810. Report from ALCTS 2003 Preconference Planning Committee: Harcourt
Kate Harcourt reported on the 2003 ALCTS preconference Knowledge Without Boundaries
to be held June 19-20, 2003 in Toronto at the annual conference.
This preconference will focus on metadata and will include international speakers.
The speakers and their topics include: Dr. Thomas Baker speaking on Dublin Core,
Dr. Howard Besser on preservation of electronic works,
John Byrum on Library of Congress bibliographic enrichment projects,
Robin Chandler on integrating access to collections and digital content,
Michael Chopey on ONIX, Makx Dekkers on metadata interoperability,
Tom Delsey on adapting AACR2R and MARC to accommodate electronic resources,
Carl Lagoze on metadata harvesting, Ling Mah on metadata applications in Chinese libraries,
Clifford Lynch on metadata at the crossroads, Eric Miller on the Semantic Web,
Steven Jack Miller on metadata standards to organize online electronic resources,
Barbara Tillett on library authority files as building blocks for the Semantic Web,
and Beacher Wiggins speaking on bibliographic control in the new millennium.
Wiggins will give the opening address and Lynch will give the keynote closing speech.
There will be room for 400 people. Additional information will be available on the ALCTS website.
The cost will be $425.00.
811. Report from the Joint CC:DA/MARBI Program Planning Committee for Annual 2003:
Susan Hayes reported on the FRBR program, jointly sponsored by CC:DA and MARBI, to be held in Toronto.
It is scheduled for Sunday, June 22 at 8:30 a.m. The speakers will be Vinod Chachra of VTLS
who will speak on the FRBR-ized OPAC, Barbara Tillett who will explain the basics of FRBR,
Tom Delsey who will speak about FRBR and MARC, and Glenn Patton who will speak on the importance of FRBR.
Hayes stated that the preconference scheduled for Orlando in 2004 is in the preliminary planning stages
and the program is not yet set. It is being planned as a day and a half preconference:
Thursday afternoon and all day Friday. She is hopeful that the speakers from the Toronto FRBR program
will want to repeat or revise their presentations for the preconference.
The task force would like to aim the second day at an audience more knowledgeable about FRBR
and cover some of the applications of FRBR that have been implemented.
She asked that CC:DA members send her recommendations for speakers.
The cost has not yet been determined, but may be $275.
812. Report from ALA Publishing Services:
Donald E. Chatham, Associate Executive Director
Chatham asked for reactions to the 2002 revision. He stated that so far the response has been positive.
The same number of copies for the 2002 revision have been sold
as were sold of the 1998 revision at this point after publication.
Eighty five percent of the sales have been for the binder set.
The first update is targeted for July 2003 and will include a checklist of changes
instead of a summary of changes. The revision pages will have the year of the update in the footer.
The revision package will include the complete page of the change, both recto and verso.
This will be the first year for the revised text block.
The new packet will be called AACR2 2002 revision: 2003 update.
Chatham added that there will be a subscription option;
the entire text-block can be purchased with the updates included, or just the updates can be purchased.
Chatham reported that a meeting took place on Sunday between Marg Stewart, Bob Ewald,
and the indexer at which time they reviewed prior indexes and reports on the JSCs concerns.
The plan is to revise the index each time a new revision is issued.
This revision will be different than just updating; the entire index will be reviewed each year.
Chatham asked if there were questions. Lorimer mentioned that the glue
used to bind the endpapers to the binder was not very good.
Chatham responded he had noticed yesterday that there was a problem with the glue.
He will contact the vendor.
Beacom asked how long the national libraries would have to review the index
given there was not enough time to review the index for the 2002 revisions.
Chatham answered the plan is to have three weeks to do the review.
ALA will publish a schedule for all parties so they will know the expectations.
ALA plans to have the pages ready for the JSC meeting in April. That would make the return time May.
Attig inquired about the target for publishing the 2003 update. Chatham replied July 15.
The plan is to have the updates or revisions published each July.
This requires a change in the JCS schedule, which ALA appreciates.
Sherman Clarke asked if the updates will be available in a PDF file.
Some of the issues are the double-sided pages. Although the plan is to move in that direction,
Chatham did not think the July 2003 update would be available as a PDF file.
Attig added that the tabs should be included with the next text block.
He thought it would be desirable from a users point of view
to have the tabs available with the text block and not just with the binder.
Chatham replied that part of the decision had to do with costs, but he will look into it.
Chatham thanked the national libraries for their understanding with the tight schedule for the index,
and for the thoroughness of their contributions.
813. Rule change proposal from MAGERT: Mangan
Mangan began by stating that this was a minor rule revision resulting
from the editing of Cartographic Materials. The first example under 3.1F1 is missing some words.
The rule revision proposal has the missing words inserted.
Attig moved to approve the revision and Chopey seconded it. The motion passed unanimously.
Mangan then presented the ALA follow-up that some members received on Saturday after the meeting.
This was something that CC:DA approved last summer and it was sent to the JSC.
LC had asked for additional information to be added to the rule. Mangan made the correction to 3.5D1.
A sentence was added directing the cataloger to use a comma to separate statements of dimension
and also how to deal with the word on used in the dimension statement as opposed
to the statement of extent. LC requested a comma to separate dimension statements in 3.5D5.
In its response CCC requested that 1.5D2, 1.10C2, 2.5D4, 4.5D1, 8.5D6, and 10.5D2 be reexamined.
Mangan and Beacom reexamined those rules on Saturday and it appeared they were correct.
Mangan will send Beacom a statement to that effect.
Mangan noted that the two examples following the second paragraph, which are not part of this proposal,
include the sheet size, but are missing the map size.
She would like to add the map size to examples in the rule proposal.
Attig moved to support the proposal with the additions proposed by Mangan. Chopey seconded the motion.
The motion passed.
Mangan ended by noting that the revised edition of Cartographic Materials,
is complete and has gone to ALA for publication. It may be available in Toronto or very soon thereafter.
814. Rule change proposals from Schiff: Schiff
Schiff stated that the proposal for 3.5B3 resulted from atlas cataloging he did over the summer.
Many of the atlases either lacked pagination or had various pagings.
After searching the University of Washington catalog and looking at LC records,
he found the wording of the extent statements for these cases was not consistent.
He thought there should be an example in the rules to show the correct way
to format an extent statement with parentheses and double parentheses.
He chose the example concerning various pagings because it is in the rules.
Mangan stated that the proposal had been discussed at the MAGERT Cataloging and Classification Committee meeting on Sunday and that committee supported the proposal.
She continued that there is an example like it in Cartographic Materials,
but it is important to have it in the rules.
Attig asked if there was a preferred way to format the extent statement.
Mangan answered she thought most catalogers in the U.S. were formatting the extent statement
in the manner proposed. McGarry moved that the Committee accept the proposal.
The motion was seconded by Chopey and passed by the Committee.
Schiff stated that the proposal for the revision and simplification of 12.1E1
resulted from training he is giving on cataloging integrating resources.
In 12.1E1 there are several situations where other title information is included for serial descriptions,
but not necessarily included for integrating resource descriptions.
At several programs he attended it appeared the first situation for serials in 12.1E1
is being applied to integrating resources also.
Schiff believes that all the situations where other title information
is included for serials should apply to integrating resources.
His proposal is to make the treatment of integrating resources and serials more consistent
and to make the situations applicable to all continuing resources.
Schiff reviewed the proposal in detail. The proposal begins by changing the text
to read transcribe or supply other title information
in place of the phrase transcribe other title information
since in one situation other title information is supplied rather than transcribed.
Schiff went through the proposed changes:
- Combined the sections for serials and integrating resources into one rule.
- Situation (i): Added an example of an integrating resource.
- Situation (ii): Added (see 1.1E4) to the end of the instructions.
Removed the example of the serial that has both an acronym and a statement of responsibility
because it belongs in a separate section. Added an example of a website with a statement of responsibility.
- Situation (iii): Added an example of a website with bracketed other title information.
Added text instructing in what order to put an acronym and a statement of responsibility.
Added an example for a homepage.
- Removed the section on integrating resources except for the text
that instructs not to transcribe other title information that consists
solely of words related to the currency.
Added an example of an Internet resource that has words
related to currency that would not be transcribed as other title information.
McGarry moved CC:DA approve the proposed revisions to 12.1E1. Attig seconded the motion.
Kathy Winzer raised issues regarding eliminating integrating resources as a separate section.
She requested time to send the proposal to the law community for comments.
Attig reminded the Committee that comments need to be to the JSC by February 10th
to be considered for the next revision package.
Allgood asked Winzer if she had a sense of the concern in the law community.
Winzer replied that the law community deals with many loose-leaf publications
where subtitles can be important.
There might be eight or nine loose-leaf publications that can be distinguished only by the subtitle.
Schiff stated the intent of the change was to make it clear that the subtitle should be transcribed.
He added that two of the cases are already in 1.1.
Winzer responded that other law catalogers indicated
they would like more time to think about this.
Lindlan asked for a motion to table this until the law community has had a chance to respond.
Attig moved to table the motion until the law community can respond.
Harcourt seconded the motion and the motion to table was carried.
815. Report of the Task Force on the Reconceptualization of Chapter 9: Chopey
Chopey reported that besides Chopey the task force includes Adam Schiff, Jay Weitz, Ann Sandberg-Fox,
Nancy Lorimer, and four British Library catalogers.
The task force met Saturday morning, but the British Library members were not present.
The task force began by working on the scope statement
and will then move on to examining .1 of chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Chapter 4 will be put aside for the moment. The task force also discussed how chapters 10 and 11 fit.
The intent is to make chapter 9 less of a carrier chapter and more of an intellectual content chapter.
The plan is to have graphic materials, cartographic materials, and textual materials
each be described by their respective chapters and to revise the scope note in chapter 9.
The task force is using OCLC guidelines to distinguish between type m for electronic resources
and type a for language materials.
One of the guests at Saturdays meeting stated that CPSO has good guidelines on its website
for distinguishing cartographic electronic resources from other electronic resources,
i.e. when to use type e or m.
Chopey reported that the task force will also look at the list for area 3.
ISBD(ER) has a longer list of examples of types of electronic resources.
If chapter 9 becomes a chapter to describe items like programs and games,
the task force may give more guidance on what would be covered, i.e. online services.
There seems to be confusion on what an online service is.
Chopey was told that the Friday session of the Integrating resources train-the-trainer session
gave a good way of distinguishing an online service;
if one queries the service and gets a unique answer, such as making a plane reservation,
then the website should be a type m and not a type a.
The task force will be looking at defining such things as online services,
or at least including examples of them.
Responsibility for part I chapters have been divided up among ALA members
with the understanding that their British colleagues would decide with which chapters they wanted to help. Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will each be given to a two-person team.
Each team will develop a scope statement for its chapter
while the task force as a whole will develop standardized wording to be used in all the chapters.
The task force will also propose sources of information, and area 5.
The decision on whether to remove the notes and other areas of the description from chapter 9
and add them to the relevant chapters is still under discussion.
Since Chopey is also working on the consistency task force,
he will be monitoring how the work of the reconceptualization task force
fits with the work of the consistency task force.
There has been a suggestion to let chapter 9 operate the same as chapter 2 does for printed materials.
Chopey stated that Lorimer and he have some objections to chapter 2 being used as a super chapter.
Someone cataloging a score would also have to look at chapter 2 just because the score happens to be on paper.
Chopey and other members of the task force have the sense that catalogers want to give a physical description
for remote access electronic resources, especially if they are cataloging a PDF document with pagination.
Chopey wondered if the community is still opposed to saying 1 Internet resource
or 1 website.
Chopey remarked that many institutions do not have a way
to determine the number of online items in their catalogs other than using the fixed fields.
There is an r in the 007 for remote access, but many catalogs cant limit by that value.
The task force is discussing the use of a standard word in the extent statement such as online.
The task force discussed whether the chief source of information for a remotely accessed electronic resource should be the same as the chief source of information for a directly accessed electronic resource.
The task force is considering having chapter 9 instruct that the chief source of information for an item
such as a program or game be the item itself and its labels.
The rules may instruct that the chief source of information for an electronic textual
or cartographic item be the title screen.
There is a problem cataloging textual documents available on the web in multiple formats;
often pagination varies depending on whether the format is HTML or PDF or Word.
Another problem is the issue of reproductions. The British Library does not follow the LCRI for 1.11A.
BL describes the reproduction and not the original. The task force would like AACR to address electronic reproductions, and not the way 1.11A does. Many electronic texts are reproductions.
The task force also considered whether or not three-dimensional items could be electronic.
Schiff will be investigating this issue and will report to the task force so it can consider
whether chapters 10 and 11 should have rules for electronic resources.
Matthew Wise pointed out that three-dimensional games might be interactive video recordings.
Chopey stated that the task force will have an interim written report by March 1, 2003
and a final report by May 15, 2003. Chopey asked for comments or questions.
Woodley stated the intellectual content should be cataloged rather than the carrier.
She agreed with Lorimer and Chopey on the point about a score.
She felt the extent should be in a note because pagination can vary depending
on the type printer used to print a copy of an electronic document.
She also stated that the electronic version of the game Monopoly is very different from the board game Monopoly. Chopey added that games are described by chapter 10.
Mangan pointed out that cartographic materials are an exception when describing reproductions and originals.
For cartographic materials the reproduction is described in the body of the record,
and the original is described in a note.
Attig asked the task force to cover, in the interim report, its plan for chapter 9
and what the plan is for other material that will no longer be in chapter 9.
There needs to be a case made for putting those rules in the individual chapters.
Attig stated that not everyone agrees this is the correct path to take.
He hoped that the charge of the task force didnt mean
that the decision had already been made to do it this way.
At some point CC:DA needs to have that discussion.
Attig would prefer an additional chapter of partial generalities like chapter 11 and 12
that could be used with the content chapters.
The electronic aspects would be consistently dealt with in one place.
Attig feels that the general issue has not yet been decided,
and there needs to be a way to raise that issue for discussion and decision.
He added he hoped that will be done before the task force presents its final report.
Chopey agreed the task force would do that.
Allgood asked if it was the intent of the task force to put things
in different chapters by rearranging the code by area of description.
Chopey answered that it had not been thought of in that way.
Chopey asked Attig if he wants the rules duplicated rather than removing the rules from chapter 9.
Chopey wondered if the rules should be in chapter 1. He added that catalogers need guidance in area 5.
Rule 0.24 does not give guidance on what takes precedence;
it is from chapter 9 that catalogers know not to give a description for electronic resources.
He would like to see an area 5 in each of the intellectual content chapters
for the electronic manifestations of that content.
He asked if it would be better to move rules to chapter 1
instead of leaving them in the separate content chapters.
Chopey wondered if a new chapter was really necessary.
Attig answered the intent was to promote the concept
that more than one chapter is needed to describe electronic resources.
Attig added it was important to include things only once,
whether that be in chapter 1 or in a new chapter and this decision needs to be made.
Chopey answered that he will not assume that this idea has already been approved by CC:DA.
Beacom stated he would like the task force to show the options
and the pros and cons for each option in its interim report.
The result might be that there is not much left in chapter 9.
He is intrigued by the idea of a chapter of partial generalities
to bring out the digital aspect of a resource.
Beacom added that he thought CC:DA was looking to the task force for options and rationales for the options.
816. Report of the Task Force on Consistency across Part 1 of AACR: Attig
Attig reported that the task force met Friday afternoon and in addition to areas 2 and 3
which will be considered now, the task force has almost finished area 6, and will start area 5 soon.
The analysis of area 5 has been completed by Chopey and Lorimer.
The task force hopes to have those for consideration by the annual meeting at Toronto,
as well as beginning on areas 8 and 4. Two areas are particularly involved with other areas:
area 0 and area 7. By the meeting in Toronto the task force will at least have the comparison text prepared.
He is not sure what else will be ready by then.
The task force discussed numbering, and decided to wait
until the members could see how things were breaking down.
Areas 2 and 3 did not require restructuring of the numbering but area 5 may.
The basic charge of the task force is to examine rules across chapters in part I
looking for comparable rules and to determine whether they are consistently stated,
and if they are not, is there justification for the differences.
The task force is looking at consistency, and whether a rule needs to be
in a separate chapter or moved to chapter 1.
There are three documents: the rearranged text; the analysis of consistencies, inconsistencies, and differences; and the revision proposals. At the beginning of each document is a summary and an annotated list of things the task force decided not to address.
Attig asked what kind of a discussion the Committee wanted.
Schiff stated the changes were substantive enough that it would be beneficial to go rule by rule.
There were many editorial and style change suggestions made during the discussion.
These are not reflected in the minutes. The minutes reflect discussion involving substantive changes.
Attig commented on the basic rule for edition statements.
Because there are several revision projects and he was attempting to take account
of the tentative JSC decisions regarding FRBR terminology that reversed item
and manifestation in the proposals, he will revert to the current text
and will note that if changes are made in terminology, the changes should be made in these proposals as well.
Attig commented that all the punctuation rules had been consolidated,
with each chapter referring back to 1.0C.
Attig noted the In case of doubt rule on p. 15
included a substantial revision that was proposed in the CCC response to another proposal.
Schiff thought that the word number should be deleted from the footnote on p. 16.
Attig agreed that it would be easier to remove it.
He thought the suggestion came from the Canadian constituents.
John Hostage thought it should be retained. Attig stated that he would remove it,
and if it was thought to be necessary, it could be added back later in the process.
Schiff pointed out that in 8.2 the examples included full citations,
while none of the examples in the other chapters area 2 include full citations.
Attig stated the examples that are currently in the chapter were simply carried through.
Schiff also stated the first example in 9.2 would be better as Rev. version
instead of Version 7; the intent of the example is to show a different edition.
Attig agreed that since the cataloger is supplying the statement,
the statement wouldnt be as precise as Version 7.
Weiss disagreed, stating that the previous version may have been Version 6.
Schiff reiterated that the point of the example was to show that it was a revised version.
Beacom suggested leaving the example alone.
Attig added that Rev. version is an illustration of 1.2D, a subsequent statement.
Schiff added that [Rev. version] is more in line with what is already there.
Lindlan suggested that it be split into three examples, because they are all helpful examples.
Attig then moved to p. 20, parallel statements.
McGarry asked if this would be the same as with the title being transcribed.
Beacom disagreed. He said the title is needed to show the language of the script.
Attig moved on to the statement of responsibility relating to the edition.
Lorimer questioned using the word work.
She stated that it was easiest for her to talk about 6.2C1.
A sound recording may have 25 to 30 works on it but in this case the proposal is using work
to refer not only a single work but to a collection of works.
She added that this has caused many problems in the music community
and once the cataloging code starts to use FRBR terms
there may be questions and problems on the use of the term work versus a collection of works.
Attig replied that they are both works, and the concept of a collected work is supported in FRBR,
which leaves a situation where the term work might be ambiguous.
Attig felt Lorimers concern should be given further attention, but not as part of this exercise.
Lorimer replied that a sound recording may not be a work.
Attig countered it could be a work composed of works.
The Committee concluded that a work could have many works.
Laurel Jizba stated that this gets to the problem of striving for consistency across all chapters.
There are concepts on top of each other.
It also points to the disconnect between FRBR and the rules as employed right now.
Weiss agreed with Lorimer and suggested the wording all editions of the work being cataloged.
That would indicate not all the tracks of a sound recording,
but at the level the cataloger decided to catalog.
Schiff stated all the things being cataloged are bibliographic resources
so he suggested the phrase of a given resource.
Clarke added that this issue applies to contents notes,
which might be works and have statements of responsibility and may include editions, etc.
Attig said Schiffs suggestion about using bibliographic resource would be workable,
but he wasnt sure if it was conceptually correct.
This is another example of a case where he wished edition didnt have to be used;
it does not fit well with the model.
Before sending this forward, Attig will expand the explanatory section focusing
on what the task force did and the areas of disagreement.
Attig asked if CC:DA would like to use bibliographic resource instead of work. McGarry responded that she disliked introducing another new term
when the direction the rules will take is unclear.
Attig then asked if the phrase work being cataloged would be acceptable.
Schiff answered that the word resource is being used in chapter 9 already.
Attig stated that he wasnt hearing consensus and suggested leaving it in the proposal
as is with an indication that there was significant disagreement and the characterization of the disagreement. The problem is CC:DA is not speaking clearly and that will make it difficult for the JSC.
Beacom answered that Attigs suggestion was acceptable
and the term would be brought out in the cover letter.
The discussion then moved to p. 26, statements relating to named revisions of an edition.
Attig asked if all the examples that have the title proper should be removed or left as a group.
The consensus was to leave the examples as a group.
Hostage stated that on p. 27 the original rule used the term reissue
and not revision as is used in the proposal.
Attig answered that the term revision was probably not appropriate,
and he wasnt sure why the task force made that suggestion.
Clarke replied the point was that it was a named reissue that was revised.
After some discussion Clarke suggested the term named reissue.
Attig answered that the term occurs in all the chapters,
and he asked if the Committee was in favor of the suggestion.
It was and Attig said he would make the change.
Schiff had some general comments on area 3, especially referring from 9.3 to 12.3.
He thought there should be a rule on change and extent of resource.
Attig replied the task force had tried not to meddle with area 3 of chapter 9.
He added that the problem would be solved when area 3 was taken out of chapter 9.
Schiff asked when that was going to happen, and he just wanted to raise the issue.
Attig stated that by the time these rule revision proposals were implemented,
area 3 in chapter 9 would be gone, but he didnt feel it could be removed yet.
Schiff stated that area 3 for chapter 3 and chapter 12 for geospatial cartographic materials
when a scale statement changes could be significant.
He added that there were no rules in chapter 12 for the other area 3.
Attig replied that this was too big of an issue for this time.
Attig felt that if it turned out to be a need, it should come forward separately.
Mangan stated that as far as scale is concerned, she didnt think it would be an issue
because general instructions are included already.
Attig explained the proposed changes in numbering for area 3.
Attig pointed out the general rule 0.25 about how to apply area 3.
David Van Hoy stated that in 3.3G1, the last example is the only example
that reads Scales differ and he would hate to lose that example.
Schiff suggested that it could be moved to chapter 1.
Attig asked if there were any other examples that stated Scales differ.
Mangan stated that it was in the rules and not in the examples.
After a discussion on moving the examples to 3.3A1, the Committee decided to move them to 1.3A1.
Schiff pointed out an error in the revision package 1.3A1.
Mangan agreed 1966 was a typo and it should be 1996.
Attig then asked how the Committee would like to proceed with the document.
Lindlan responded she would like to see a revised copy.
Attig reminded the Committee how little time it had.
Beacom stated that because there were not significant changes,
he would like to have it approved at todays meeting.
Attig moved to approve the revisions to areas 2 and 3 as amended in the discussion.
The motion was seconded by Chopey and approved.
817. Report from CC:DA Webmaster: Attig
Attig reported that he will be setting up a section for FRBR with a link to the IFLA site.
He also reported the ALA website redesign has resulted in a complete redesign of the ALCTS webpage.
Also ALA has implemented a new management system that will impact how the website is maintained.
At the moment Attig does not have time to retool the entire CC:DA website.
The official site is now on the Pennsylvania State University server.
Attig will notify the Committee when the CC:DA website is again on the ALA server.
Beacom asked if someone needed to let ALCTS know that CC:DA cannot do its work on the ALA website
and will have to establish its own website. Attig replied that once ALCTS catches up it will be okay.
He will keep the Committee posted.
818. Report from the MARBI Representative: Allgood
Allgood distributed his report and reported that MARBI had a light agenda for this conference.
He will include discussion from CC:DA in his final report.
At the last meeting MARBI dealt with two proposals and three discussion papers.
All the proposals were discussed and decisions made.
Allgood will submit a more detailed report to CC:DA after this conference.
819. Other new business, reports from the floor, announcement of next meeting, and adjournment
Attig stated that as CC:DA continues to work on the implications of FRBR,
there will be an increased emphasis on relationships.
For persons and corporate bodies catalogers have relied on the entire description to indicate the relationship, instead of indicating the relationship in the heading.
He thought it would be worthwhile to explore 21.0D, designation of function, which is an optional rule.
It lists four types of functions: compiler, editor, translator, and illustrator.
There is an LCRI instructing not to apply this option, except for illustrators in certain types of records.
Attig suggested that the LCRI could be changed.
Attig has spoken to Tillett about this, and she indicated that
LC would like to hear from catalogers on this issue.
Attig added that the rule might not be sufficient for what is really needed.
CC:DA might want to propose different relator terms or a different use of relator terms.
If CC:DA wants to investigate this subject, he suggested a task force would be the best way to proceed.
Peter Fletcher asked what the benefit of having relator terms in headings would be.
Weiss stated that at a meeting he attended on Friday, there was a discussion on the work
being done on FRBR by OCLC and VTLS;
it was mentioned that those added entries that had relator terms helped with the grouping of expressions.
Attig added that relator terms help with retrieval. The terms distinguish people in different roles.
Having the terms in the heading means the vocabulary can be controlled.
Allgood commented that CONSER does not use relator terms.
He wondered if maybe CONSER should rethink that decision, because relator terms are critical for retrieval. Clarke stated that this is an example of descriptive needs clashing with retrieval and access needs.
Weiss added that often the relationships are not one-to-one; for example, Bernstein could be the composer
and the conductor and even a performer all in the same record.
Sound recordings with multiple pieces also present a problem.
Weiss wondered how the relationship would be indicated between some of the performers
to one work or one performer to multiple works.
Beacom added that with the creation of a new edition of AACR,
there is a movement toward creating a catalog instead of creating a catalog record.
Being more explicit with using relator terms will help catalogers make better relationships within the catalog. Martha Yee stated that catalogers already add relator terms, but are not always consistent in their use.
She added that in the UCLA Film and Television Archive’s catalog about 15 entries
for Charlie Chaplin are displayed, because he was a director, actor, etc. and different relator terms
have been used. Woodley said catalogers should be looking at being able to show clusters,
and the relator terms would help the clustering aspect so different kinds of groupings could be displayed.
Arakawa asked Attig how he thought the rule could be improved.
Attig answered that he wanted to have more categories for which relator terms are appropriate.
There are performers of various types that are not covered very well.
He stated that this really is a chapter 21 issue.
He asked if this should be part of the charge of the chapter 21 revision
or if it should be pursued separately by ALA.
Beacom answered that this specific element has not been noted in the charge
and investigating it would not preclude anything that has already been done.
This task could be added to the charge of the chapter 21 revision task force,
or it could be pursued independently. Beacom thought either approach would work.
Attig asked if CC:DA was interested.
Tillett thought it would be helpful to have a strong stance from CC:DA, one way or the other.
LC stopped using relator terms because of budget cuts.
This was a decision made by managers, and they would need very strong justification to bring it back again.
LC would also be interested in hearing from PCC.
In light of what Tillett stated, Beacom encouraged CC:DA to pursue this issue independently
from the larger revision of chapter 21. This could be folded into the chapter 21 revision later.
It would help the JSC and the other constituencies to see where ALA is headed.
This may be a way of changing the opinion of managers and showing there is value in the extra work.
Schiff commented that there are two ways to indicate relationships in MARC,
by relator terms and by relator codes. The task force could look at the ways
to indicate the relationships in MARC and it may not require a change in the rules.
Attig moved to establish a task force to look at the question of relator information.
The motion was seconded by Chopey. Jay Weitz asked if the task force should be formed jointly with MARBI
since the relationships can be indicated within MARC.
Attig answered that he thought MARBI would be interested only if it required new codes.
Attig preferred to start by looking at the cataloging rules or at least catalog display considerations.
Weitz stated that he wanted to make sure that this involves coding.
An audience member said that catalogers should think of other ways to accomplish the goal,
not just using relator terms, but by sorting in clusters. The motion was approved unanimously.
Lindlan asked people who were interested in working on this new task force to contact her by e-mail.
Lindlan stated that the next meeting will be in Toronto,
and the Monday meeting will probably have the usual 8:00 a.m. starting time.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Cheri Folkner, CC:DA Intern
Lynnette Fields, CC:DA Intern