CC:DA/A/71Page 1 of 13

Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access2015 Midwinter Meeting

Agenda

Saturday, January 31, 1:00-5:00 pmHilton Chicago, International South

1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (1:00, 5 min.)2. Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives: Group (1:05, 5 min.)3. Adoption of agenda: Chair (1:10, 5 min.)4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2014 Annual Conference: Chair (1:15, 5

min.) Minutes of the meeting held at the 2014 ALA Annual Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada – June 28 and June 30, 2014

5. Report from the Chair (1:20, 10 min.) Chair’s Report on CC:DA Motions and Other Actions, July-December 2014

Of note for ARLIS/NA: CC:DA/JSC Rep/KPG/2014/3/rev, Clarifying instructions for Sequences of Plates (RDA 3.4.5.9) passed.

6. Report from the Library of Congress Representative: Reser (1:30, 10 min.)Library of Congress Report

Fiscal year 2015 budget was approved with a 2.1% increase over FY2014 (the general material acquisitions budget increased by over 11%), but this is still $50 million down since the sequestration. A mini-reorganization in library services will happen the following week.

The February 2015 release of updates to the LC-PCC PSs will reconcile the PCC requirements for non-book catalogers from the CONSER Standard Record and the BIBCO Standard Record.

LChelp4RDA@loc.gov has been retired and policy@loc.gov should be used instead for any cataloging-related issues.

7. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Glennan (1:40, 20 min.)

Report on JSC Meeting, November 3-7, 2014, and on other JSC activities July-Dec. 2014

The Committee of Principals is especially interested in broader representation on the JSC: from international users, from the wider cultural sector, and from those working with linked data.

CC:DA/A/71Page 2 of 13

RDA Examples Guide: The JSC approved this document with minor modifications. It will be an appendix to the RDA Editor’s Guide and will be posted on the JSC website.

While FR Consolidation is considered, any structural changes to RDA will likely be on hold for about 2 years, so only small revisions to RDA will be getting approved. This must be kept in mind as CC:DA is making proposals.

Proposals of interest to ARLIS/NA:o 6JSC/ALA/28: Creating a priority order for Sources of

Information in Date of Manufacture element (RDA 2.10.6.2) – was accepted as submitted.

o 6JSC/ALA/29: Clarifying core element status for “not identified” elements in the Distribution and Manufacture Statements (RDA 2.9 and 2.10) –to eliminate the “cascading vortex of horror”, the JSC decided to remove the conditional core status of Distribution statement and its sub-elements, Manufacture Statements and its sub-elements, and Copyright Date and create specific sub-instructions for unknown place under the Production, Publication, Distribution, and Manufacture Statements. Here’s a working version of the revised proposal: 6JSC/ALA/29/rev (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-29-rev.pdf)

o 6JSC/ALA/33: Clarifying instructions for Sequences of Plates (RDA 3.4.5.9) – this proposal was supported in principle but with some significant differences from ALA’s suggested wording. For a working version of the revised proposal showing these changes, see 6JSC/ALA/33/rev (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-33-rev.pdf)

o 6JSC/ALA/Discussion/4: Transcription issues associated with the Production Statement (RDA 2.7) – ALA’s discussion paper argued for recording Production Statements instead of transcribing since many unpublished resources do not contain identifying information about their production. The JSC recommended that instead of making a record vs. transcribe decision based on whether the resource is unpublished, it would be better to make a distinction between self-identifying and non-self-identifying resources. This distinction also applies

CC:DA/A/71Page 3 of 13

to the title and statement of responsibility. The JSC asked ALA to follow-up on the concern of the use of the term “record” in various Ch 2 sub-instructions, when “transcribe” is really meant by making general suggestions for clarity, focusing on a particular subset of instructions. Unfortunately, it is not possible to get a list of all uses of the terms “record” and “transcribe” from the CMS, so it will have to be done manually.

o 6JSC/BL/21: Fictitious Families and Corporate Bodies (Revision of 10.0, 10.3.1.3, 10.11.1.2, 11.0, 11.7.1.4, 11.13.1.1.2) – The JSC deferred action on this proposal because it is incompatible with the anticipated FR consolidated model. Agents will be limited to real-world entities. Fictitious, legendary or non-human entities represented with creative responsibility will be viewed as a bibliographic identity of the person who really is the creator (going back to the original FRBR model). A JSC working group will be set up. A creator needs to have intent.

o 6JSC/BL rep/1: Simplification of RDA 2.7-2.10 – the JSC acknowledged that related issues will arise in the FR consolidation, with the anticipated new entities for Place and Time-span. The JSC observed that RDA needs to be more consistent throughout about the four ways to record relationships: as identifiers, as authorized access points, as structured descriptions, and as unstructured descriptions; some of these issues were referred to the JSC Technical Working Group for further investigation. As a follow-up, the British Library will prepare a proposal for 2015.

o 6JSC/Chair/15/rev/2: Revision to 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.2.2.4 (Works created after 1599) National Library of New Zealand – The JSC had already agreed to instigate an investigation of issues related to the description of aggregates. Acton on this proposal was deferred pending the results of that investigation. A number of minor revisions contained in various constituency responses to the proposal will be handled as Fast Track proposals.

CC:DA/A/71Page 4 of 13

o 6JSC/CILIP/4: Colour content in RDA – The JSC agreed with the bulk of this proposal to completely replace RDA 7.17 (Colour Content), making some modifications. The primary instruction will be to record “monochrome” or “polychrome”, although substitute vocabularies may be used instead. It eliminates some format-specific instructions and their glossary definitions (Colour of still image, moving image, three-dimensional form, and Colour content of resource designed for persons with visual impairments). It creates three new glossary definitions:

Colour content: the presence of colour, tone, etc., in the content of a resource

Monochrome: colour content consisting of tones of one colour, or black and white, or black or white and another colour

Polychrome: colour content consisting of two colours (neither of which is black or white) or more than two colours

o 6JSC/LC/28: Revision to RDA 2.4.1.8 (Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility) – JSC accepted version B of this proposal, which contained additional language in 2.4.1.8 to clarify when a noun phrase should be part of the statement of responsibility vs. part of another element. Also, a reference will be added from 2.3.4.3 (Recording Other Title Information) to 2.4.1.8.

o 6JSC/LC/29: Compilations of Works by Different Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies (New 6.2.2.11) – The proposal was to add a new instruction at 6.2.2.11, and it was approved by the JSC. They reworded 6.2.2.8 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Work), 6.27.1.4 (Compilations of Works by Different Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies), 6.27.4.4 (Variant Access Point Representing a Compilation of Works), and added a revised definition of “collective title” in the glossary. The JSC also agreed to change the Ch 6 phrase “by which a work is known” to “by which a work is commonly identified.”

o 6JSC/LC/30: Works without titles – This proposal took a close look at gaps in RDA 6.2.2 (Preferred title for the work). The JSC agreed to a number of revisions, most notably to delete the

CC:DA/A/71Page 5 of 13

current 6.2.2.6 (Cycles and Stories with Many Versions); and to reuse 6.2.2.6 for Titles in the Original Language Not Found or Not Applicable, with two sub-instructions: Titles from Reference Sources and Devised Titles. This instruction obviates the need for special instructions for categories of works that often don’t have titles (manuscripts, art, choreography). An alternative will likely be retained for naming works embodied in manuscripts by their repository designation.

o 6JSC/MusicWG/8: Revision proposal for conventional collective titles in RDA 6.14.2.8 and Glossary definitions for conventional collective titles and the term Type of Composition – This proposal recommended removing some lists of terms used in the construction of CCTs in favor of using external vocabularies. The JSC accepted the proposal with a number of modifications from constituency responses.

Follow-Up Actions for ALA pertinent to ARLIS/NA:o Review the use of “transcribe” and “record” in Ch2 and make

general suggestions for clarity. This will not be a formal proposal. (Follow-up on 6JSC/ALA/Discussion/4). Glennan will work with Francis Lapka and Liz O’Keefe on this (others welcome to join).

o Prepare a proposal to rework the instructions for unpublished resources, differentiating between self-describing and non-self-describing resources (Follow-up on 6JSC/ALA/Discussion/4). Depends on follow-up work by British Library on 6JSC/BL rep/1. Francis Lapka and Liz O’Keefe will work on this (others welcome to join).

8. Proposal from TF on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3: Lapka/Hillmann (2:00, 50 min.)

Strawman Proposal (January, 2015) This Strawman proposal was generally well-received. Question 1 notes: Do we need to define everything at WEMI levels or

at a higher-level to make the instructions simpler/easier to navigate? Measurements are not the only thing that could use a simplified structure in RDA. Not much objection to it: possibly have to specify

CC:DA/A/71Page 6 of 13

the controlled vocabulary embedded in the instructions, as well, and the 4 or 5 measurements.

Question 3 notes: Should storage space be under dimension instead of

extent of character? Some mixed feelings (SAA), but I and some others think it makes sense to move it. Especially if we start measuring shelf width or book depth. They need to talk to the archivists more to come up with a solution. Exception for incomplete, so maybe it's an exception for certain types of constituencies that can't easily measure number of pages in a box.

Question 4 notes: Does CC:DA agree that extent subunits should not

be used to record the extent of reproduced manifestations? Would removal in 3.4 create unanticipated consequences? Not always 1 to 1. Sometimes microfilm might be missing last chapter of the book. Ok with just a note? How obvious are the differences within the reproduction itself? 534. Think dissertations. What about the legacy data? How would the machine know where to find that info? FRBR user tasks are helpful. Tough since we're in a period of transition from MARC and not sure if this will work, though we like the idea. Is pagination a qualifier for microfilm reel? This is the content? # pages of letters? For cases of reproductions, could pagination be considered the content? No illustrative content is a qualifier (like dissertations)?

Question 5: Use a controlled set as much as you can but use your own

term if necessary (specify the source of the terminology ... or lack

thereof). 9. Break (2:50, 20 min.)10. Discussion Papers from TF to Investigate the Instructions for Recording

Relationships in RDA: Putnam (3:10, 40 min.) Instructions for Recording Structured Descriptions of Related Manifestations1. Do not prescribe order of elements because RDA doesn't talk about

display.2. Contains vs. Contained in is really a display issue. The designator should

follow the standard vocabulary, then the display can be friendlier for patrons. So this is being worked on.

3. Allow notes for each part and a note to represent all parts.4. No comments.5. Component part meets this definition, but sticking with "part" because

that's how RDA already does it. Part has two definitions in the glossary

CC:DA/A/71Page 7 of 13

using the same term, so if component can be redefined, that might be a good solution probably welcomed by the JSC. Component vs. issue/part vs. musical parts.

6. Contents notes include titles. No one had any other suggestions.7. Should we include SOR if it's the same author? Is it necessary for the

machine to understand it? Hoping it won't be necessary in the future. Not structured, only controlled access points provide that. If we could use a unique identifier for the contributor, but you'd have to investigate it, which isn't always desired. Link it up with the SOR as it's displayed. Learned to suggest the authorized form.

8. Referring to 2.4 should be sufficient because it would include all the needed instructions.

9. No comments but that they need to work with the Machine Actionable Data task force.

10. Don't break the principle.11. Should allow for Work-level (Lord of the Rings), probably also Expression,

not just Manifestation level. Difference between how a publisher might publish than how the author intended for the work. Best practice at Work-level if applicable. For translations it may be at the expression-level. Container of manifestation, you have to list many manifestations, but you'd record Container of expression for a compilation CD. In Ch 27, you can't talk about the work or expression level, those are Ch 25 and 26. Look for instructions on a contents note in Ch. 25 so we have them at the work level. JSC is asking the Technical Working Group to look into all of this and get the paper by the beginning of August (Gordon Dunsire is the chair of that working group). We need a definition of a structured description--currently there's just a sentence about it in RDA.

Instructions for Describing Accompanying Material in RDA1. Policy statement says to ignore this.

2. Need to be able to explain the relationship, and can't show that

something is accompanying material.

3. Change the definition of "issued with" or are we lacking the relationship

designator. Do we use "issued with" to mean two different things?4. Split paper up into physical and relationship aspects of accompanying

material. Is accompanying material at the expression-level? Sometimes

work-level.

CC:DA/A/71Page 8 of 13

5. Separately described extent in the future. Augmentation of work.

6. Complements and complemented by gives more of a primary/secondary

relationship (said Thurston Young of the British Library).

7. They hope to have a proposal by the next time we meet.11. Report from TF on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K: Maxwell (3:50, 30

min.)• Persons, Families, and Corporate bodies appendix. Bob Maxwell is the new

chair as of November. In 2013, the JSC requested changes on a document.

Now the task force hopes to have a document ready in the next few months. Then it will be resubmitted as an ALA proposal in time for CC:DA to approve by annual.

• Nomens to thema vs nomens to nomens. Dunsire and Reser seemed to

think this particular one is problematic.• Minor issues:

- Secular religious relationship (Pope Francis and his real name).

Different entities in FRAD, single entity (name change) in RDA. In FRSAD model it's just one person (the thema) who has different names (nomena). This is a missing relationship in their current designator list. This would involve a change of practice, designator for a 4XX. Variants are optional (as are all relationships). Need to liaise with the forthcoming JSC working group on relationship designators. Gordon Dunsire suspects it will be fine. No preferred nomen in the future with linked data (URI) is not a nomen, and every form of the name will be a variant. Gordon Dunsire says to include this relationship in the proposal, breaking new ground now, but we'll want more of these relationships (like former name).

- Attributed relationship from FRAD. Relationship between one person

and another person who has assumed the first person's identity to

complete a work. Scholars to refer to these people by their pseudo

name. Works attributed to someone are known as Pseudo Augustinus (a jazz musician case is a modern example). What is this relationship called so that we can relate them? Opposite of a pseudonym. Impersonator? Erroneous identity (but implies a mistake). Another possible example is like V.C. Andrews--someone passes away and then someone else continues to write as that person but everyone knows it.

CC:DA/A/71Page 9 of 13

Dear Abby (now her daughter--maybe a pseudonym or shared pseudonym case). False identity or appropriated identity because sometimes it's on purpose and sometimes not. This has been discussed as part of the FR consolidation, and Gordon Dunsire suspects it will be gotten rid of. Relationship between two nomena with identical strings but are two persons. Proceed with caution with this particular one because it was misapplied in FRAD. British Library proposal from 2013 that got into misattribution (appendix i), because it has to do with a work.

12. Update/invitation to comment on DCRM(C); update on Reference to Published Description proposal: Haugen (4:20, 15 min.)

1. dcrmc.pbworks.com Cartographic is available for comments by March 1st. Module for (M) Manuscripts will be coming along soon. Task Group for DCRM is working to author companion manuals for all of their materials for RDA (like LC PS).

2. He's looking for people to help with 510 becoming a relationship for WEMI to WEMI. Formal response from CC:DA including a task force (how it was done for DCRM:B as Bob Maxwell remembered).

13. Encouraging more blog feedback on proposals: Chair/Glennan (4:35, 25 min.) Any feedback is helpful to Glennan, also agreements with others who have

posted, so they will investigate adding a “like” option to comments.

CC:DA/A/71Page 10 of 13

Monday, February 2, 8:30-11:30 amHilton Chicago, International South

1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (8:30, 5 min.)2. Report from the PCC liaison: Robare (8:35, 10 min.)

PCC Report for CC:DA1. PCC strategic planning will focus on trusted data and how to invest in

continuing education and experimentation. The focus will be on education and curriculum around linked data and to align investment with the biggest impact on the global data environment.

2. There was an approved PCC-PS on microfilm and print on demand which will be included in the February update of the RDA Toolkit.

3. They are looking at notes in Bibco and making sure they are in sync with the Toolkit.

4. They will continue to review proposals for many new relationship designators. A 20-page training manual with examples will be published soon called, “Training manual for applying relationship designators in bibliographic records.” They want to do one for authority records as well.

3. Report of the MAC Representative: Myers (8:45, 10 min.) Report of the MAC Liaison (Preliminary)

1. Six proposals and one discussion paper were presented. 6 proposals passed. 0 proposals failed. The discussion paper will return as a proposal.

a. 2015-02: adds new specific subfields $r and $q to field 046 of the authority format to accommodate the emergent RDA element subtype “period of activity of a corporate body”

b. 2015-03: adds new field 884 to facilitate identification of a record as sourced in a non-MARC data environment, specifically but not exclusively Bibframe.

c. 2015-DP01: will create a specific MARC field to record the Format of Notated Music, which is currently indicated but inadequately support in field 300 and 008.20 and 008/21 bytes, with respect to cleanly presenting machine actionable data and multiple values

CC:DA/A/71Page 11 of 13

2. LC report: a BIBFRAME pilot will happen between now and annual and will output MARC records.

4. Report of the CC:DA webmaster: Guajardo (8:55, 10 min.)1. The WordPress blog is always being updated, with backups always

happening beforehand.2. Recent comments and posts show at the top on the full website, but default

to the bottom for the mobile website.3. There is a process in place for resetting forgotten passwords, so reach out to

him.4. Should we get rid of the tag cloud? Melanie, former webmaster, would like to

keep it because it acts as an index (beyond keyword searching), and will be sure her pattern of tagging is passed along to the new CC:DA members for consistency.

5. Report from ALA Publishing Services: Hennelly (9:05, 30 min.)1. There are over 3,000 active subscriptions for the RDA Toolkit (a slight

increase from last year) and 7,000 active users. The renewal rate for 2014 was 84%, and so far for 2015 it’s 80% (a little lower than they expected). The main reason for people unsubscribing is that they find they’re just not using the toolkit. They met their budgeted goals. There has been a 45% increase in sessions.

2. There were 610 print sales in 2014 (great) using the print-on-demand model. ebook is no longer available due to very low sales.

3. The next RDA Toolkit release will be on February 17th, and the MLA Best Practices will be integrated just like the Policy Statements (not just the PDF!). Initial steps have been taken to get DCRM incorporated in it (they have authoring access in their CRM). The Spanish translation will be released in March. The German translation is up-to-date. The French translation should be caught up in October.

4. RDA Essentials book is written and being reviewed, being published in the fall.

6. Break (9:35, 20 min.)7. Proposals from AALL: Bratton (9:55, 40 min.)

Revision proposal for RDA instructions for laws, etc.1. They decided to pursue this because they were successful in getting

rid of Treaties, etc., and they did run this past law catalogers from LC. This was approved to send to JSC for a vote because they saw it as getting rid of an exceptional practice. They were not eager to tackle

CC:DA/A/71Page 12 of 13

the larger concept of CCTs altogether because the JSC will be setting up a Working Group on Aggregates to evaluate the larger issues.

Revision proposal for RDA instructions for armed forces (11.2.2.22.1)1. Consensus that the examples need to be simplified and show cases

where the numbering comes at the beginning, middle, and end. Glennan reminded everyone that the new RDA Toolkit’s example’s editor will decide. If the changes are kept simple, this could be fast-tracked to fix it (July deadline for August release). CC:DA will wait to vote until they see a revised revision proposal.

8. Multiple sources for statements of responsibility: Glennan (10:35, 15 min.) Problem: Multiple sources for Statements of Responsibility (RDA 2.4)

1. There was no consensus on the interpretation of the rules or how they were originally intended by the JSC, and obviously much confusion surrounding this instruction. This may be part of the self-describing vs. non-self-describing resources issue that the JSC wants CC:DA to look into.

9. Report from TF on Pseudonymous Corporate Bodies: Sprochi (10:50, 15 min.) This was based on a paper from John Meyer and the British

Library on fictitious characters, which was tabled by the JSC because the Canadians said there’d be a reconciliation of the FR model, so the JSC is getting a working group together. They are waiting for the IFLA report on thema/nomen. The CC:DA task force is on hiatus while we wait to hear what’s going on.

10. Update on TF on Place Names in RDA: Chair (11:05, 5 min.) This task force is being discharged for now. The JSC now has a

task force on the same topic.11. Other new business; reports from the floor; announcement of next meeting, and

adjournment: Chair (11:10, 20 min.) Webmaster: investigating a plug-in that will tell blog posters when

someone has posted additional comments on a topic after them. Also looking into the ability to add a “Like” button so that CC:DA members and liaisons can share their enthusiasm on posts that way, any comments are extremely helpful to Glennan.

Glennan: There is international review of 2 IFLA standards (1. FR Consolidated; 2. ISBD review). Not sure when they’ll be coming or what it will look like.

CC:DA/A/71Page 13 of 13

Glennan: She will potentially be proposing for ALA to record a 500 note for a series statement from a dust jacket or spine (currently there’s a gap).

Audience: someone said that CC:DA was receiving via email a proposal to add “transgender” as a fast-track change.