Outline

1. Introduction
   1. Acknowledgements
   2. Charge
2. CCC Task Group reports
   1. Reports examined
   2. Summary of findings
3. Paper
4. Recommendations for future consideration
   1. Recommendations summarized
   2. Call for structural review: Recommendation 1
   3. Call to reaffirm support for current channels: Recommendation 2
   4. Call for continuing collaboration with IFLA: Recommendation 3
   5. Call for user-based empirical research: Recommendation 4

Introduction

Acknowledgements

For many hours spent preparing this report, the Task Group would like to acknowledge its members and their institutions: Melinda R. Flannery, Rice University Library; Lynne Howarth, Faculty of Library and Information Science, University of Toronto; Laurel Jizba, Michigan State University Libraries (MSU funded several conference calls, additional to Laurel's time on the final report); Sherry Kelley, Smithsonian Institution Libraries and the UCLA University Research Library; Barbara Tillett, Library of Congress.

Charge to the Task Group, assigned summer, 1995

The charge to the Task Group on The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition, 1988 revision (AACR2R) was adjusted in the summer of 1995 to a more practical, workable assignment, as follows:

1. Review CCC reports to identify recommendations for rule revisions and formulate them to forward to CC:DA and LC for action

2. Develop position papers for PCC related to fundamental principles upon which AACR is based. To start, the Task Group will focus on the principle of cataloging from the item in hand, and how that might change in the electronic environment. Additionally, a position paper on rule revision proposals related to cataloging computer files will be prepared as a model by January 1996.

CCC Task Group reports

Reports examined

To examine how well AACR2Ris serving the contemporary cataloging community, the Task Group on AACR2R reviewed reports of two 1993 CCC Task Groups, in order to find recommend areas for change in AACR2R. The two 1993 Task Group final reports were the report of CCC Task Group 1, "More, Better, Cheaper, Faster" dated 10/29/93, and the report of CCC Task Group 2 "Authorities" dated 10/31/93.

Summary of findings

The two 1993 surveys started with a more extensive focus than simple examination of the cataloging rules; we attempted to find specific rules-based results from their broad framework. After careful analysis of the CCC Task Group recommendations, we concluded that the task of formulating recommendations for rule revisions could not be separated from the larger task of providing substantive, long-term solutions to identified problems in the cataloging rules and the rule revision process. Such a large task is outside of the scope of this group. More specifically, the 1993 Task Group proposals were:

1. Enormous in scope

   Directions for change in the CCC reports were enormous in scope, pervasively broad in their potential effect upon AACR2R, indicative of a huge undertaking. Broader involvement beyond this PCC AACR2R Task Group is needed to research the complex issues raised by the two CCC Task Groups. While it may be said that legitimate issues for further examination of the cataloging rules have arisen from the CCC Task Group studies, the recommendations were either unlinked to specific cataloging rules, or did not incorporate the necessary context of all other related rules and text. Our examination of the reports made it quite clear that a very large portion of AACR2R's text would require weeks or months of rewriting, and even restructuring. Considerably more fine-tuning of both rules-specific cataloging problems and their solutions are needed.

2. Needing further justification

   Broader involvement beyond this PCC AACR2R Task Group is also needed. Impacts on underlying principles would need to be assessed before truly specific rule change proposals could be identified, written, and appropriately finalized for submission. Other kinds of justifications needed which were not sufficiently captured in the CCC Task Group reports include: consistency of the proposed change with related rules, the impact of the proposed change upon existing catalogs and databases, etc.

CCC Task Group 2 "Authorities". This report raises issues that can best be described as amorphous, yet they distinctly point towards structural review as discussed above. There were several instances in the appendix recommending that undefined bodies assume responsibility for revising, maintaining, or otherwise working on some aspect of authority work. We recommend additional work in this area to clarify specific needs, rule changes, and responsibilities, as appropriate.

CCC Task Group 1, "More, Better, Cheaper, Faster". Like the other report, this report obviously indicates that many in the cataloging community really want and need structural improvements in the rules. Of the eight cataloging recommendations, only three were assumed to have at least the potential to be worked into rule revision proposals. Those three recommendations were as follows.

1. Prescribe the chief source of information for the Title and Statement of Responsibility, Etc. area only. In reality this is not a statement about chief source but a clear indication that the concept of works rather than physical items needs to be a focus of the rules.
2. Revise rules (and reduce the LCRI's) governing the Publication, Distribution, Etc. area so that they are less prescriptive as to the form in which information can be recorded.
3. Revise rules (and reduce the LCRI's) governing Notes in the bibliographic record so that they are less prescriptive as to order and phrasing.

After careful review, as stated earlier, we determined these three were also pervasively broad and had such a massive impact upon the structure of the rules that we could not go forward with them as proposals.

Paper. See attached

Recommendations for future consideration

Recommendations summarized

Our recommendations, summarized, are as follows:

Recommendation 1.: We recommend that PCC encourage broad support and involvement across the library community, as well as PCC participation, in an international conference, or series of meetings, on cataloging principles, as appropriate.

Recommendation 2.: We recommend that PCC encourage its members to use existing channels for rule revision.

Recommendation 3.: We recommend that PCC declare support for continuing close alignment between IFLA's ISBDs and AACR2R. If review and reexamination of principles underlying AACR2R lead to structural change in descriptive elements, we recommend PCC encourage support of similar change in the ISBDs.

Recommendation 4.: We recommend that PCC identify user-focused empirical research studies to provide justification for rule revision proposals, perhaps starting with the broad areas identified above, and encourage member libraries and faculty and students in schools of library and information science to conduct the research.

Call for structural review

The members of this PPC AACR2R Task Group very strongly support the need to reexamine the underlying principles in the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition, 1988 revision, through an international conference, or, by other means, as appropriate; a need clearly indicated in the CCC Task Group reports. Reevaluation and realignment of principles and objectives within the framework of a systematic model would form a more solid foundation upon which the cataloging rules can be harmoniously adjusted to accommodate current and future digital resources.

The attached paper from this PCC AACR2R Task Group outlines one cataloging issue currently confronting libraries in the digital age. The paper starts with section 0.24 of AACR2R (which bases description on the physical form, on the item in hand, rather than on the form of the original work), but points to many issues related to electronic resources. As do the CCC reports, this paper poses fundamental questions that point plainly and unmistakably to the need for a systematic, structural reevaluation of the underlying principles of descriptive cataloging.

Recommendation 1.: We recommend that PCC encourage broad support and involvement across the library community, as well as PCC participation, in an international conference, or series of meetings, on cataloging principles, as appropriate.

Call to reaffirm support for current channels

At the same time that this Task Group on AACR2R calls for systematic structural review of the rules, it also supports the current continuous rule change revision process, and the legitimate avenues established by existing national and international review committees and national libraries. It supports the initiation of rule changes by individuals and groups, particularly encouraging the submission of specific, well justified and clearly written proposals to the appropriate bodies. Each country has procedures for submitting rule changes. In the United States, the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) has provided thorough documentation on submitting rule change proposals to CC:DA in its 1995 document "How to Submit A Rule Change Proposal," available through its World Wide Web site.

Furthermore, since the world is populated by both big and small bibliographic communities, and by automated and non-automated systems, we would caution rule revision advocates not to forget to account for the vast variety of venues in which the cataloging code is employed, and that even apparently insignificant tinkering can have substantial consequences elsewhere down the line.

Recommendation 2.: We recommend that PCC encourage its members to use existing channels for rule revision.

Call for continuing collaboration with IFLA

The several IFLA International Standards for Bibliographic Description (ISBDs) serve as an underlying international framework on which AACR2R is based (section 0.22 of AACR2R). Any major structural descriptive changes made to the Anglo-American code must take into account the more encompassing international ISBD descriptive standards. It is important to note that while the governing body for the Anglo-American code is the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC), the governing body of the ISBDs is IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC Core Programme (UBCIM). These two unrelated governing bodies are linked through the common purpose of establishing the same shared principles and standards for descriptive cataloging. Both bodies must be considered if structural descriptive changes to AACR2R are contemplated.

Currently the ISBD (CF) is under a review begun in 1995. The draft ISBD (CF), informed by comments from the international community, and by trial tests of the recent guidelines for cataloging internet resources, interactive multimedia, and multiple versions, proposes changes which can serve as a seed bed for rule change proposals in Chapter 9 of AACR2R. However, because the ISBD (CF) is not a complete cataloging standard (it focuses solely on descriptive rules, excluding access points), and since rampant change continues in the digital environment, simply aligning Chapter 9 with the draft ISBD (CF) will not serve to resolve all electronic resources cataloging standards issues in need of resolution.

Recommendation 3.: We recommend that PCC declare support for continuing close alignment between IFLA's ISBDs and AACR2R. If review and reexamination of principles underlying AACR2R lead to structural change in descriptive elements, we recommend PCC encourage support of similar change in the ISBDs.

Call for user-based empirical research

It is imperative that empirical research be increasingly employed as a basis for informing future discussions on code rethinking, and in determining justifications for rule changes. More specific, user-focused results from the fruits of research must be required in the cataloging code building process. Beyond those areas suggested in our AACR2R Task Group position paper, future areas to be examined in a thorough and systematic fashion, preferably through empirical research, include those originally proposed to this Task Force:

1. The concepts of edition and multiple versions. The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records will help in this area. Both concepts point to a focus on work rather than item, a significant structural change in the rules.

2. Areas of mixed responsibility, especially for non-book materials.

3. The concept of seriality as a publication pattern rather than a format (to be worked on with CONSER).

4. The issue of automated cataloging encoding systems inappropriately driving rule revision, rather than rules driving the automated systems. That is, some in the cataloging community are calling for changes that really relate to local system problems, inadequacies, insufficiencies, etc. Rules and rule revisions are best when they are "system-free". Ideally, rules should not be bent in implementing automated systems.

5. Multilevel descriptions and appropriate methods for displaying, collocating, and indexing such complex descriptions, as they affect both small and large traditional physical collections, and as they affect digital library collections.

6. The relationships between AACR2R, the Dublin Core Elements, and the TEI Header, in order to produce an analytical mapping scheme linking the three, and in order to identify similarities, differences, applications, areas of overlap, and opportunities for joint future developments.

7. The relationship between the ISBDs (the basis for AACR2R description) and the MARC formats (i.e., bibliographic and authorities formats of USMARC, CANMARC, UKMARC, AUSMARC, UNIMARC, etc.), in order to identify similarities, differences, applications, are of overlap, and opportunities for joint future developments. To be worked on with MARC governing bodies such as MARBI.

8. The relationship of AACR2R to ISO and NISO abstracting and indexing standards (i.e., ISO/214 Abstracts, ISO/2788 Monolingual thesauri, ISO/5122 Abstract sheets in serial publications, ISO/5963 Methods for … indexing, etc.) in order to identify similarities, differences, applications, intended audiences, areas of overlap, and opportunities for joint future developments.

9. The relationship of AACR2R to publishing industry standards, (i.e., APA Manual, Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Manual, etc. in relation to both traditional and digital resources (i.e., Li and Crane's Electronic styles, ISO/TC46/SC 9, etc.), in order to identify similarities, differences, applications, intended audiences, areas of overlap, and opportunities for joint future developments.

10. The relationship of AACR2R to the developing PCC Core record standards.

11. The relationship of AACR2R terms used to categorize computer files into GMD, SMD, file characteristics and (other such parts of the descriptive record) -- to terms used in other relevant thesauri or controlled vocabularies for digital materials. This would include examining various classification taxonomies, a term sometimes used in computing for thesauri.

12. Current AACR2R rules for kits (British term is multimedia), in both description and in headings assignment, need reexamination. Rules are disperse, overly concise, so less clear and more complex than necessary. This would include issues of computer controlled media where music, performance, and other art are embedded.

13. The relationship of main entry rules in AACR2R to main entry rules in non-English speaking cataloging codes, as there are conceptual differences in primary authorship concepts.
Recommendation 4.: We recommend that PCC identify user-focused empirical research studies to provide justification for rule revision proposals, perhaps starting with the broad areas identified above, and encourage member libraries and faculty and students in schools of library and information science to conduct the research.