Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:44:19 -0500
From: Shelby Harken <shelby_harken@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [LITA-L:2109] LITA Liaison to CC:DA report
To: Library and Information Technology Association List <lita-l@xxxxxxx>
GROUP: LITA Liaison to CC:DA
REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Shelby E. Harken ( shelby_harken@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To: LITA President and LITA members
Dates covered: Jan.-June 2005
I continued to monitor the CC:DA discussion list following ALA Midwinter 2005 and attended the CC:DA meetings at ALA Annual 2005
Much of the work since Annual has focused on rule revisions that don't appear to have direct interest for LITA at this time, but probably will in the future. However, I have summarized the work below with a few notes for LITA.
CC:DA sponsored two programs at ALA, one on RDA and one on Cataloging Cultural Objects.
LITA: The trend is multiple standard descriptive and/or content standards. Display standards may be associated or separate. For example, RDA is likely to refer to ISBD for its display standard. It will also refer to some of the other descriptive/content standards. For LITA this means a need to communicate with vendors and systems people the needs for accommodating multiple sources and formats of data that may need to be displayed differently in OPACs. Nearly anything that is in XML can be crosswalked, however there is a question whether everything needs to be crosswalked to MARC21 for an OPAC to work. Federated searching will probably become a necessity. This would seem to be an area LITA could address.
Notes
The work of CC:DA was strongly focused on reviewing the JSC draft of AACR3. Four task forces had been set up to address a number of issues, particularly those related to the draft of Part 1 of AACR3: Consistency, FRBR, SMDs, and Early printed monographs. Reports of these committees were submitted in February.
Report of Task Force on draft of part 1, AACR3 by Task Force on SMDs [CC:DA/TF/SMDs/4] Feb. 1, 2005
The Task Force found that the direction Part 1 takes for SMDs is not helpful either to general users or to catalogers. If either content or carrier must be primary in area 5, then content should be primary. The SMD should immediately and unambiguously define the nature of the item in terms that the catalog user understands.
Comments on draft of part 1, AACR3 by Task Force on Consistency across Part 1 of AACR [CC:DA/TF/Consistency/4] (Feb. 3, 2005)
The generalization of rules in chapter A1 and the inclusion of only the specific rules in the other chapters seems to have been generally successful. Some general comments: a) supplementary rules - it is not always clear that the term "supplementary" is appropriate; b) use of multiple supplementary chapters - CC:DA decided to recommend that the scope of chapter C include all digital media, therefore catalogers must use more than one chapter; c) captions and rule numbering; d) references - these need to be more consistent; e) A1.0A5 prescribed sources - seems overly restrictive; f) A1.0J treatment of reproductions - there is lack of clarity in the rules and there needs to be a discussion in the Introduction; g) generality of A2 and A3 - - wonderif these should be merged in A1
FRBR terminology in the draft of Part 1 of AACR3 (5JSC/AACR3/I) [CC:DA/TF/FRBR Terminology/9] (Feb. 3, 2005)
The committee has worked for several years on this issue. This report updates prior recommendations with respect to the draft of AACR3. A major goal of the Strategic Plan for AACR is to incorporate terminology from FRBR. The TF believes that while progress has been made, the goal could be more fully realized and still has several areas of concern. The term "resource" is discussed at length and glossary terms are individually addressed.
Report of the ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on Cataloging Rules for Early Printed Monographs on the rules for early printed resources in the draft of AACR3 Part 1 [CC:DA/TF/Early Printed Monographs/5] (Feb. 1, 2005)
The TF sees a need for supplemental rules in AACR for dealing with early printed resources. JSC agreed with this recommendation. The major supplemental-rule issues concern transcription and technical description. Cataloging practive fore early printed resources call for fuller and more precise transcription and technical description than does practice for more current materials. The reason for this is that early printed resources usually exhibit a fair degree of variation between individual items within a given manifestation. The report itemizes the most important points between DCRM(B) and the draft of AACR3 to ensure they do not conflict.
Comments:
During ALA and in subsequent discussions, it was apparent that reviewers would benefit from knowing what is planned for the Introduction to Part 1 of AACR3. Very often people thought something not proposed for the rules should be in the Introduction. In addition, it was proposed there be a section with topics one needs to know about before working with Part 1, e.g. Finite vs. Continuing Resources, Language (vernacular vs. transliteration), reproductions, multiple versions, etc.
(Feb. 2005)
Discussion on whether AACR3 should be a display standard was conducted. Generally, the rules should prescribe a structure in as much as art of the impetus for writing AACR3 was to achieve better compatibility with ISBD. A proposal was made to remove punctuation directions in the chapters and put them in the Introduction or an appendix. There could then be reference to ISBD as the display standard. There needs to be clearer instructions for punctuation within areas.
Automated transcription vs. AACR rules discussion (Feb. 2005)
Reactions ranged between the need for briefer records for electronic records where automated transcription could save time and the needs of specialist cataloging, e.g. rare book description and the importance of providing necessary identification for the user.
LITA: Support for automated transcription could be a LITA issue.
CC:DA was asked to comment on the NISO Digital Object Identifier (DOI), Z39.84
Arrangement of Part 1. (March 2005)
A motion was made to propose and single sequence of rules organized in chapters based on ISBD areas with proposed chapters A2 and A3 being merged together. An outline was given. In general, the arrangement as proposed was controversial and had little agreement among many members. Some rules for specific communities were missing. Print vs. online presentation was affecting opinions.
Single-record technique. (Feb. 2005)
The question was: Should AACR include instructions for using the "single-record technique" for cataloging multiple versions? ISBD(G) in Section 0.1.3 (Scope, Purpose, and Use) basicly says in order to share bibliographic records, there should be separate records for each output medium. Other agencies may describe as single or multiple. Discussion suggested the cataloging rules should say how to describe materials and separate rules should say how to display - separate, merged, multiple.
LITA: How this plays out could affect how vendors choose to create OPAC displays.
Order of notes. (March 2005)
Generally the response was to make notes in an order that meets the needs of users. In describing a reproduction, those notes would be given before those about the original.
LITA: OPAC displays for note order varies among vendors. This bears watching.
Abbreviations. (March 2005)
CC:DA voted to generally agree with CILIP's document on abbreviations.
ALA's response to the draft of Part 1. (5JSC/AACR3/1) (Mar. 28, 2005)
CC:DA voted to support the ALA representative's summary report to JSC. The response was based on responses from members and task force reports. Summary of major recommendations: 1) ALA finds the new arrangement of Part 1 to be very difficult to use, 2) ALA recommends the rules for resources issued in successive parts and integrating resources be merged into the general rules for description, 3) artificial restrictions on the scope of digital media in C5-7 should be removed, 4) numbering area should be restricted to serials only, 5) ALA considers the generalization of rules for sources of information including chief source unscessful, 6) ALA supports the inclusion of GMDs in AACR3, that they be repeatable and include content and carrier terms, 7) there is a need to distinguish between published and unpublished, 8) technical description is unsatisfactory, 9) it is difficult to evaluate Part 1 without seeing the rest, 10) the review process needs to be less restrictive, 11) review periods need to be longer
ISBD(CM) (March 2005)
A task force set up to review ISBD(CM). The report addressed the relationship of ISBD(CM) with AACR, issues and problems in the text of ISBD(CM), and typographical and formatting errors.
AACR3/RDA (May 2005)
Outcomes from the JSC meeting were posted on the JSC public website: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0504out.html
The JSC and CoP together decided on a new approach, on renaming the new code RDA: Resources Description and Access. It was clear from the overall responses to the draft of Part 1 that it was not going the direction that most constituencies agreed with. The arrangement did not work. Tom Delsey put together an alternative structure based more closely on FRBR and FRAR with more emphasis on user tasks. The new approach met goals in the strategic plan and may better address issues of content and carrier.
Microform sets. (April 2005)
A task force was set up for Revision of the ALCTS Online Publication "Guidelines for Catalogoing Microform Sets"
CC:DA Representation (Feb. 2005)
CC:DA should have membership from appropriate metadata groups and library groups that have an existing cataloging committee.
Guidelines for Standardized Cataloging for Children (April 2005)
A summary of comments was submitted per CCS request.
Notes from ALA meetings, June 2005.
ALA representative, Jennifer Bowen. Resources Description and Access (RDA) should take a more progressive approach. We need to involve other communities/stake holders.
Timeline:
May-July 2005: Development of prospectus
Oct 2005-April 2006: Completion of draft of part I, and constitutency review
May-Sept. 2006: Completion of draft of part II, and constitutency review
Oct 2006-April 2007: Complete of draft of part III, and constituency review
May-Sept 2007: Completion of general introduction, appendix, and glossary
2008: publication
See: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0410out.html
- Feedback on part I included comments on both past AACR2 and future "AACR3". The new outline is not what CC:DA had discussed so CC:DA commented at ALA and was generally favorable: purpose and scope at the beginning, relation to the resources descriptions, and chapter 1 with terminology and where to start when cataloging.
- PCC in its stratetic planning is thinking the catalog will be discovered from various sources and the ILS client will be more for library staff managing data and making sure a larger federated searching model will easily harvest data we have in traditional OPAC records.
- RDA is intended to focus on content - not how our OPAC displays data, i.e. not a display standard.
- FRBR has been worked into the new outline
- RDA should allow a cataloger to catalog something htat will be compatible with ISBD, although arrangement is not exactly in ISBD order, e.g. all rules about the "title" might be together, but the resulting elements be show up in different places with ISBC.
- IFLA is reviewing both FRBR and ISBD so they are in flux
- Prefered source of information is an important issue - chief source and/or prescribed source - LC's response was discussed
NISO report. 5 standards, 1 ISO, and 1 registration were all acted upon since the last meeting.
- ISSN is being revised - they have reached a concensus (TISSN): there will be medium version (e.g. online, microfilm, print) while retaining ability to keep the original/super ISSN
- Functional Requirements of Authority Records (FRAR) is in final draft and will be reviewed in the next few months.
Don Chatham talked about publishing RDA. A project manager will be hired for the publishing of RDA with the ability to promote communication among interested parties. Need to address how RDA will related to the Cataloger's Desktop. Map cataloging is moving to the Desktop. Jennifer Bowen said the goal is to create a web product first. JSC is looking for input on how we want it to work. We'd like to be able to find e.g. all rules needed to catalog a globe - will need complex XML attributes. The information is really very hierarchical in print, but may not need to be so deeply with XML where it can be linked in multiple ways. A number of design suggestions were given.
ALA representative, Jennifer Bowen continued her report. At Big Heads she described her role as one of trying to be helpful and improve communications as ALA representative rather than just CC:DA's rep to JSC. People seem to be really caring about RDA. CC:DA site will have presentations. The RDA product will need Alpha and Beta testing. A document on how to test will be devised. For LITA this could take the form of usability, viewability, navigation - if you ask for a task force to review, they must comments or not be on the task force and must reply by deadlines.
CC:DA discussed LC's response. Again, the issue of rules together came up. If we have rules together about the title, it should give all - descripton, source, notes, etc. The principle would be put the information where the elements are. Another: stuff about the source for title be spsecific and evertying else can be from anywhere, e.g. determining the source of the title can be difficult for multiparts and then you need a priority list to follow. Following a priority may be different for some communities that have had different priorities. Most attendees liked LC's response on this issue. You almost always need a source of title note.
Another issue of concern is whether an item is published or not. In the proposed revision A1.4C it says "optionally identify the place of publication ? " - why not instead address this in levels of description, e.g. minimal, standard, all. This area needs to be flexible for a broader group of works, e.g. place of creation for artistics works, because theoretically since they aren't published, they can use the rule for place. In the proposed revision, A1.4E. Date is sounds like one can only do publication date (i.e. only for published works) but the intention was all dates as we have done in the past. Discussion is on Confluence.
Discussion of 5JSC/chair/5. The general feeling was the rules in 21 need to stay. There is an expectation that other communities will have to write up instruction manuals and libraries will need to buy them, despite the fact the original goal of JSC was to create rules that could be applied by anyone for anything without additional manuals. JSC intends to refer out to these other manuals.
What about LCRI's? LC will no longer produce a document tied to AACR/RDA. It will continue to provide guidance. LC is continuing to review chap. 21. "Primary access point" idea will replace "main entry". Current OPAC performance should not drive our decisions.
5JSC/chair/6. A task force has been formed to address the GMD/SMD issues.
CC:DA's response to Part 1 draft will need to say "blah" is okay and "blah-blah" is definitely not. JSC will compare responses.
A task force has been set up to review Rules for Technical Description of Digital Media, with a focus on data elements.
There will be a pre-conference on Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) at 2006 Annual.
The task force on "Differences between, changes within" document for serials is working on updating it.
MARBI report. See MARBI minutes.
DCRMB is asking CC:DA for comment. A task force has been formed.
Shelby
-- *********************************************************** Shelby E. Harken Box 9000, Room 244B Chester Fritz Library University of North Dakota Grand Forks, ND 58202 voice: (701) 777-4634 fax: (701)777-3319 shelby_harken@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --OR-- shelby_harken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/library/Departments/abc/mission.htm ***********************************************************