Minutes of the meeting held in Chicago, IL
June 24 and 26, 1995
Frank E. Sadowski, Jr., Chair
Nancy A. Davey
Lynne C. Howarth
Jo Lynne Byrd, Intern
Patrick J. Stevens, Intern
Ex-officio representatives (those present are named)
Janet Swan Hill, JSC
Barbara Tillett, LC
Glenn Patton, OCLC
Ed Glazier, RLG
ALA Liaisons (those present are named):
Jean Hudgins (Saturday only), ALCTS/AS
Eric Childress, ALCTS/AV
James Maccafferri, ALCTS/CCS/CC:AAM
Matthew Wise, ALCTS/CMDS
Cecilia Sercan, ALCTS/PARS
Jean Altschuler, ALCTS/SS
Victoria Mills (Saturday only), ALCTS/TSM
Catherine Gerhart, ALCTS/LITA/RASD/MARBI
Marie Morgan (Saturday only), ALA/ACRL
Rhonda Marker, ALA/GODORT
Laurel Jizba, ALA/IRRT
Brad Eden, ALA/LITA
Elizabeth Mangan, ALA/MAGERT
Margaret Shen (Saturday only), ALA/PLA
Noelle Van Pulis, ALA/RASD
Sherry Kelley, ALCTS/SRRT
Non ALA Liaisons (those present are named):
Ann Sitkin, AALL
Daniel Starr, ARLIS/NA
Daniel Kinney, ARSC
Sally Berlowitz, ATLA
Lauretta McCuster (for Tina-Karen Forman), CLA
Patricia Vanderberg, IASSIST
Steve Squires, MedLA
Philip Schreur, MusLA
Adam Schiff, SLA
- The minutes do not necessarily record discussion in the order in which it occurred. Material has been rearranged to increase comprehension and to collocate items related to specific topics for clarity.
- Due to background noise, inconsistent use of microphones, etc., tapes of the meetings are of variable quality. The secretary regrets any loss of detail.
- In CC:DA minutes, a "vote of the Committee" indicates a poll of those Committee members appointed in their own right rather than those representatives of a particular constituency. These votes are a formal representation of Committee views. The Chair rarely votes except to break a tie. The term "straw vote" indicates a poll of the ALA and other organizational representatives to CC:DA who are present. Such voted are advisory and are not binding upon the Committee. Where no vote totals are recorded, but a CC:DA position is stated, the position has been determined by consensus.
- In CC:DA minutes, the term "members" is used to apply to both voting and non-voting appointees to the Committee. Where a distinction is necessary, the terms "voting members" and "representatives" are used.
- Abbreviations used in these minutes include:
AACR2R = Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, 1988 revision
AALL = American Association of Law Libraries
ALCTS = Association of Library Collections and Technical Services
ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ASIS = American Society for Information Science
CC:AAM = Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials
CCC = Canadian Committee on Cataloguing
CCS = ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section
CPSO = Library of Congress, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
IFLA = International Federation of Library Associations
ISBD = International Standard for Bibliographic Description
JSC = Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR
LC = Library of Congress
MARC = Machine-Readable Cataloging
MLA = Music Library Association
NISO = National Information Standards Organization
PCC = Program for Cooperative Cataloging
RLG = Research Libraries Group
SAC = Subject Analysis Committee
SGML = Standard Generalized Markup Language
TEI = Text Encoding Initiative
URL = Universal Resource Locator
Saturday, June 24, 1995, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.**
475. Agenda item 1. Welcome and opening remarks (Chair)
The first meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 2:00 p.m. in the McCormick Convention Center, Room E353A. The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming Committee members and audience observers. The roster was circulated to the Committee, and an attendance sheet to the audience.
476. Agenda item 2. Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives (Group)
The Chair, voting members, liaisons, and representatives introduced themselves.
477. Agenda item 3. Adoption of agenda (Chair)
The agenda was unanimously adopted.
478. Agenda item 4. Correction and approval of minutes of meetings held at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, February 4 and 6, 1995 (Chair)
The minutes were unanimously approved.
479. Agenda item 5. Report from the Chair (Chair)
The Chair reported receiving numerous communications from NISO, including several proposed standards for review. Two task forces were formed to review two of the proposed standards; Ingrid Mifflin would report on these task forces later in the meeting. The Chair also received the proposed Z39.57 (Holdings Statements for Non-Serial Items), on which he voted to Abstain, as being outside CC:DA's scope, and the proposed Z39.64 (East Asian Character Code for Bibliographic Use). The Chair felt that the latter proposal was also outside of CC:DA's scope, but he referred the proposal to CC:AAM for input. However, he received no response from CC:AAM before the deadline, and therefore did not vote.
NISO additionally sent a proposal to establish a new committee to draft a national standard for title pages of conference proceedings. The Chair polled the members on the CC:DA list, and as a result, voted Yes to this proposal.
The Chair received a memo from NISO on the disposition of CC:DA's comments on Z39.18. The Chair noted that only some of CC:DA's comments had been accepted, and that he had a copy of the NISO memo with him for interested committee members to examine.
The Chair saw a summary report from the ISBD(CF) Review Group, and believes that it contains some issues which CC:DA would be interested in addressing. The Chair asked Laurel Jizba and Ann Fox to speak about the report at CC:DA's Monday meeting.
The Chair received a communication from Johanna Bowen inquiring about the public availability of CC:DA's agenda and minutes. The Chair feeling that the dissemination of this information needs to be addressed, and put this discussion on the agenda for the Monday meeting.
480. Agenda item 6. Old business: Proposal to form a task force to investigate the cataloging of videorecordings that include musical elements (Young/Schreur)
Young summarized the three areas he had included in the draft charge: achievement of a better consensus about the current handling of music videorecordings within the framework of the code; identification of deeper issues so as not to make recommendations in isolation for music videorecordings; and extension of the discussion beyond main entry to look at the added entries for this material.
Schreur observed that he did not receive the draft early enough to consult with his subcommittee, and commented that dealing with the rules as they are currently written was an important point in the charge. He noted that he found himself persuaded by Yee's e-mail to CC:DA, and felt that we should look at the entire issue of works which are meant to be performed.
Yee stated that although she would like to see the issues discussed at a broader level, she was reluctant to ask a task force to tackle something of a magnitude that the cataloging community may not be willing to deal with at this time.
Schreur emphasized that the main issue is that catalogers are currently confused by the rules and are treating these materials in two different ways, and that guidance in interpretation is needed. Childress reminded CC:DA that the ALCTS-AV Committee had devoted a task force to this topic, and that the task force had come up with a definitive declaration: title main entry.
Much discussion followed. Hill suggested that the larger issue should be referred to the JSC, as a topic to be discussed at the conference of cataloging experts proposed for 1997. She observed that since CC:DA had identified the entry of music video-recordings as part of a larger problem, it would be disingenuous to submit a rule revision proposal which pertained only to music videorecordings. Hill noted also that any rule revisions on this topic would probably not be dealt with until after the 1997 conference. Young added that he felt it would be impossible to deal with the music videorecording issue in isolation. Speaking from the audience, Bruce Johnson entreated CC:DA not to avoid tackling the issue because of the difficulty.
Schreur urged CC:DA not to lose sight of the present, and reiterated that catalogers need to know what the rules say now. Yee asked for clarification as to where the confusion lies, and wondered whether the problem is with the definition of sound recordings -- do some catalogers feel that videorecordings can be sound recordings? Swanekamp referred to the tradition of special practices for sound recordings, and explained that many music catalogers believe that the rules allow them to enter music videorecordings as sound recordings. Schreur called attention to a paper by Grace Fitzgerald which details this rationale, and cites specific relevant rules.
The Chair interjected that two separate aspects of the problem seemed to be getting mixed up. He suggested a task force be formed to interpret the current rules, and that as a separate action, a position paper be prepared for the JSC on the larger issues. Hill observed that CC:DA has not previously been in the business of interpreting the rules. The Chair noted that he was cognizant of this, and was somewhat reluctant to form a task force for interpretation purposes. Fiegen suggested that it is CC:DA's role to recommend solutions to problems, and read from the description of CC:DA's function in the ALA Handbook of Organization: "
to recommend solutions to problems relating not only to bibliographic description, but also to choice and form of access points, other than subject access.
The Chair called for a straw poll of the voting members to determine how many feel that AACR2, as currently written, calls for title main entry of videorecordings containing musical elements. The result of the poll was 7 members agreed that AACR2 calls for title main entry, 1 member abstained.
Yee recommended going back to Hill's earlier suggestion, and creating a task force to write a position paper for the JSC on the problems pertaining to the rules for mixed authorship, which would observing that the music problem is just the tip of the iceberg, and cannot really be separated from the rest of the rules.
Glazier reminded CC:DA that this action would still not address the problem brought to CC:DA, i.e., what the rules currently say. Hill wondered whether music catalogers would accept CC:DA's opinion were a CC:DA task force to come to the same conclusion as ALCTS-AV did. Schreur responded that the music catalogers had asked the question. Hill said that a task force would then be worthwhile.
The Chair summarized the options which had emerged. The first was to refer the matter back to the music catalogers, and tell them to come back to CC:DA with a proposal. The other option was to form a task force with three purposes: to look at the rules and decide what they say, to identify the deeper problems with the rules which lead to the present confusion, and to prepare a position paper for the JSC on these larger issues.
Brian Schottlaender, speaking from the audience, observed that there is already an agency which spends a considerable amount of time interpreting the rules, and that CC:DA should not begin competing. He further suggested that the Music Library Association should decide what the rules say, and that if MLA then does not like what the rules say, they should submit rule revision proposals. Gerhart and Schreur responded that MLA had been unable to come to any agreement as to what the rules say after several years of discussion, and that this issue had not been brought before CC:DA lightly. Schottlaender inquired as to whether this issue had been brought to MLA's Bibliographic Control Committee, or to LC, for an interpretation. Schreur replied that if the rules can be interpreted in various ways then there is a problem with the rules which goes beyond simply letting LC decide; the issue seems broader than just LC. Further, he noted that MLA's Bibliographic Control Committee is an administrative group, and does not make rule interpretations. Schottlaender expressed his opinion that it would still be worthwhile to ask LC for a rule interpretation, even if only to be told that LC did not wish to interpret the rule.
Kelley suggested asking the members of CC:DA whether they wished to refer the matter back to MLA, or whether the members felt it appropriate for CC:DA to interpret the rules. The Chair called for a straw poll to determine whether CC:DA felt the issue should be referred back to MLA. The result of the straw poll was no voting members of CC:DA were in favor of referring the issue back to MLA. In a separate poll of non-voting members, 5 were in favor of referring the issue back to MLA. The Chair conducted a second straw poll as to whether a task force should be formed. The result of this poll was 6 voting members in favor. In a separate poll of non-voting members, there was general support for forming a task force.
The Chair said that the charge to the task force might be close to the charge drafted by Young. Yee asked for clarification, feeling that the discussion had moved far beyond Young's draft charge. Swanekamp proposed that one task force quickly address the specific issue of what the rules currently say about entry of music video-recordings, and that a second task force look at the larger issues and then ultimately prepare a position paper for the JSC. Hill endorsed this approach, and there was general agreement of the members to forming two task forces.
Swanekamp moved that CC:DA form a task force on cataloging music moving image materials. Howarth seconded the motion. The result of the vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed.
Young moved that CC:DA form a task force on the cataloging of works intended for performance. Mifflin seconded the motion. The result of the vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed.
Yee asked about the charges to these task forces. The Chair said that he, in concert with the incoming Chair, would draft the charges, and then seek comments from the members via the mail reflector.
481. Agenda item 7. Report from the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee (Hill)
Hill reflected on the number of CC:DA meetings she had attended as JSC representative, and reported that Brian Schottlaender would be her replacement. Schottlaender attended the recent JSC meeting at Leeds to get a feel for the way the JSC functions.
Hill noted that she had previously sent CC:DA, via the mail reflector, a review of the actions taken at the JSC meeting. She then summarized highlights of the actions taken.
The JSC approved ALA/19 (illustrations) as an "optionally" rule. Hill agreed to this.
The Australians withdrew AUS/1 (technical specifications for videorecordings) when it became obvious that larger issues about technical specifications in general would have to be dealt with first.
The Canadians will be producing a clean copy of ALA/22 (chief source of information for computer files) for the JSC to react to at its next meeting.
LC agreed to put together another version of AUS/6 (terms for computer memory) along the lines of rule 3.3A2 to attempt to explain how these should be presented.
It became clear that the JSC would not be able to come to a decision on ALA/23 (mode of access to Internet resources), largely because the British Library had second thoughts about standardizing the note. There was also some discussion within the JSC as to whether the resource address was analogous to call number/location type information. This proposal is now officially dead.
Hill reported that there had been considerable discussion at the JSC meeting on the topic of interactive multimedia. More than one JSC member was distressed that ALA had published guidelines for cataloging interactive multimedia, and that these guidelines were being generally used, without any rule revisions being proposed to the JSC. There was unhappiness within the JSC over the term "interactive multimedia" itself. Some JSC members also observed that ALA has resources, which other JSC members do not have, to produce guidelines which, because they are published, appear official. Hill noted to CC:DA the need to remind ourselves that the guidelines are only an interim measure.
LC/20 (deletion of 21.1B4) was approved.
ALA/20 (cross references for legal documents) was deferred, because the document did not arrive in time for all JSC members to take the document to their constituent bodies.
ALA needs to produce a clean copy of ALA/11 ("work" in connection with music uniform titles) before the JSC will take action. Hill said she would finalize this document.
The Library Association has made a counterproposal to ALA/26 (key and mode). Hill stated that Schreur has since produced 3JSC/ALA/26/LA response/Mus LA response as a rebuttal to this counterproposal, copies of which were distributed to CC:DA, and invited Schreur to discuss the MLA response.
Schreur observed that MLA feels that the Library Association has crystallized and combined into one proposal everything that was bad in both the AACR2 rules under discussion. Schreur asserted that combining the two rules into one makes the instructions too complicated. The MLA still supports their original proposal, but with a substitution of another example to replace the Reizenstein example. Hill stated that if CC:DA supported the new MLA proposal, it would be a simple thing to take forward. The Chair queried CC:DA, and there was general agreement to support the new MLA proposal.
ALA/28 (open and closed ellipses) was the last of the ellipses proposals. The JSC felt it was not important enough to make this change to the rules.
Hill reported on the discussion of ALA/24 (interactive multimedia), noting CCC concern about the GMD coming into general use when the ISBD(CF) Working Group has rejected the term, and the fact that LC was not using the term. Childress interjected that LC is using "interactive multimedia," and is following ALA's Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Interactive Multimedia.
Tillett subsequently clarified LC's position. The ISBD(CF) Working Group felt that they could come up with no better alternative than "computer file" for a GMD. LC is currently using "interactive multimedia" as a GMD because LC is trying to use the ALA guidelines and provide feedback. However, if the final ISBD(CF) countenances only "computer file," then ultimately that is the term which LC will use.
Watson inquired about the "mode of access" note, observing that such a note is being used in OCLC's Internet cataloging project. Hill responded that the proposal for an official standardized note is dead, but that catalogers are still free to make such notes. Tillett observed that LC is reviewing the idea of whether to use a specific URL in that note, since the URL is so changeable, and noted that a URN, if and when the URN becomes standard, may be more appropriate. LC's current thinking (though it could change) is that the URL may belong in an 856 field because this information is a specific location at a point in time (analogous to a call number), and is subject to change. LC may propose a rule interpretation for a standard form of "mode of access" note, since the JSC decided not to add such a note to the rules. LC is still considering this and would appreciate comments on the idea.
Hill reported that she believed that the CCC would be following up on the unresolved portions of AUS/8 (closed-captioned), but that she would not be sure until the JSC minutes were issued. If not, CC:DA might wish to pursue this later.
Hill referred to the dispute as to whether Portugal had actually signed the treaty referred to in the example in ALA/20. Sitkin asked whether AALL should look at the questions raised about the examples in the British Library response. CC:DA agreed, and asked Sitkin for AALL to accomplish this before the ALA Midwinter meetings.
Hill reported on the status of the JSC proposal for a conference of cataloging experts. The Committee of Principals had not met or acted on the original proposal, so the JSC has created a more detailed proposal to help the process along, and mapped out a strategy to get each of the Principals to respond. Hill emphasized that the JSC has not taken a position that the rules need revamping, and that the JSC is looking to the proposed conference to determine this.
482. Agenda item 8. Report of the Task Force to Review Proposed NISO standard Z39.74-199X (Guides to Microform Sets) and Report of the Task Force to Review Proposed NISO standard Z39.32-199X (Information on Microfiche Headers) (Mifflin)
Mifflin reported that the Task Force to Review Proposed NISO standard Z39.74 was composed of herself, Lynne Howarth, and Cecilia Sercan. The Task Force felt that the standard was good, useful, and complete, but could be written more clearly in places. They recommended a vote of Yes, with comments.
The Task Force to Review Proposed NISO standard Z39.32 was composed of Mifflin, Marie Morgan, Ann Sitkin, and Cecilia Sercan. This group recommended that the AACR2 definitions for microform series and microform collections be used, and that the sequencing order should follow the order in AACR2. They made some other comments pertaining to clarity, but recommended a vote of Yes, with comments.
483. Agenda item 9. Report from the Task Force on Communication and Outreach (Fiegen)
Fiegen acknowledged those who had served with her on the Task Force: Laurel Jizba, Lee Leighton, Marion Matters, Karen Meisner, and Mark Watson. Fiegen asked for any comments on the revised CC:DA pamphlet (CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/6/rev.) other than the three typographical errors which had been noted by the Chair. No other comments were offered. The Chair called for a vote on accepting and forwarding the pamphlet to ALA Publishing. The vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed.
Fiegen then asked for any comments on the guidelines "How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA" (CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/7/rev.). The Chair observed that the disposition of this document could be folded into the discussion about distribution.
Fiegen stated that the Task Force was asking CC:DA's support for the proposed methods of distribution outlined in CC:DA/TF/Communication and Outreach/9. The Task Force envisioned extensive electronic and paper distribution. In particular, the Task Force would like to see the pamphlet and guidelines distributed to all library cataloging departments on the ALA mailing list. The Task Force would also like these documents to appear at the ALCTS booth on a regular basis, and to be distributed by each CC:DA liaison to their own respective associations. Fiegen asked for any discussion on this approach to distribution.
Mills questioned the desirability of sending the guidelines document to every cataloging department, due to its size. She felt that most recipients would simply discard the document, and that knowing where to obtain the document when needed would be adequate. Watson and Fiegen noted that they had also considered publishing the guidelines in the ALA Handbook or the ALCTS Newsletter. Sadowski endorsed the ALCTS Newsletter approach. Hill commented that the size of the guidelines document could be reduced either with different typography, or by removing the examples from the mass distribution version. After some further discussion, there was a consensus to discuss the possibilities with CCS, ALA Publishing, and others, for guidance.
Discussion of Web distribution was deferred until the Monday discussion of the CC:DA Web site. Watson thanked those CC:DA members who had used the form on the CC:DA Web site to give the Task Force feedback. Watson called attention to the survey on World Wide Web access which had been distributed to CC:DA members, and asked for the form to be returned to him during the conference, or mailed to him after the conference.
The Chair called for a vote on accepting the final report of the Task Force. The result of the vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed. The Chair discharged the Task Force on Communication and Outreach with considerable thanks.
484. Agenda item 10. New Business: Call for CC:DA Action on the TEI Header -- a Position Paper (Kelley/Eden)
Eden reminded CC:DA that the position paper had been distributed on the listserv several weeks previously, and reviewed the major points contained in the paper. The paper notes that the growth of electronic publishing and the increase in electronic documents has created a new direction for descriptive cataloging. CC:DA should be involved on two counts: catalogers are struggling to describe electronic documents, and the number of electronic text projects to convert printed text to TEI-conformant documents is increasing. The paper contains an explanation of what TEI is, and a description of how the University of Virginia Library Cataloging Services Department is working with TEI headers. The paper recommends that a CC:DA task force be formed.
Kelley then called on Michael Sperberg-McQueen, characterized as the father of the TEI header, to comment. Sperberg-McQueen said that the proposal made a great deal of sense to him. He noted that the intent of the TEI was to elicit from the creators of electronic resources the information catalogers need, and he observed that he would welcome tweaks to the TEI header or to AACR2, if this would assist the cataloger.
Watson moved to form a task force on the relationship of the TEI header and the cataloging rules, to be charged according to the recommendations in CC:DA/Position Paper/4. Yee seconded the motion. The result of the vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed.
485. Agenda item 11. Adjournment for the day (Chair)
The Chair adjourned the meeting for the day, reminding the members and liaisons of the room and time of the next meeting.
Jo Lynne Byrd**
Monday, June 26, 1995, 8:30 - 11:30 a.m.***
486. Agenda item 12. Welcome and opening remarks (Chair)
The second meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access came to order at 8:32 a.m. in the Hilton Continental Ballroom C. The Chair asked that the audience attendance sheet and the official roster be circulated. The Chair also circulated a sign-up sheet for volunteers for the Task Force on the TEI Header in Relation to the Cataloging Rules.
487. Agenda item 13. Report from the Task Force on a Forum on Natural History Cataloging Issues (Jizba)
Jizba reported that the Task Force on a Forum on Natural History Cataloging Issues had met twice, and continued to envision a forum at Berkeley, although plans had been on hold for a while. Dr. James Beach, soon to become an NSF funder, will continue to advise the task force. Stanley Bloom (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley) will take over Beach's former role on the task force. Jizba intended to report to CCS to see about having this task force subsumed directly under it as a CCS committee.
Hill wanted to know why this measure was going forward to CCS now; she believed it more appropriate to have it come first to CC:DA for its opinion. Sadowski reported that Lynn El-Hoshy, a subject heading expert on the task force, had expressed concern about the task force exceeding the CC:DA charge, since subject heading matters were involved. The Chair asked for opinions from CC:DA voting members on this matter. Ann Fiegen wanted to know if the subject heading people would feel excluded. Jizba suggested that they would; therefore, SAC as well as CC:DA would need to be involved. Also, the natural history people wanted discussion on authority control infrastructure, something more likely under the aegis of CCS than that of CC:DA. Ingrid Mifflin thought that the interdisciplinary approach of the task force to this work was positive and spoke in favor of the inclusion of the subject heading people.
Hill stated that the task force should go through CC:DA to CCS for reconsideration of its reporting alignment. She clarified that she was not addressing wider representation through inclusion of other groups per se here.
The Chair, after asking for other opinions from members, wondered if the task force was appropriately placed in CC:DA. Swanekamp opined that a clear outline of the task force's charge would help answer this question. Jizba reminded the committee that the charge is broadly written, and that CC:DA had accepted that charge.
Adam Schiff mentioned the interest among natural historians in names and the authority infrastructure and who pays for it; the focus of their interest is broader than that of CC:DA's purview. Therefore, the question was not the charge itself but the appropriateness of its base in CC:DA given the broader range of interests. To the natural historians, for the time being, CC:DA is ALA.
The Chair determined that this question would be resolved at Midwinter in San Antonio and that he would report thus to CCS. In the meantime, discussion could continue via the CC:DA mailer.
Jizba asked what we should say to CCS. Hill reiterated that the task force reports not to CCS but to CC:DA. The Chair clarified Jizba's question by saying that he had asked Jizba to report on his behalf to CCS from CC:DA, including reporting on the activities of this task force.
Mangan inquired as to whether the task force had been in touch with the National Biological Services. The latter hosted a metadata conference that Mangan had attended. She suggested that National Biological Services might be "going off on their own" and creating data elements to describe the same material. Jizba stated that Stan Bloom has been involved with virtually every natural history acronym on both sides of the Atlantic, so that contact seemed assured. The Chair replied that the task force would keep CC:DA informed of such contacts.
Schiff remarked that Bloom and Beach would like to turn the grant proposal in the fall in to NSF. Bloom and Beach had been asked to share the grant proposal with the task force so that the latter could provide feedback on elements that might be missing or might need improvement. The proposal will be gotten to the task force as soon as possible.
Jizba stated that this would possibly mean a conference in March, April, or July 1996 (May being impossible for ASIS, one of the co-sponsors).
488. Agenda item 14. Report on the Meeting of the ISBD(CF) Review Group (Sandberg-Fox)
The ISBD(CF) review group, chaired by John Byrum, met in Washington on April 24-26 to consider a revised version of ISBD(CF). The first day of the meeting was devoted to discussion of several papers prepared by Ann Sandberg-Fox. On the second and third days, the group devoted itself to an item-by-item review of Sandberg-Fox's revision of the document. The draft will be updated, and will be presented for world-wide review from September 1995 through February 1996. This will afford JSC and CC:DA, among others, opportunity for comment.
Decisions made at the Washington meeting include:
- resolution that the revised ISBD(CF) incorporate provisions for interactive multimedia
- rejection of a GMD label [interactive multimedia], although the item may be specifically identified as such; the applicable GMD will be [computer file]; however, interactive multimedia are identified throughout the documentation as a specific subset of the computer file area
- implementation of one list of sources of information for both internal and remote access files
- recognition that files may be compressed and should be decompressed for cataloging
- rejection of certain formerly accepted items and conditions; e.g., ASCII to PostScript will not be regarded as different versions
- adoption of the term "disk" for magnetic technology and "disc" for optical technology
In Area 3, there was perceived a need to expand the terms computer data, computer program, and computer files. Five categories for data were identified:
Programs may be subdivided into:
There is yet another level for files, wherein an application program, for example, may optionally be described by a more specific characteristic, e.g. computer spreadsheet. Combinations may, moreover, be used in relevant situations (e.g. computer journal and retrieval software). The ISBD(CF) group recognized that any of these can be used with or without interactive multimedia files, e.g. interactive [computer] game.
In other developments, the ISBD(CF) group concluded that all remote computer files (e.g.: accessible through the Internet) should be considered published.
Finally, a number of changes and updates were made to the preliminary document to ISBD(CF), notably in the areas of remote access, statements of responsibility, history notes, and definitions.
Jizba commented that she had heard Barbara Tillett's presentation of an IFLA document on functional requirements. A first small study, due by 1 November, is to be done on use of the word "item" in ISBD(CF) in relation to the functional requirements document. Swanekamp asked if the IFLA document was available. Jizba replied that its release was up to IFLA.
Swanekamp then asked Sandberg-Fox if there had been discussion on digital preservation. Sandberg-Fox replied in the negative. Jizba recalled no such discussion either, but mentioned that digital information was covered extensively, however; and digital preservation should fit into this category, multiple versions notwithstanding.
Sadowski suggested that the GMD [electronic file] might be better than [computer file]. Sandberg-Fox remarked that the use of alternatives was considered, but the group could not agree on a term (other than the current [computer file]. They will entertain this again later. The foreign representatives to this meeting had no such language problems. Vanderberg remarked that the Canadians had come up with the idea of combining terms within the GMD.
489. Agenda item 15. Report from the IFLA Representative (Madison)
Olivia Madison, Chair of IFLA's Standing Committee of the Section on Cataloguing, had provided a written report for CC:DA at the 1995 Midwinter meeting. She thanked Sandberg-Fox and Jizba for their efforts on ISBD(CF).
Madison reported that Barbara Tillett and Dorothy McGarry have been elected as new members. Also, Nancy John's term is ending.
Regarding the IFLA study group on functional requirements, Madison reported that these requirements are to be tested in all formats, not only computer files, and volunteers may assist in the testing as well as serve as commentators. Tillett added that test results on all the various formats are desired by 31 October.
The report, now in its finalization stage, does need an introduction. Madison hoped for a quick report review at the Istanbul conference. The worldwide review of the document is to start as early as 1 March 1996, to be taken up at the Beijing conference in 1996.
An international conference for national bibliographical control agencies and services is slated for November 1997 at Copenhagen.
Madison indicated that plans are to review the latest draft and begin testing it by format at the IFLA Istanbul General Conference in August. The six-month worldwide review of the document should start as early as 1 March 1996. An international conference for national bibliographic agencies is scheduled for November 1997, and Madison assumes that the final document will be presented at that meeting.
Jizba remarked that, GMD excepted, all contents of the interactive multimedia guidelines remain intact.
490. Agenda item 16. Agenda item 16. Report of the Task Force on the Cataloging of Conference Proceedings (Watson)
The task force met for the first time Saturday morning to determine its role with regard to other groups having an interest in this area. There was a need to determine groups that had an interest in this topic, including the new CONSER task force on the cataloging of conference publications (set up after Philadelphia). Sarah Shatford Layne will be the liaison from the CC:DA task force to this CONSER task force.
The task force requested action from CC:DA in the form of a revised charge to give the task force a little more time (and thus giving other groups more time to complete their work). The extension requested was until Midwinter 1997, at which time a report would be forthcoming. The Chair agreed and asked for a motion from the task force, followed by discussion (of which there was none). CC:DA's vote to revise the charge by adding one year to the task force's life was unanimous. The Chair interjected to say that the revised charge neglected to indicate that interim reports from the task force would be due at 1996 Midwinter (San Antonio) and 1996 Annual (New York).
Watson then stated that the task force is prepared to enter a new, interesting period of discussion. The task force went through a number of position papers on Saturday and will go over them more deeply between now and San Antonio, attaching issues to rules and to possible rule revisions.
491. Agenda item 17. Report from the MARBI Representative (Gerhart)
MARBI had met, by Monday morning, for two out of its scheduled three times, with one more session slated for Monday afternoon.
For Monday afternoon discussion papers were scheduled on mapping of metadata elements to MARC, on a generic author field for metadata, and on changing the personal name first indicator value.
Discussion paper 95-6 (reproduction information) has gone back to MARBI, upon decision by MARBI that further work needs doing. Nonetheless, the 533 field is being retained (with publication details and extent of item included) and the linking subfield 8 will be retained for use when necessary (i.e., when fields in addition to 533 are present). Fields which can use subfield 8 will be identified and repeatability of fields will be examined. Not to be used with subfield 8 are 007, 245 and 263.
Discussion paper 95-9, on expansion of the definition of a leader type code for maps, will allow for digital maps (to be coded as maps instead of as digital files) . It is hoped that a broader discussion will occur soon on content versus physical form. Patton, commenting on digital cartographic material in relation to the "cardinal principle" wanted to know if this USMARC coding change was not tantamount to creeping rule revision. Mangan stated that, as the cartographic field was inundated, this was proposed to force action. Gerhart expressed the hope of seeing action on this in MARBI by Midwinter 1996. Tillett felt that this was an important CC:DA issue, one that merited discussion, so the MARBI representative might convey to MARBI a sense of CC:DA interest here. Regarding the comment that 1997 was too long to wait for rule changes here, Hill pointed out that a cardinal principle was under discussion.
Yee envisioned our moving toward a completely digitizable universe of documents in the future, with the implication that we should focus on content, not format.
John Attig [from the audience] thought that MARBI was exploring the limits of format integration, and that a choice would be necessary with digital maps to describe them as maps or as computer files. Attig asked if we should have to make this choice. Should this limit be there, given that in this case, these are both maps and computer files? Sadowski suggested that if we followed the Canadians, we could integrate both.
Jizba pointed to a precedent in the interactive multimedia guidelines in that visual and audio materials were incorporated.
The Chair asked if this matter could be put off and thought over until the next meeting. Swanekamp suggested preparing for the next meeting by looking at MARBI's digital map proposal. Gerhart mentioned that the MARBI Midwinter 1995 minutes were not available yet, and that the discussion would be a summary from her and from the MARBI recorder.
Mangan believed that the decision at MARBI's meeting the day before was that LC was to write a discussion paper on digital maps for the next meeting, to be posted on LC Marvel for access. The paper could then be on a MARBI agenda after CC:DA's discussion of it so that CC:DA could offer feedback to MARBI. Tillett replied that Sally McCallum (head of the relevant office at LC) was working on this.
Howarth inquired as to whether CC:DA would have this discussion paper by next meeting. The Chair replied in the affirmative.
492. Agenda item 18. Report from the Library of Congress Representative (Tillett)
Tillett reported that the Library of Congress implemented format integration in February, through a fast "train-the-trainers" approach. A format integration document posted on LC Marvel. Among noteworthy features: language notes are now in 546, not 500, 246 is used for variant titles, and 740 for analytic titles.
LC issued position papers related to documents from the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). Most were reported on and accepted at Sunday night's PCC session. Inter alia, the 670 field has been rendered more flexible in terms of formal structure, while assuring the data therein is correct and easily understood by others. Emphasis has shifted to the requirements of a shared environment in this particular field.
The Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) and Cooperative Cataloging Team at LC participated in a spring train-the-trainers session for NACO work. The scripts and documentation prepared for that session will now be used by others as the NACO training effort proliferates.
Several joint PCC-CPSO task groups have been ongoing now for a couple of years. One, the LC-Issued Descriptive Cataloging Documentation Task Group, better known as the Task Group on the LC Rule Interpretations, has now completed the review of 115 LCRI statements on items relating to chapters 1 and 12. There are a number of deletions and changes resulting from this process.
A leadership change has taken place in the PCC-CPSO Task Group on "Division of the World" (from which a report is due in July). Bob Hiatt has replaced Mark Ziomek, who has gone on to become library director for the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
The PCC Task Group on AACR Rule Revisions met Saturday and will work on major issues that need rule revision rather than reviewing again all the proposals coming out of the LCRI group. Among other major topics, the Task Group will look in the future at OCLC guidelines for cataloging of computer files. Sherry Kelley and Melinda Reagor Flannery will start that process by authoring a discussion paper for review.
Electronic texts are currently being discussed at LC. There will be sessions after ALA on the issue of content versus carrier. A meeting at LC prior to ALA covered the cataloging of Internet resources as part of the OCLC project, with some resultant guidelines. MARC format for collection-level records is utilized, with 856 fields creating the associative links with finding aids for the electronic visual and audio data on the Internet.
Tillett advised CC:DA that the capacity for global updating at LC had been delayed and that implementation of a first phase capability was now scheduled for 1997. In related automation issues at LC, Tillett recently chaired an LC-wide task group on automation of the shelf list (which would permit online call number assignment through an LC-organized call number array, and automated inventory control from point of receipt through processing, binding, circulation and off-site storage), and now is chairing a pre-MARC record replacement committee. Some four million records are involved in the various aspects of this latter work, and this effort will be preceded by the accommodation of turn-of-century changes in LC bibliographic record numbers as well as a split in the MUMS Books(M) file in LC's database to allow more room for growth. Eventually, the separate pre-MARC file will be eliminated as those records migrate to the Books(M) and other MUMS files.
In publication matters, the 18th edition of LCSH is due in midsummer. A PCC-CPSO task group on subject cataloging documentation has conducted a survey and received suggested improvements for the Subject Cataloging Manual. LC will also be including a form for suggestions for improvements in the Subject Cataloging Manual. Instructions in the Subject Cataloging Manual will also clarify and simplify procedures for submitting subject heading proposals. In addition, 29 schedules have been converted to MARC format, and this project will be complete by winter. Tillett cautioned that another two years of work would then be required during a combined index would be prepared and the schedules proofread.
The Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) has developed a prototype product, Classification Plus, a package that will be regularly updated as schedules are completed. It is on the same platform, Folio View, as Cataloger's Desktop.
A report of LC's Cataloging Directorate's Quality Task Group, chaired by Barbara Tillett, is to be finished by August.
Glazier asked if a decision had been made on turn-of-the-century LCCNs. Tillett replied that two proposals were in Information Technology Services, but there is no decision yet.
493. Resolution in Honor of Janet Swan Hill
At this point, the Chair moved a resolution to honor Janet Swan Hill for her years of participation in CC:DA:
"Whereas, Janet Swan Hill has participated in the proceedings of the ALA/ALCTS/CCS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access for 26 meetings of the Committee,
And Whereas, she has, for the past 6 years, ably represented ALA on the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR,
Therefore, let it be moved that CC:DA pause in its deliberations to thank Janet for her many years of conscientious service and counsel, and wish her well in her new pursuits."
Swanekamp seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The resolution carried unanimously with applause. Janet thanked all present for their support in her election to ALA Council.
494. Agenda item 21. Report on the Contact with the American Indian Library Association regarding Native American names (Sadowski)
The American Indian Library Association/ALA Office for Literacy & Outreach Services Subcommittee on Library Services to American Indian People met Sunday night at the Palmer House. At their meeting, Sadowski, acting as a representative of CC:DA, presented the question of the proper referencing of Native American names in IFLA's Names of Persons. He reported that the general feeling of this group, and among Native Americans in general, was that they see no problems. There is a lack of consistency, but that is acceptable. Decisions on forms of names would need to be made on a nation-by-nation basis, and some individuals prefer one name while some prefer another (even within one tribe or nation).
495. Agenda item 19. AACR2 Corrections from John Duke (Chair/Duke)
During the process of converting AACR2 to SGML, John Duke had discovered a number of changes which need to be made to AACR2, or at least given consideration. The Chair had sent
Duke's proposed corrections to Committee members electronically, but it appears that several people did not receive this item. The Chair indicated that he would re-send these corrections to the membership.
John Duke stated that the corrections would be up to JSC to deal with. A second issue is whether the electronic version can differ from the printed version. The Chair then asked Hill if there were any items in the corrections requiring urgent action. Hill was certain that JSC would want to see the corrections to be made, but not certain that it would pay CC:DA to spend time on them, as Duke is working for the JSC principals.
Schreur pointed out one example on page 9 (top frame) to which nothing needs doing since it has been deleted.
Schottlaender described John Duke's document as ten documents in one, with a great mix of changes proposed (of which Schottlaender cited examples). He believed that a task force of CC:DA would need to review the corrections (and their organization) or JSC would send them back to the committee. The Chair asked if Schottlaender would work with the incoming CC:DA chair to resolve these issues, which Schottlaender was happy to undertake if the committee so desired. Alternatively, a task force might be formed. Hill suggested that such a task force would be "impolitic overkill".
On a closely related topic, the Chair mentioned that ALA Publishing appeared to want to make an end run and to publish the electronic AACR2 on its own. Hill, responding to the Chair's questions, affirmed that the JSC was the author of AACR2 and that there were three publishers of these rules. She stated further that it was not CC:DA's role to comment on what would appear to be a contractual arrangement among the three publishers.
496. Agenda item 20. Discussion on Dissemination of CC:DA Documents, the ALA gopher, and the World Wide Web (Chair)
The Chair mentioned that he had received some negative comments about the "publication" of the CC:DA WWW site. He indicated that such concerns were unnecessary, since the existence of the web site was purely for the committee's internal purposes. Apparently, the URL of the web site was communicated to members of the ALCTS Executive Board, who thought the existence of the web site had been publicized to the world at large.
The web site, created and maintained by Mark Watson, does, however, look quite good. Equal access remains a problem, since not everyone has access to a web browser; hence, the necessity for Mark Watson's questionnaire regarding the what means of Internet access were available to Committee members. Adam Schiff reminded the committee that one can get to the web site through Lynx (a text-only browser).
Watson spoke up to say that he hopes to post the web site version of the questionnaire when he returns from ALA. He saw the acquisition of web access capabilities as analogous to the incremental growth of e-mail access: the moral is that people need computer upgrades. The web site would serve as a valuable supplement to, but not as a substitute for, print and e-mail versions of CC:DA documents. However, remaining an issue is that the information on CC:DA proceedings is not readily available to the public at large. The Chair indicated that he is considering writing to ALCTS on the need to make some information more public.
Marker saw two communications issues here, one internal to CC:DA and one external to it. The web documents ought not to replace print. And there is frustration in not seeing, for example, task force interim reports, which would be beneficial to mount in advance.
Hill stated that CC:DA must keep careful track of internal communications as opposed to those documents destined for wider publication. Wider dissemination would require notifying ALCTS. Also, drafts and unofficial documents tend not to be taken as such, but as final pronouncements.
Young added that lack of control in document distribution can be damaging by disrupting the document review process, with a result that other organizations may be more cautious in releasing their documentation to CC:DA.
The Chair suggested a need to distinguish rough drafts from those moderately polished (with deadlines placed on discussion of them).
Glazier remembered that for a time some years ago, CC:DA documents were available to non-members by subscription (and there was one subscriber). Would websiting be any different in terms of availability? And who approved distribution of these documents?
Hill replied that the Resources and Technical Services Division approved distribution in that case. The practice was discontinued because of evident lack of interest. Under contemporary circumstances, would a specific electronic subscription/distribution list be at issue here?
Fiegen proposed that CC:DA consider the current web site experimental but supplemental, yet nonetheless a real effort to mount action summaries and minutes on the web and make it the interface of choice, given appropriate consideration of privacy issues. Other documents could be forwarded at the Chair's discretion.
Schiff said that the web would be an appropriate, easy way to distribute documents in some electronic form, assuming that most documents were indeed appropriate for distribution.
Childress suggested posting a list of available documents on AUTOCAT instead of the actual documents themselves.
Yee asked to rephrase Fiegen's proposal above as a formal motion.
Schiff stated that CC:DA has liaisons who will need documents.
Tillett reminded the committee that the US MARC list was run out of LC and is available on LC Marvel. She then urged passage of Fiegen's motion, stating that being on the ALCTS board had permitted her to hear Karen Muller mention that the ALCTS policy manual on document distribution was in need of revision.
Watson suggested that a gateway message would control flow to CC:DA web, and spoke on value of hypertext links to documents and sections thereof on a CC:DA web. The result would be a flexible way to present information to specific audiences.
The Chair concurred with the foregoing and asked for a motion to direct the Chair to post agenda, action summary and minutes to AUTOCAT and the CC:DA web site and other lists as appropriate, on a regular basis, with discretion to post other documents ready for public comment. Yee so moved; Howarth seconded.
During discussion, Tillett pointed out that the ALCTS board will express displeasure unless CC:DA brings the web site proposal to it (in order to bring appropriate language into the ALCTS policy and procedures manual).
The Chair responded that the motion would express to the ALCTS board a desire for said action on web site posting, not a statement of unapproved intent on CC:DA's part.
Marker added that on AUTOCAT, most people will respond to AUTOCAT.
Kelley asked about wording to meet objections from ALCTS and allow CC:DA to move forward.
Tillett replied that suggested wording for the ALCTS policy and procedures manual that conveyed the web site proposal (for document distribution) to the ALCTS board for its consideration would transcend the latter's objections.
Marker proposed such wording ("that the Chair will bring to ALCTS a proposal to
"). Hill: Or "bring to CCS".
Watson asked about a task force or small group for six months to work on (investigate) the ALCTS policy and procedures manual. The Chair, citing time considerations inquired as to whether the motion for a task force could be withdrawn until San Antonio.
Tillett reiterated that formulating wording would be essential, although not possible at the moment. Hill, concurring, stated that delay would be politically valuable and would allow for study of the entire document dissemination issue. Whereupon Yee and Howarth stated their willingness to withdraw the proposal.
The Chair then read a proposal for the task force; essentially the erstwhile proposal done into a charge. Hill asked for a little more vagueness on the proposal ("to work to propose" dissemination methods), which the Chair pronounced possible. Howarth moved; Fiegen seconded. The committee vote was unanimous.
497. Agenda item 22. Announcements and Adjournment (Chair)
The Chair announced the following personnel changes on CC:DA:
- Frank Sadowski will vacate the Chair and continue as a voting member during 1995-1996
- Joan Swanekamp will become Chair of CC:DA for 1995-1996
- Nancy Davey and Ingrid Mifflin will vacate their places as voting members
- Jo Lynne Byrd and Mitch Turitz will become voting members
- Carol Hixson and John A. Richardson will become interns
The Chair mentioned that all task forces that he had "inherited" are now defunct.
Mark Watson read a resolution thanking Frank Sadowski for his efforts as chair during the past two years:
"Whereas Frank Sadowski has served as Chair of CC:DA for two consecutive years;
"Whereas he has worked diligently to facilitate the work of the Committee;
"Whereas he has prodded CC:DA into the electronic era by initiating the widespread use of e-mail, listservs and even the worldwide web;
"Whereas he is to be commended and remembered for his quest to pass the CC:DA paper reduction act;
"Whereas he never failed to secure excellent accommodations for CC:DA meetings;
"Whereas he has led the Committee in a spirit of openness, being willing to express his opinion both as "Sadowski" and as Chair;
"Whereas he has demonstrated his commitment by faithfully attending task force meetings, enlisting the aid of family members in preparing mailings, debugging multiple listservs, editing meeting minutes and generally considering no task below his station or beyond the call of duty;
"[Now therefore] CC:DA wishes to extend its sincere gratitude to Frank Sadowski in recognition of a job well done."
Watson requested that these words of commendation be included in the official record of this meeting held on June 26, 1995 at the ALA annual conference in Chicago. This resolution was greeted with applause all around. Sadowski, as Chair and member, expressed his thanks to the Committee.
The Chair announced that the next meeting of CC:DA would be at ALA Midwinter in San Antonio. He then adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.
Patrick J. Stevens***
Edited by Frank Sadowski*