Task Force on Consistency across Part I of AACR2

CC:DA/TF/Consistency/1/Draft

January 10, 2002

Background

In the ALA response to the Alpha Prototype of a Reorganized Part I of AACR (4JSC/Chair/75/ALA response, Sept. 12, 2001), ALA offered to undertake a major editorial review of the rules in Part I. The Alpha Prototype graphically illustrated the extent to which rules are identical across chapters in Part I and, conversely, the extent to which there are inconsistencies and discrepancies. Similar inconsistencies had been identified by Tom Delsey in The Logical Structure of AACR Part I. The ALA response suggested that we examine the rules in detail and reconcile unnecessary differences in wording, that we look for cases in which a general rule in Chapter 1 would be appropriate, and finally to survey what specific rules existed for what categories of content, carrier and publication pattern.

JSC (see 4JSC/M/441.9 & 10) asked ALA to undertake this work. They further asked that we present specific proposals (not discussion papers) and that we document cases in which we decided that the inconsistency or discrepancy was justified. Understanding that this is a massive project, they asked us to submit revision proposals as parts of the job are completed; they agreed with the suggestion that grouping proposals by ISBD area would be a good way to proceed.

It should be understood that this is a nuts-and-bolts editorial task, not a creative one. Task Force members with editorial skills will be valuable, as will those familiar with the various chapters in Part I.

Draft Charge

The Task Force on Consistency across Part I of AACR2 is charged to undertake an editorial review of Part I. Specifically,

Using the Alpha Prototype of a Reorganized Part I of AACR and The Logical Structure of AACR Part I, as well as the text of Part I of AACR2,

1. identify inconsistencies of wording across chapters and prepare revisions to resolve the inconsistencies;
2. determine how many specific rules exist for particular classes of content or carrier or publication pattern; decide whether any of these specific rules should be given in general form in Chapter 1 and prepare revisions in such cases; note which rules should not be generalized and give a brief rationale for this decision.

Revision proposals should be submitted as parts of the project are completed; it is suggested that all proposals for a particular ISBD area of the description be submitted together.

The Task Force will submit progress reports at each CC:DA Annual and Midwinter Meeting beginning with Annual 2002, and will continue to work until the project has been completed. Proposals shall be submitted to the Chair of CC:DA prior to the CC:DA meeting according to the schedule outlined in the CC:DA Procedures.