June 7, 2002
To: Kristin Lindlan, Chair, CC:DA From: John Attig, Chair Task Force on Consistency across Part I of AACR Subject: Interim Report, June 2002
Also available as an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file
The Task Force on Consistency across Part I of AACR was charged to undertake an editorial review of Part I, proposing revisions to promote consistent language across chapters and to move general rules to Chapter 1. This will be a major undertaking and therefore a large Task Force was appointed. This was done partly to allow the work to be spread out, and partly to assure that there was expertise from each of the formats covered in Part I.
This document is a report of progress to date (mostly organizational matters) and some issues for discussion at Annual 2002. It was written by the chair of the Task Force, based on discussion among Task Force members, but has not been reviewed or approved by the Task Force.
We propose to break down the task by ISBD areas and to submit a separate set of proposals for each area as it is completed.
We decided to begin work on Area 2 (Edition), followed by Area 3 (Material-Specific Details). We had hoped to have both of these area ready for CC:DA to review at the 2002 Annual Conference and forward to JSC for their consideration in September 2002. However, for reasons described below, this has not been possible. We expect to have completed work on Areas 2 and 3 before Midwinter 2003 and to have at least begun work on one or more other areas. JSC has indicated its desire that ALA pursue this aggressively, so that they can benefit from our work in future discussions on the organization of Part I of the code. Despite our slow beginning, we share this desire and will do our best to comply.
In addition, Nathalie Schulz, the JSC Secretary, has compiled a list of the notes made by Tom Delsey in preparing The Logical Structure of AACR, in which he identified a number of inconsistencies of wording.
We anticipate that, in addition to the revision proposals, the other two document will be made available to JSC, so that they can see the basis for our recommendations as well as having a list of what we decided not to revise.
Pro: This provision would explicitly identify comparable rules. It also promotes consistent citation of rules across chapters.
Con: On the other hand, in the recent revision of Chapter 12, JSC decided that it was not worth preserving the attempt at comparable numbering in the notes rules in that chapter. It was also pointed out that maintenance of Part I would be more difficult: adding a rule in Chapter 1 could require changing rule numbers in all the other chapters.
The Task Force is not unanimous in recommending consistent numbering of rules. However, if it is to be done, it should be done now. Or, to put it the other way, we dont want to undertake to propose consistent numbering in any of our proposals without a decision from JSC that this should be done.
In the FRBR landscape, edition is ambiguous; editions are manifestations (although it is not clear that all distinct manifestations are distinct editions), but edition is defined in terms of changes to the underlying intellectual or artistic content, i.e., to changes in expression. There seems to be a move towards using the FRBR entities to organize bibliographic resources, rather than the concept of edition.
However, it is unlikely that we can eliminate the concept of edition completely. Most relevant to the case at hand, the edition statement is an ISBD element; this is (one assumes) because such statements are important identifying elements. Edition statements are used extensively and significantly, if not always consistently, by publishers, and are relied upon by users (particularly literary and historical scholars, although the usage is almost universal). In AACR2, the basic rule for transcribing edition statements asks the cataloger to apply a version of the definition of edition in determining whether a given statement is an edition statement: Transcribe a statement relating to an edition that contains differences from other editions or to a named reissue (2.2B1 abridged). This seems to imply that, before the cataloger transcribes a statement, she tests that statement against a definition to determine whether it is an edition statement. This is the justification for the in case of doubt guidelines and for the rule interpretation that a printing statement should not be transcribed as an edition statement even if it uses a version of the word edition.
The basic instruction in X.2B1 has to be rewritten. As pointed out in 4JSC/ALA/40/LC response, the rule in 1.2B1 is not the same as that in the other chapters. Furthermore, the latter refers to differences from other editions, which implies that you cant transcribe an edition statement for a work existing in only one edition no 1st ed. So the rule has to be changed, and in order to do that, we are having to wrestle with the definition of edition or with the FRBR concepts which may be replacing it. This task is made more difficult by the fact that the proposals to revise AACR to introduce FRBR terminology (4JSC/Chair/76/Chair follow-up) which do contain revisions to these very rules are still being revised and discussed.
It may not be possible to finish with Area 2 until the FRBR discussions have been completed, but we hope that a definite direction will be given by JSC in September and that we can finish our task before Midwinter. We seek advice and insight into these complicated issues, and hope that our discussions in Atlanta will begin to give us some direction.