The American Library Association’s Cataloging Committee on Description and Access (CC:DA) forwarded revisions to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (JSC), including the revision of the rules for describing electronic resources and proposals to enhance the consistency of rules for describing material in all formats. A number of revisions are expected to be published in the summer of 2004, the most significant dealing with the description of electronic resources. The JSC is also planning a new edition of the cataloging rules to be published in 2006 that will involve significant changes in the organization of the rules, the terminology used, and the underlying concepts.
The CC:DA met in January 2003 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and June 2003 in Toronto, Canada. The committee dealt with several issues, had the following discussions, and made specific recommendations and decisions at the mid-winter and annual meetings:
Task Forces: Five CC:DA Task Forces made reports:
The CC:DA/MARBI Program Planning Committee, chaired by Susan Hayes, reported on its successful program Don’t Be Dysfunctional; How to Put the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) in Your Future at the 2003 Conference. The Task Force is also planning a preconference for the 2004 Annual Conference, also on the topic of the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records.
The Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes, chaired by Cynthia Whitacre, presented the final version of its document “Differences Between, Changes Within: Guidelines on When to Create a New Record.” The document was approved by CC:DA and steps were taken to gain approval of its publication in either print or electronic form.
The Task Force on Consistency across Part 1 of AACR, chaired by John Attig, presented new proposals for revisions to the rules for Areas 4 (Publication, Distribution, etc.) and 6 (Series), and revised proposals for Areas 2 (Edition) and 3 (Material-Specific Details), ), aimed at promoting consistency of wording across the chapters in Part I and moving general rules to Chapter 1.. CC:DA approved these four proposals.
The Task Force on the Reconceptualization of Chapter 9, chaired by Michael Chopey, including members from ALA and the British Library, presented a report on its work redefining the scope of chapter 9 and providing rules for electronic resources in other chapters. The report included draft text for rules on scope (X.0A) and sources of information (X.0B), as well as some examples of possible physical descriptions, in each chapter. These preliminary recommendations call for the scope of Chapter 9 to be “computer software, numeric data, computer-oriented multimedia, and online systems and services.” It also calls for the scope of Chapter 2 to be redefined as “texts.” The other chapters in part 1 would have their scope expanded to include electronic versions. CC:DA agreed to forward the report to the Joint Steering Committee for their information and comment, and asked the Task Force to continue working on refining and completing its recommendations.
Two new CC:DA Task Forces were formed:
A Task Force on FRBR Terminology, to be chaired by Dorothy McGarry, will review documents generated by the Joint Steering Committee’s efforts to introduce terminology from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records into AACR; the Task Force will prepare draft ALA responses to such documents for consideration by CC:DA.
A Task Force on Rule 21.0D, chaired by Ann Caldwell, will look at rule 21.0D, which authorizes the use of “designations of function” or relator terms in headings; the Task Force will recommend whether the rule should be revised and/or whether the Library of Congress should be asked to revise the LC Rule Interpretation that applies to this rule. They presented an interim report in Toronto and will present its final report at the 2004 Midwinter Meeting.
Rule Revision Proposals: CC:DA considered the following rule revision proposals:
A proposal from the Map and Geography Round Table (MAGERT), to correct an example in rule 3.1F1, was approved.
A proposal from MAGERT to revise instructions regarding punctuation in recording dimensions in rules 3.5D1 and 3.5D5, was approved.
A proposal from Adam Schiff to add an example to rule 3.5B3 was approved.
A proposal from Adam Schiff to revise the rules on other title information, making those rules equally applicable to both serials and integrating resources, was tabled pending comments from the American Association of Law Libraries.
Proposals from the Task Force on Consistency (see above) were approved.
A proposal on the rules for capitalization of German in Appendix A was deferred for further consultation.
A proposal concerning a Turkish word in the list of Initial Articles (Appendix E) was also deferred in order to consult the National Library of Turkey.
A proposal to simplify rule 12.1E1 (Other title information) was approved.
A proposal to delete the definition of “Coloured illustration” in the Glossary was approved.
During the year, September 2002 through July 2003, CC:DA has discussed and voted electronically on:
Capitalisation of single letters. CC:DA supports 4JSC/BL/7, agrees with LC that the rule should cover names as well as titles, and accepts the CCC wording of A.30A.
Qualification of standard numbers. CC:DA supports 4JSC/BL/8, agrees with LC that there are ISBD issues that need to be investigated, but agrees with ACOC that this proposal should not need to wait until other issues relating to numbers in Areas 7 and 8 are resolved.
Rule 6.5B1. CC:DA recommends that ALA reject 4JSC/CCC/6, for the reasons stated in the MLA response; that we indicate that we have received and are considering an alternative proposal which would use the existing SMDs followed by terms in common usage in parenthesis; and that we prefer that JSC take no action until we have had the opportunity to complete our consideration of this alternative proposal.
Rule 7.5B1. CC:DA recommends that ALA reject 4JSC/CCC/7, for reasons similar to those stated in our response to 4JSC/CCC/6; and that we prefer that JSC take no action until we have had the opportunity to consider an alternative proposal along the same lines as that which we are considering for chapter 6.
Revision of 21.2A2. CC:DA endorses the comments of the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging on 4JSC/LC/53 and approve this proposal.
Authority control. CC:DA endorses the general directions set out in 4JSC/LC/54, and communicated our collective comments to JSC.
Multipart monographs. CC:DA sent a summary of its discussion on 4JSC/LC/55 (allowing for some editing of the distillation of ALA comments) to the JSC.
Multipart monographs – further issues. CC:DA approved a summary of our comments on 4JSC/LC/56 and forwarded them to JSC, with appropriate editorial revisions.
Title added entry. CC:DA approved CC:DA/Harcourt/1/Follow-up and forwarded it to JSC. The decisions were: we think a simple statement to make an added entry under the title proper, with a reference back to 21.30J, is adequate and the option does not need to be repeated; the second example in 25.2E1 is no longer valid and should be deleted.
Multiple ISBD. CC:DA sent to the ISBD Review Group a response consisting of the general comments in CC:DA/Multiple ISBDs/2, followed by the specific comments in CC:DA/Multiple ISBDs/1, and incorporating the results of the straw poll on the structure of the GMD.
Electronic resources. CC:DA approved the draft response to 4JSC/ALA/36 and further authorized our JSC representative to make final decisions regarding these proposals based on the positions taken in our response.
Revising Chapter 21. CC:DA sent our comments as a response to 4JSC/ALA Rep/1.
Revised Introductions. CC:DA suggests that ALA recommend that
the timeline for the revised introductions in the JSC Program of Work be modified, in order
to allow the FRBR terminology revisions to be included in the same revision package,
to complete missing sections of the Introductions, and
to allow a more thorough review of the drafts;
that the timeline be revised to call for full responses by March 23, 2003, for discussion at the April 2003 JSC meeting, with revised introductions to be included in the 2004 revision package;
that ALA indicate its intention to work on revision of the statement of principles and related issues, encourage LC to draft text dealing with precataloging decisions (based on LCRI 1.0, Chapter 13, and other relevant material), and offer our assistance in that effort; and
that ALA withhold further comments for a full response to the drafts in March.
Rule of 3. CC:DA moved:
That CC:DA continue to support JSC option 3 as an option to be pursued in the chapter 21 revision.
That CC:DA also support at this time some minimal changes following
the ACOC proposal that can be implemented immediately.
[CC:DA sees the revision of Chapter 21 as potentially a long process and would not want the gist of the ACOC recommendations to be put off while the revision takes place.]
And in support of 2., regarding the specific ACOC recommendation,
That CC:DA support the ACOC proposal to revise 1.1F5 rather than use the notes field.
That CC:DA support the ACOC option language.
That CC:DA request that JSC consider also the 2 alternative versions offered by the CC:DA Task Force (the first TF version basically clarifies the ACOC language; the second TF version is more explicit about marks of omission and use of et al.)
Regarding the specific ACOC recommendations for 21.0A1 and 21.30A1,
that CC:DA support the proposal language used by the TF in order to
clarify the intent of the ACOC proposals.
[With the understanding that the language of the TF’s modification of the ACOC 21.0A1 proposal is: “optionally, make added entries for any other persons, bodies, or works involved that would provide an important access point”]
That the review of Chapter 21 should consider also whether 21.30A1 should address work headings to be consistent with 21.0A1.
That CC:DA support the TF proposals re addition or modification of examples at 21.6C2 and 21.7B1.
Draft revision of ISDB(ER). CC:DA endorsed the report (Comments on the Draft Revision of ISBD(ER)) of the Task Force and included the few comments that have been made by CC:DA into the response.
Forthcoming discussions include: