768. Revisions to CC:DA Procedures: Schiff
Schiff reported that at the annual meeting in San Francisco in June 2001, CC:DA considered a proposal by Mary Larsgaard to review and revise How to submit a rule change proposal. At that time Schiff noted that this was another document that didnt really match actual practice, and he was asked to work on Procedures.
In the process of working on the document, he discovered that CC:DA needed to confirm votes taken between meetings. This is an ALCTS policy that CC:DA had not been following.
Schiff stated that he corrected some minor things and updated the text to reflect actual practice.
Schiff went through the document section by section. If there were no changes or discussions of a section it is not listed in the minutes.
Section I. Membership
Arakawa asked about the change to part B; he wondered if the number of interns should be stated as two since the wording one or more seemed fine and there might be a time when three interns were needed. Schiff replied that this is the number of interns that CC:DA has been having, where some committees only have one, and some have none. Lindlan asked if the language should be two or more. Schiff answered that in practice, at least as long as he has been associated with CC:DA, there have been two interns. He added that a single intern would find the duties very onerous. Arakawa replied that he didnt think the current language said that it should only be one and Lindlan agreed. Chopey added that one advantage to Arakawas suggestion would be if two interns continued to be appointed and one of the interns were gone, it would still be an official membership. Schiff answered that that would be fine. It would just have to be institutional memory that the Chair elect of CCS in consultation with the Chair of CC:DA will always have to remember that the plan is for two interns.
Someone asked if Schiff would do a revision to his proposal. Attig stated that he would take notes and it will be decided in the end if Schiff needs to do a revision.
Section II. Officers
Schiff noted that Wilt, who had looked at the document, pointed out that under the circumstances delineated in part A.1 Lindlan could not have been appointed Chair. Schiff stated that was something he missed. II.A.l calls for an appointment from the nine voting members, and Lindlan was an intern when she was appointed Chair. Schiff noted that should be examined and a decision made on whether or not to change it. Attig stated Lindlan was appointed a member of the committee and then named Chair. He did not see this as a conflict. Schiff answered it was a matter of semantics and that it made sense when it was explained that way. He suggested that Lindlan answer Wilts comment about that.
Schiff noted that it had already been pointed out in part B that something needed to be done with the singular and the plural.
Chopey asked if there was really a CC:DA secretary. He thought part B should be eliminated altogether and the interns should be referred to elsewhere. Attig agreed that it should be deleted. He agreed that the interns were not officers as such. He suggested adding under Section I.B The interns shall serve as secretaries. Schiff answered that it sounded like a good idea.
Section V. Agenda
Chopey stated that under part F the word agenda was not capitalized, but it was capitalized every other place. He stated that he was not arguing to make it upper case, he was just pointing out that it was capitalized in other places. Attig stated that he would edit it for consistency.
Chopey stated that under part D. he liked the addition of the (s) to person. He then asked if his/her should be replaced by their. McGarry asked if the document should instead say a designee instead of his/her. She added that would make it simpler. McGarry added that under part G instead of incorporated to it might instead say incorporated into. Schiff answered that was fine.
Mangan asked if in part C should there be a minimum time to have the agenda before the meeting. She suggested two weeks. Schiff answered that two weeks was practically impossible if one wanted the agenda received two weeks prior to the meeting to be the same as the agenda on the day of the meeting. Mangan asked if it could be a preliminary agenda. Schiff answered that the draft or preliminary agenda should be available two weeks prior to the meeting. He also stated that in his experience as Chair he was deluged with agenda changes in the last two weeks before the meeting. Grenci stated that she found the agenda much easier to use because the documents were hot linked on the web. She added that she greatly appreciated that. Glazier added that later in Section IX. Documentation it talked about electronic documents with hot links. He would like to see in the Agenda section the recommendation that the agenda be presented electronically with hot links. Schiff said he would work with Attig and add that.
Section VII. Discussions
Schiff discussed adding part E because more information was needed about the fact that much of the business is done online between meetings. Chopey stated that he had a hard time imagining how this would work in practice, a discussion becoming closed by a vote of two thirds of the members, especially on the electronic list. He stated that currently the members discuss items for a time determined by the Chair. The Chair then calls the question and the discussion is over. He asked if part E says that this is not valid. He also asked if it meant that wasnt valid, if Lindlan wanted to call the question she would have to call for a vote to call the question.
Attig stated that he interpreted it differently. He said he would interpret it as a mechanism in case it was needed, and it was almost never needed. Schiff added that it say may be limited, which allows a voting member to say This has gone on for two weeks and I would like to move that we close the discussion and move on. But the question of how one figures out who is out there in cyberspace responding or not responding is hard. He stated it is hard to know if someone is on vacation, or something like that, so he put in the number of two thirds, or six, votes. Lindlan stated that she thought this was very important. She added that the committee has a huge number of time zones, and she sometimes had a hard time telling if everyone has had enough time to respond. She said sometimes she gives a deadline, but she said sometimes she cant tell if she has given everyone time enough to respond. She stated having a number would help her.
Maxwell asked about the third sentence in part E: All motions, discussions, and votes shall be made via the electronic list. The word shall seems to preclude starting a discussion on the electronic list and continuing it at a meeting. Schiff replied that the intent of the sentence was for all motions to be seen by everyone on the electronic list not just voting members. He stated that it was intended to provide more open sharing of information. Attig added that he would look at this and see if there was a better way to express it. Lindlan asked if they should change it to shall be made public via the electronic list. Schiff answered he didnt think that would make it clear. His understanding of what Maxwell asked about was, if you started something on the electronic list, could it be continued in person at a meeting? Attig replied that they would look at it.
Section VIII. Voting
Schiff stated here he was flying by the seat of his pants. He couldnt find written documentation on this either in ALCTS or ALA guidelines. He asked if VIII was ok, and got nods of yes.
Section IX. Documentation
Schiff stated Chopey had pointed out that in part A a minimum of one month should have been double underscored because it is new. Schiff added that the language should be changed to interns instead of Secretaries.
Chopey added that the last sentence of part B sounded a little clunky. Schiff stated that he would change are to shall be. The line would read: Electronic versions of documentation shall be greatly preferred over print copies.
Section X. Communication of Decisions, etc.
Schiff stated he had added part E about the Chair reporting on the decisions and actions taken by the Committee and the Chair since the last meeting and asked for comments. There were no comments from the committee. Lindlan stated that for this meeting, she would supply a written report after the meeting. In the future, she planned on having it before the meeting, but she said she did not want to have to read through it each time. Schiff answered that it did not say a verbal report had to be done, just that there should be a report. He felt that this was important because so much goes on between meetings on the electronic list. He added that those who are not privy to the electronic list, and who come to a meeting, should be able to know what has gone on between meetings.
As to part C, Whitacre asked if that was how decisions to the JSC were really communicated. She thought the JSC representative did the communicating. Schiff answered that the Chair does inform the JSC representative of ALA policy or decision on a certain matter. He asked if this language would work: The JSC representative in conjunction with the Chair. Whitacre answered that would be better.
Glazier stated that at the beginning of the Saturday meeting there was an affirmation of the electronic votes. He wasnt sure why that was, and if it was necessary. Schiff answered that it was in Section VIII part A. Eden commented Section VIII part A says that for electronic ballots to be valid, a minimum of five voting members must vote. He stated that some of the voting members might be on vacation, and miss the whole discussion. So he thought this was very valuable to have an affirmation of the electronic votes. Schiff answered that he learned the term consent agenda yesterday. He said that was the term some groups were using to consent to decisions made between meetings. Mangan asked if it also meant that the report would get into the minutes. Schiff affirmed the report would get into the minutes.
Maxwell added CC:DA might want to consider doing something with the discussions from the electronic list. Lindlan answered she was planning on writing up a list of all the recommendations, motions, and votes. Attig pointed out that Maxwell was talking about the discussions, and that would be harder. He added that it should be thought about, but not now. Schiff agreed.
Section XI. Parliamentary Procedure
There were not changes in this section, but Lindlan had had some communications with Wilt about this. Lindlan pointed out that CC:DA should be following Sturgis and not Roberts Rules of Order. Schiff stated he had assumed CC:DA had decided to follow Roberts and not Sturgis, and since the Procedures were approved by ALCTS, ALCTS approved of using Roberts. Now it seems that ALCTS is asking CC:DA to use Sturgis.
Section XII. Amendments
Schiff asked if the committee agreed with the changes made in this section. There were nods of approval from the group.
Schiff stated he had added wording to make it clear that correspondence included email. He added that Attig and he would consult on all the changes that had been suggested by the group.
Section VI. Task Forces of CC:DA
There was one proposal made in this section. Originally, there was nothing in the document that said the Chair wrote the charges and deadlines for the task forces, but that is the practice. Schiff added that ALA documents also seemed to support that.
Attig stated that in part D chair was lower case, but not in other places. Attig asked Schiff if that was intended. Schiff answered it is lower case because it is the chair of a CC:DA task force, not the name of a person nor the Chair of CC:DA.
Lindlan asked whether a person needs to be made a consultant if he/she is the chair of a CC:DA task force and moves off CC:DA because his/her term has expired. Schiff stated that this document and ALA policy make it clear he/she did not need to be appointed as a consultant, but he added that he/she could be made a consultant.
McGarry asked about making members singular in part D. Schiff replied it should be singular and there was a line through the s, it was just hard to see.
Schiff discussed the section in general. He was somewhat shocked when he read it initially. The current bylaws say that persons who are not actual members (members of CC:DA means both the voting members and the non-voting representatives or liaisons) may be appointed to task forces, but they are appointed as consultants who do not have voting rights. He doubted if most task forces made a distinction between voting and non-voting members. He added that in the eight years he was on CC:DA he couldnt recall those persons being referred to as consultants. He looked at other ALCTS documents and couldnt find anything similar. He did find a policy that talked about subcommittees and task forces, and appointment of consultants, but nowhere could he find this specific language. Instead of putting a proposal into the document, he wanted to hear from the committee first.
Attig stated when he first got involved there was a distinction between voting members and non-voting members. It was indicated clearly on the rosters the difference between members and consultants. At some point it was realized it made no practical difference, and so the distinction was dropped in the documents. He added that formal votes in task forces happen very seldom, so the distinction between voting and non-voting doesnt really matter. It is just a difference in name that has no practical implication. He thought there was an ALA policy that said CC:DA should do this, and if CC:DA is wrong he doesnt see any reason to do it.
Jizba said that she would like to second that. In the beginning, it depended on the chair, but there was clearly a distinction, and actual discussions about why. She thought they naturally got away from that about 1990, and she personally would welcome the change.
Schiff stated if this is changed it has to go through approval at the CCS and the ALCTS level. So if CC:DA proposes to make a change, and it is wrong, CC:DA will find out about it.
Bruce Johnson added it was his understanding that it has to do with who is eligible to play what role. He stated that a consultant is someone who is not currently on CC:DA and this person is being brought in because of their expertise or their ability to devote time to the issue. He thought it was up to the task force to decide what role the consultant would play. He thought it was unnecessary to speak to whether the consultant is eligible to vote or not, and he thought any task force doing its job properly would come to agreement by consensus and not by vote.
Lindlan added that she considered people who were not CC:DA members to be volunteers, not consultants, and CC:DA is happy to have volunteers.
Schiff stated that he looked at task forces like subcommittees. He stated that the ALA policy manual says that subcommittees are appointed by the chair of the parent committee, but are not limited to members of the parent committee. This is not about consultants, this is about members of a subcommittee drawn from both the membership of the parent as well as people outside, to bring in more participation.
Grenci stated that when one considers a résumé, the term consultant means something different than the term member. She added that considering the number of task forces CC:DA has, she didnt think the role of people outside CC:DA should be limited because it wouldnt be practical. Mangan stated that part of the reason it has gone the way it has is because we have so many consultants. McGarry stated that the idea of a consultant was that they would not really be participating. She thought there could still be consultants, but they wouldnt be ordinary task force members.
Schiff stated that what he thought he was hearing was that non CC:DA members should be regular task force members, not consultants.
Glazier said the way it currently reads the only person who has to be a CC:DA member is the chair. He asked if parts B and C should be merged. Lindlan added that interns were non-voting CC:DA members, but she had served as chair of a task force while she was an intern. Schiff answered that interns have formal appointments to the committee, and are considered non-voting members.
Johnson stated that the current language was written to conform with what were thought to be the ALCTS rules at the time. He suggested Schiff or Lindlan discuss this with Wilt and find out if the current structure is really necessary. Schiff answered that he thought the Chair should do that. Lindlan said she would, and Schiff remarked that he thought that seemed like a reasonable way to proceed. [During the break, Lindlan and Schiff talked to Wilt and clarified a few things in the procedures, so the next draft should include those clarifications].
Quinn asked for clarification. She wondered if volunteers or consultants still have to be members of ALCTS. Schiff answered the ALCTS policy and procedures manual on the appointment of consultants does not say they must be ALCTS members. Quinn replied that she raised this question because on occasion she wanted representation from GPO since they catalog government documents, and they could not serve because they were not members of ALCTS. Schiff repeated that nowhere in the policy does it say they must be ALCTS members, but Lindlan can ask Wilt about that as well. Schiff summarized that Lindlan will ask Wilt if there is any reason to retain the language regarding both the voting participation of outside members as well as if those outside members have to be named consultants, or if they can just be members and whether or not they can vote.
Attig stated that in general we are headed toward a definition that is similar to the ALCTS level for subcommittees. He stated that after listening to all of this, he didnt think he was ready to deal with this. Schiff stated that he and Lindlan will work together and take a first crack at a revision. Chopey added that they needed to clean up the copy.
Schiff thanked the committee. He stated that he was trying to make the document reflect the reality of the way the committee works today.
Lindlan thanked Schiff for taking on this task.
769. Report from the CC:DA Webmaster: Attig
Attig reported he is informally working out a way to deal with liaison reports given at meetings. He is currently posting them on the website before the minutes are out and this gets the reports out faster. He is then adding a link in the minutes instead of actually incorporating the text.
Attig stated that he has been thinking about what to do with completed reports, such as things like the ONIX International report, which CC:DA just accepted. Attig stated that he will now bury that report, that is, take it off the webpage and put it with completed task force reports. He is thinking of starting a new page for those that have permanent interest.
Attig stated since he has been working with the JSC documents, he has been creating and working with style sheets for rule text. He has been using those for proposed revised text. After further consultation with the JSC Chair, he thinks this should be made available to people developing proposals. He added he will find a way to make this available for people to use. Beacom added that if the style sheet templates were available they could be linked to How to make a rule change proposal. That would not only make it a little easier, but it would encourage people to use this. Attig thanked Beacom for the suggestion.
Attig stated that he wanted to take stock of where CC:DA was with document distribution, and to see whether the new procedure of direct distribution of documents from the JSC secretary was working, and whether or not CC:DA could get out of that business. If that is the case, he could free up some server space. He asked if anyone had any experience with the JSC distribution that indicated this would be a problem. There were not any responses.
Lindlan thanked Attig for all his work as Webmaster. She stated that without Attigs support her job would be very difficult and she appreciates him very much.
770. Report from the MARBI Representative: Watson
During the break, Mark Watson distributed the CC:DA MARBI rep report. He stated he found it hard to do justice to everything that MARBI accomplishes during any given conference. He named all the other MARBI representatives in the room and welcomed their comments while he was making his report. At the last meeting, MARBI dealt with nine proposals and seven discussion papers. All the proposals were discussed and decisions made.
Watson raised the idea of a joint meeting in Atlanta for CC:DA and MARBI to discuss the Delseys work on FRBR, AACR, and MARC. Lindlan said this could not happen on Monday afternoon because of a program CC:DA is sponsoring with the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging at that time, although she agreed a joint meeting would be helpful.
771. Proposal to change rule 7.0B, Source of information: McCafferty
Brian McCafferty reported this proposal originated from a long-standing frustration for moving image catalogers. The current rule provides too much latitude in choosing the chief source for the title and statement of responsibility. The latitude the rules allow makes shared cataloging very difficult, and it makes it very difficult to identify whether a record matches the item one is cataloging. McCafferty stated that he wasnt sure what the committee was expecting him to present.
Eden answered that everyone has read the proposal so it should be discussed now. Attig added that it had been discussed by the OLAC Cataloging Policy Committee on Friday night and there was agreement that this proposal does represent best practice for describing this type of material, and there was support for the change. Chopey stated that he liked the idea. He doesnt like the heading for 7.7B3: Source of title proper and transcription. Although he knows what is meant, he wondered if there were a clearer way to indicate what it really means. He thought maybe The source of title proper and basis of description would be better. He wondered if these should be combined or if they should be separate. Chopey asked if the basis of description note should be a new note added and if there was a precedent for this.
Mangan stated she had some of the same problems with this as Chopey did and she didnt understand what this had to do with transcription. The fact that one hasnt viewed the film is not transcription. She also had a problem with combining it in one sentence. She thought it would be better broken apart. One part could be the source of the title proper and then the part that it wasnt viewed. She saw some parallels with the revised chapter 9, with noting when the website was viewed.
Attig asked if the group could discuss specifically whether or not the item has been viewed. He saw this as a different issue that did merit discussion. He thought the precedent for this was the rule in chapter 9 where you acknowledge that you might not be able to view the internal sources. He noted that that rule was no longer in the revised chapter 9 so this proposal is going in the opposite direction of where we have gone with chapter 9. He was a little skeptical about it. He added that it was something that catalogers had to deal with, but he wasnt sure that the rules should acknowledge this practice.
Arakawa stated that he was puzzled and bothered by not bracketing the title when it wasnt viewed. He thought the rationale for that in the introduction was that it was a disservice to the user, but it seemed to him that if the cataloger hasnt viewed the item, this is already a disservice to the user. He realized that sometimes it is impossible to view the item, so bracketing the title would call attention to the fact that it hadnt been viewed. Lindlan stated that if it isnt viewed and the title is taken from somewhere else the source is noted. Arakawa answered that according to the proposal the only chief source is the title screen.
Chopey stated that he saw a parallel to serials cataloging. His suggestion was that if someone doesnt view the item, s/he should make a minimal level record; when someone else comes along later and views it, s/he upgrades the record. As for 7.7B3, Chopey thought it should be higher up in the order of notes given because it is an important detail. He agreed with Mangan about two separate sentences or if it stayed one rule, two separate paragraphs. He thought the first one giving the rule about title proper and the second paragraph about not viewed or description based on. Arakawa asked Chopey if he went along with not bracketing the title if the item wasnt viewed. Chopey answered it would be ok to not bracket the title if the item wasnt viewed. Lorimer stated that it is still coming from a prescribed source even though it is no longer the chief source and prescribed sources do not usually get bracketed.
Attig asked if there was any thought given to doing something like chapter 9 and requiring that the cataloger identify the source of the title proper. He continued that it would not be an optional note, but rather a note that is expected in every case. Lindlan asked if one would still know if one had a different manifestation. Attig answered the possibility is still there, but he thought it was also there with electronic resources. Jizba stated that this was the same as electronic resources. She would argue that there should be parallels with chapter 9. Eden stated that at LC they do not view computer files, and those titles are not bracketed. In his career as a non-print cataloger, Eden rarely saw records with bracketed titles. Eden stated that we should be looking at the broader applicability here, and not just videos. When catalogers are asked to put more information in notes, this takes more time and effort, and as a manager that means more work. He stated that he wanted the correct record as quickly as possible. He also added that many non-print catalogers are cataloging various formats, and keeping all the specific rules in mind is almost impossible.
Jane Johnson stated that she was the chair of the Cataloging and Documentation Committee of the Association of Moving Image Archivists and said that her group had done some surveys. She didnt have the statistics with her, but the vast majority of the archival community do not view the majority of the works in their collections. If they used brackets for unviewed materials, brackets would be everywhere. She stated they did discuss using the note in every case. She added this discussion has been going on for years. She personally would be fine with using the note in every case. She also wanted to remind everyone that this proposal originated with the PCC Core Bibliographic Record for AV Materials Task Force.
Attig stated he didnt think the Committee was ready to edit or approve this. He suggested that it be sent back with comments and ask them to revise and present it at Annual.
772. Proposal on Changes to 26.3A6, Abbreviations: Caldwell
Caldwell began by stating this rule change proposal came out of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards Task Force. She stated there were a number of recommendations that came out of that report. Some of them have resulted in rule interpretations and there are some remaining recommendations for rule interpretations. This proposal deals with abbreviations, 26.3A6 and its corresponding rule interpretation and proposes the rule interpretation be part of the rules rather than a rule interpretation. The task force felt this would be simpler.
Caldwell stated originally the task force was only moving the text about abbreviations and symbols, and the task force was going to get rid of the rule interpretation completely. Then the group realized everyone would be making cross-references from department. Obviously this would not be acceptable, so the wording about abbreviations being represented in Appendix B was added into the new version of the rule. With the new wording in the rule, the rule interpretation could be completely eliminated. She added that there is a typo in the proposal: where it reads if in the catalog abbreviated words are files differently it should read if in the catalog abbreviated words are filed differently.
Chopey had a couple of suggestions for things that should be in boldface and in italics and some that should not be. Attig asked people to send editorial changes to him.
Mangan hadnt heard the statement made about the reference that was made about department. She added that she didnt understand in the impact statement where it said that those would have to be made even though their full form is in Appendix B. Caldwell answered that originally they were only going to include the portion of the rule interpretation that dealt with symbols and the and. Mangan replied that was not what the impact statement said. Caldwell answered the impact statement needed to be rewritten.
Chopey stated he thought the task force was originally going to recommend doing away completely with the LCRI and then if that happened every occurrence of department and corporation would have to be spelled out. Chopey stated that is why the task force did not recommended getting rid of the LCRI. Mangan stated thats the way the rule is proposed, since department and corporation appear in Appendix B, the rule instructs no reference needs to be made. Chopey reiterated that is why the task force is proposing this, and not asking to get rid of the LCRI.
Grenci asked Caldwell if the task force is proposing to get rid of the LCRI and Caldwell replied in the affirmative. Chopey answered that he misunderstood. Caldwell stated there had been so many versions of the proposal, the wrong impact statement was mistakenly inserted.
Schiff stated a report was heard earlier that stated that symbols are not abbreviations, so he had a little problem with including symbols. He suggested that it might be changes to Abbreviations and symbols. He doesnt believe that appendix is capitalized when referred to in the rules. Finally, he checked the headings in the authority file and one of them in the rules does not have a period after St., but in the authority record it does.
Arakawa felt this proposal limits catalogers judgment. In light of the JSC and problems with proposals that limit catalogers judgment, he wondered about the proposals prospects. He asked if this would apply to corporate names that are named in honor of someone, where the practice is often to give the persons initials in the official form of the name. Caldwell answered that was a good question. Arakawa answered that he agreed that simplifying the decision would save some time spent agonizing, but research is still needed to figure out what the abbreviations stood for. Caldwell stated that she would like to defer to Beacom on the first part of the question on catalogers judgment. Beacom stated that he was not sure what the response from the JSC would be. He stated that our British colleagues greatly favor leaving the rules open for catalogers interpretation.
Attig added the JSC has expressed a negative response to the way the United States interprets the code. He stated the JSC theoretically welcomes using the code instead of rule interpretations. He also stated those two are often in conflict, but it is hard to predict what the reaction will be. He would not suggest using that as a reason for not submitting a proposal if the group thinks it is a good revision. Beacom agreed with Attig; CC:DA should not censor or second-guess itself.
Caldwell stated that Arakawa had raised an issue the task force had not covered. She asked if there was anything else the task force had not considered.
Schiff stated he didnt recall any instruction where if the spelled out form isnt known, the spelled out form had to be found and added, particularly for initials in a corporate body. He added that, with the full form of name of a corporate body, there is a rule interpretation that says to provide references through the last name, but not the reverse. He also added the rules say to make a reference when judged to be useful.
Attig stated the most useful or objective part of this proposal is distinguishing between abbreviations and symbols. He added that by not separating that out, but making it clear that although the detailed guidelines may or may not be necessary, making that change would definitely be beneficial.
Caldwell asked Attig if he meant doing that and leaving Appendix B in a rule interpretation. Attig answered one could reject the specific guideline but still make the change to say abbreviations and symbols. He was not suggesting abridgement of the proposal.
Grenci stated her reading of this revision was that it would require the cataloger to research and find the fullest form. She added if that was not the case maybe something should be put in about that. Schiff responded the wording if available could be added. Jizba stated that the phrase that is in AACR quite often is readily available. Paul Weiss suggested when readily apparent or available.
Mangan stated she was a little concerned with the use of the word symbol. The only symbol they use in this proposal is the one that is used for the word and. She asked about other symbols such as the use of a heart for the word love. In title transcription the symbol is described rather than giving its meaning; specifically, heart would be in brackets and not love. The term symbols can be interpreted very broadly, and Mangan is unsure that is the intent. Caldwell answered that the task force included the ampersand example because the ampersand is the symbol most frequently used in a heading itself. She stated other symbols are used most often in transcription. Mangan answered that this was true, but she could also see them in a corporate body that would have to be established. She stated that she just felt uncomfortable using symbol for basically any kind of symbol that could be included in a heading. She stated they have had some strange headings such as a corporate name that started with the symbol for a star and that may happen more, particularly in the .com world. Caldwell replied that she would like to see some examples to incorporate into this. Attig suggested putting a message on the electronic list asking for examples. Maxwell stated that since CC:DA declared mm and cm symbols they could be used for examples. Lorimer asked if superscript and subscript count as symbols. Attig answered no.
Lindlan stated that at this point the proposal will be sent back to the task force to do a little more work.
773. Other new business, reports from the floor, announcement of next meeting, and adjournment: Chair
Lindlan asked for reports and announcements from the floor. There were no responses from the Committee or the audience. Chopey moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and approved. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
Cheri Folkner, CC:DA Intern
Lynnette Fields, CC:DA Intern