MARC21 bibliographic format. He said that what MARBI did was pick up where Discussion Paper 112 left off at Midwinter, MARBI having decided that it would really like to see some specific proposals for defining subfields to record URN’s and URL’s in various fields. Watson said he believed that this was the way this was going to proceed in the future, i.e., network development will take specific proposals from various communities about where they would like to see URN/URL subfields.

Watson explained that if people wanted to do that, they just need to provide MARBI with a justification and examples, and those will be put into a proposal for the subsequent meeting. He noted that for the next round of discussion, those would need to be into network development by the lst of October. He said that there were three areas where such subfields were proposed for this meeting, which MARBI approved, making subfield u available in both the 555 and the 583 fields. He said that MARBI deferred consideration about adding a subfield to the linking entry fields, the 6XX and the 78X fields, for the time being. He added that in approving those two subfields, MARBI “sort of” established two principles that it wants to guide this action and future action.

Watson explained that a single subfield is going to be used for URI’s [inaudible] as opposed to two subfields. He reminded the committee that in the 856 there is a separate subfield for the URN as opposed to the URL. He reported that MARBI had a discussion about URN’s and URL’s, and the clear consensus was that only one subfield was wanted to contain both. He said this would require network development to go back and look at the 856 again, which means that MARBI may be looking at a proposal to perhaps modify the 856 along those lines.

Watson said that the other principle which was going to guide the addition of further subfields of this kind was best read from the proposal document, “as some guidelines are needed for indicating when it should be included in field 856, and when in more specific fields.” He said that “we are going to have a situation now where catalogers are going to have the 856 as an option, but also will have these subfields in other places in the record where they can put it.” He then read the guideline from the proposal: “If the URL is a link to the resource itself that is described in the 245 of the record, then the 856 field should be used. If it is to a related resource that is covered by another field; for example, a link to a finding aid,” – which is what occurred, Watson noted, when MARBI approved subfield u for the 555, – “or a link to an action note,” – which is what occurred, Watson said, when MARBI approved the subfield u for the 583, – “it is used in the specific field.”

Watson concluded by saying that it was stressed at the meeting that this guideline was important to remember and to perhaps even put into the MARC documentation.

659. Agenda item 18 (formerly item 19). Report from the floor, Announcement of next meeting, and Adjournment (Kinney)

Attig said that there was some business in progress from Midwinter, James Agenbroad’s proposal on scripts. He said that they had essentially referred it to CC:AM. Wen-Ling Liu said that they had formed a subcommittee at Midwinter, but that the decision of the subcommittee hadn’t come out. However, she said, four of the six subcommittee members had voted to table this issue.

Kelley said that she could do a surrogate report from the floor, and reported that Don Chatham and two of his colleagues had attended the CCS Executive Committee Meeting the previous day. She said that he had come to respond to their concerns (which had also been articulated by Brian Schottlaender as the JSC’s concerns) involving synchronicity and timeliness of publication of revisions. She said that Chatham had assured them that they had in place plans to both synchronize and to publish in a very timely fashion, i.e., 30 days of approval of a set of amendments, which was very good news. She added that the wonderful news that everybody should take away with them, is that they do have a loose-leaf edition, which they will make available via the Web.

Jizba noted that the loose-leaf edition was just the paper, so that committee members will have to have kept their old notebooks.

Kinney said that he would like to recognize Mitch Turitz for two terms of contributing to the work of CC:DA as a member of our task forces and as Chair of the Task Force on the IFLA Guidelines for OPAC Displays. Kinney said that he would personally like to thank Turitz for his help on Parliamentary procedure, and added that Turitz would be joining the group of distinguished alumni who come back and volunteer as consultants or as task force members, and mentioned that Turitz was on the task force reviewing Hirons’ report.

Kinney then thanked the interns, Shirley Lincicum and Susan Hayes, for “always getting the minutes done well in advance of the meetings.”

Kinney announced that the next meetings would be on January 15th and 17th, in San Antonio, Texas.

Upon a motion by Larsgaard, seconded by Beacom, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Hayes, Intern