4JSC/M/Restricted/628-652
October 2004
25
JOINT STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REVISION OF AACR
Minutes of october 2004 Meeting
Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England
18-21 October 2004
[Note: includes Executive Session]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. To approve the agenda 6
4JSC/Policy/4/Rev/6
4JSC/Policy/6
2. Minutes of the previous meeting held 19-22 April 2004 6
3. AACR3 Editor Statement of work 7
4JSC/Restricted/Chair/6
4. Principles of AACR (incorporating AACR3 Part I – Objectives and principles) 10
4JSC/Chair/74
4JSC/Chair/74/ACOC response
4JSC/Chair/74/CCC response
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Objectives and principles
5. Editor’s draft of AACR3 Part I (including Prototype of Area 5 for AACR3; Sources of Information Specified in AACR; Rules for Early Printed Monographs (2.12–2.18)) 12
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Introduction
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Section A
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Section B
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Section D
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Section E
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Section F
4JSC/Editor/Concordance/AACR2 chapter 1
4JSC/Editor/Concordance/AACR2 chapter 2
4JSC/Editor/Concordance/AACR2 chapter 3
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Discussion guide
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Discussion guide/Rev
4JSC/ALA/60
4JSC/ALA/60/CCC response
4JSC/ALA/60/CILIP response
4JSC/ALA/60/ACOC response
4JSC/ALA/60/LC response
4JSC/ALA/60/ALA rep response
4JSC/ALA/60/BL response
4JSC/ALA/60/ALA rep follow-up
4JSC/ALA/60/ALA rep follow-up/CILIP response
4JSC/Restricted/Chair/1
4JSC/Restricted/Chair/3
4JSC/Editor/Part I/Sources of information
4JSC/ALA/61
4JSC/ALA/61/CILIP response
4JSC/ALA/61/CCC response
4JSC/ALA/61/LC response
4JSC/ALA/61/ACOC response
4JSC/ALA/61/BL response
Executive Session
6. Strategic plan for AACR 49
4JSC/Chair/79
4JSC/Chair/79/ACOC response
4JSC/Chair/79/BL response
4JSC/Chair/79/CCC response
4JSC/Chair/79/Rev
4JSC/Chair/79/Rev/2
4JSC/Chair/79/Rev/3
7. Arrangements for reviewing and editing AACR3 49
8. Communication regarding revision of AACR 50
9. Communication with other resource description communities 51
10. Liaison with the co-publishers of AACR 52
11. Formal recognition of individuals and groups contributing to the development of AACR 53
End of Executive Session
12. Multipart monographs 54
4JSC/LC/56
4JSC/LC/56/ACOC response
4JSC/LC/56/CCC response
4JSC/LC/56/ALA response
4JSC/LC/56/CILIP response
4JSC/LC/56/BL response
4JSC/CILIP-BL/2
4JSC/CILIP-BL/2/LC response
4JSC/CILIP-BL/2/CCC response
4JSC/CILIP-BL/2/ACOC response
4JSC/CILIP-BL/2/ALA response
4JSC/CILIP-BL/2/CILIP-BL follow-up
13. Editor’s draft of AACR3 Part I (continued) 57
14. Function of the catalogue and Strawman proposal for the organisation of Part II (incorporating Terms of reference for revising Chapter 21/Rule revision proposals to make the "Rule of three" optional) 61
4JSC/Editor/Part II/Function
4JSC/Editor/Part II/Outline
4JSC/ACOC/1
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/LA response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/LC response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/ALA response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/CCC response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/BL response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2/CCC response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2/LC response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2/BL response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2/ALA response
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up/2/CILIP response
4JSC/ALA Rep/1
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/CCC response
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/LC response
4JSC/ALA rep/1/ACOC response
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/BL response
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/ALA response
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/CILIP response
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/Rev
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/Rev/2
4JSC/ALA Rep/1/Rev/3
15. Constituency Review 66
16. Capitalisation of single letters used to represent words (Appendix A.4A1 and A.30) 68
4JSC/BL/7
4JSC/BL/7/CILIP response
4JSC/BL/7/LC response
4JSC/BL/7/ACOC response
4JSC/BL/7/CCC response
4JSC/BL/7/ALA response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/CCC response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/ALA response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/ACOC response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/CILIP response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev/CCC response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev/ALA response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev/ACOC response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev/CILIP response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev/BL response
4JSC/BL/7/BL follow-up/2/LC response/LC follow-up/Rev/ALA response/ALA rep. follow-up
17. Designations of function (21.0D) 71
4JSC/ALA/58
4JSC/ALA/58/ACOC response
4JSC/ALA/58/CCC response
4JSC/ALA/58/BL response
4JSC/ALA/58/CILIP response
4JSC/ALA/58/LC response
4JSC/ALA/58/Rev
4JSC/ALA/58/Rev/CCC response
4JSC/ALA/58/Rev/ACOC response
4JSC/ALA/58/Rev/CILIP response
4JSC/ALA/58/Rev/BL response
4JSC/ALA/58/Rev/LC response
18. Revisions coming from the preparation of Cartographic Materials 73
4JSC/ALA/59
4JSC/ALA/59/CCC response
4JSC/ALA/59/LC response
4JSC/ALA/59/ACOC response
4JSC/ALA/59/CILIP response
4JSC/ALA/59/BL response
19. Update on related projects and other resource description communities 74
20. Next meeting 77
21. JSC program of work 78
22. JSC list of tasks 82
4JSC/Sec/2/Rev/5
23. Revised statement of policy and procedures for JSC 83
4JSC/Policy/4/Rev/6
4JSC/Policy/6
24. Any other business 83
25. Close of meeting 84
Minutes: of the twenty-ninth meeting of the Committee held at Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England, 18-21 October 2004
Present: Sally Strutt, British Library, in the Chair
Jennifer Bowen, American Library Association
Tom Delsey, Editor of AACR3
Deirdre Kiorgaard, Australian Committee on Cataloguing
Nathalie Schulz, Secretary
Margaret Stewart, Canadian Committee on Cataloguing
Hugh Taylor, CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
Barbara Tillett, Library of Congress
Don Butcher, Chair of the Committee of Principals, was also in attendance.
Observers in attendance:
John Attig, Pennsylvania State University
Katharine Gryspeerdt, British Library
Sue Lambert, Betty & Gordon Moore Library Cambridge
Heather Rosie, British Library
628 To approve the agenda
628.1 The following documents were added:
4JSC/Policy/4/Rev/6
4JSC/Policy/6
628.2 The Chair noted that the two new documents would be discussed with agenda item 33 (Revised statement of policy and procedures for JSC). Jennifer Bowen said that she had circulated a document from the Music Library Association, which was in fulfilment of an action of Matthew Beacom's from a previous meeting. Margaret Stewart asked whether the document 4JSC/Editor/Part I/Sources of information should be discussed with agenda item 11 (Multipart monographs). The Editor suggested that it be kept where it was, although it was likely that the items would be discussed at the same time. The Chair noted that the meeting would be structured differently to meetings in the past and that item 6 (Editor's draft of AACR3 Part I) would be the focus for the discussion for much of the meeting. The Chair said that many of the topics listed after agenda item 6 would not be discussed in detail, but were included on the agenda as "markers." The Chair added that agenda items 11 (Multipart monographs) and 12 (Rules for Early Printed Monographs (2.12–2.18)) would require detailed discussion.
628.3 The draft agenda (4JSC/A/20/Rev) was approved with the above amendments. The minutes reflect those agenda items and document series that were discussed.
629 Minutes of the previous meeting held 19-22 April 2004
629.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held 19-22 April 2004 (4JSC/M/598-627 and 4JSC/M/Resricted/598-627) were approved with the following corrections:
629.1.1 4JSC/M/601.4 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/601.4, fourth sentence: add "a" before "problem."
629.1.2 4JSC/M/601.12 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/601.12, sixth sentence: change "different to" to "different from."
629.1.3 4JSC/M/601.13 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/601.13, seventh sentence, add a comma before "i.e." after "plug and play."
629.1.4 4JSC/M/601.22 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/601.22, eleventh sentence: change "when they self-described" to: "when they described resources they were creating."
629.1.5 4JSC/M/601.30 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/601.30, final sentence: add "as a desirable goal."
629.1.6 4JSC/M/617.3 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/617.3, fourth sentence: change "That Chair" to "The Chair"; change "liase" to "liaise."
629.1.7 4JSC/M/617.4.3 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/617.4.3, second paragraph, eighth sentence: change "though" to "thought."
629.1.8 4JSC/M/620.2.4 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/620.2.4, second paragraph, eleventh sentence: change "though" to "thought."
629.1.9 4JSC/M/620.9 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/620.9, second sentence: change "though" to "thought."
629.1.10 4JSC/M/621.2 and 4JSC/M/Restricted/621.2: first and second sentences: change "optional edition" to "optional addition."
630 AACR3 Editor Statement of work
630.1 Received and considered the following document:
4JSC/Restricted/Chair/6
630.2 The Chair explained that 4JSC/Restricted/Chair/6 (AACR3 Editor Statement of work) was extracted from the Editor's contract and contained a schedule based on discussions at the April 2004 meeting. The Chair asked if JSC members had any concerns or queries. Deirdre Kiorgaard asked whether it was really the case that the JSC would not see a revised draft of part I until March 2006. The Editor said that the schedule reflected what had been in the draft project outline. The Editor added that he was expecting to revise the draft of part I after the meeting, prior to the constituency review. He said that the revised draft would be ready no sooner than mid-December, and he suggested that the time between then and mid-February be allowed for comments.
630.3 Responses to draft
The Editor noted that the question of who would handle comments arising from the constituency review was not mentioned in the plan. He said that was why "Constituency Review" had been added to the agenda, as there needed to be discussions on who did the review, what sort of comments were requested, and how they would be dealt with. The Editor said that there would be discussion of the responses to part I at the April 2005 meeting, but that JSC members would have to do some filtering and "triage" in advance. The Editor added that although the revised draft of part I would not be back on the table until March 2006, in October 2005 there would be discussion of the responses to the draft of part II. The Chair noted that this did not mean that the draft of part I would not be discussed, but that there needed to be a structured process. Deirdre Kiorgaard asked if this meant there would be no revised draft after the April 2005 meeting. The Editor replied that there might not be a complete draft. He suggested that if the decisions made in April were straightforward, it would be acceptable for the JSC not to see a revised draft until 2006. The Editor added that if the changes were not straightforward, there might be revised chunks of the draft at the next meeting.
630.4 Rule revision proposals
Deirdre Kiorgaard said that she wanted to confirm what the constituencies would be reviewing. The Editor replied that it would be a draft revised after this meeting. Margaret Stewart said that it was possible that rule revision proposals would be included in the responses. The Editor said that the scope for comments needed to be clear, and it would be up to the JSC to determine if revisions were out of scope. John Attig said that he had two issues to raise. Firstly, he noted that ALA had already received a rule revision proposal, and the JSC needed a plan for dealing with this, either to refer it to the Editor, or say that it had to wait until the completion of AACR3. His second point was that if ALA groups were to be charged to do specific work they needed to know the schedule for drafts. The Chair asked John Attig for his opinion on the rule revision that had been proposed. John Attig replied that it was a very simple suggestion to change an example. Jennifer Bowen suggested that each proposal would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. The Editor said that it was not his responsibility to make decisions on proposals, this would be the responsibility of the JSC. Deirdre Kiorgaard asked what text any rule revision proposals should be based on. Hugh Taylor noted that there was not a stable text. He added that CILIP had some proposals they were considering that appeared to be straightforward, but that problematic issues were equally important to users. He said that it would look foolish to issue a new edition in 2007 and then have an update package with significant changes in 2008. The Editor replied that he was not saying that proposals could not be dealt with, but that the JSC needed a way to provide him with direction. The Chair said that the first assessment on proposals should be made by the JSC, and that there could be discussion at meetings if necessary. Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that if there was approval for a change, constituencies could draft the revisions.
630.5 Examples
The Editor said that he wanted to raise the issue of examples in the rules. He said that there was work to be done to add new examples and remove some of the existing examples. He added that the Consistency Task Force had done some of this work for areas 2, 3, 4, and 6, and he had looked at areas 1 and 7, but that more work needed to be done. John Attig noted that the JSC had planned in the past to review all of the examples in AACR. Deirdre Kiorgaard said that a group was needed to take on the task. The Chair said that the JSC had not followed its original plans for review because it had not made sense in the context of AACR3. The Editor said that when the draft of part I was available for review it needed to be made clear that examples had not been looked at in a comprehensive way. Jennifer Bowen suggested that comments on examples could be channelled to a separate group. The Editor noted that some work had been done by the Consistency Task Force even if it was arbitrary. Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that all examples could be put into Section A. The Editor replied that this would make it very bulky. John Attig noted that the Consistency Task Force had been asked to reduce examples. Deirdre Kiorgaard said that she was concerned that people would ask where particular examples were. Barbara Tillett noted that any proposed revision to examples still needed to be discussed by the JSC and with the constituencies. The Editor noted that work on examples would have to be completed in time for the second draft of part I. The Editor said he understood that on a general level reducing examples was desirable, but added that this was difficult in terms of user response, because users liked examples. The Editor added that he tried to have examples to illustrate each aspect of a rule, but it was not necessary to have six examples for each aspect. Jennifer Bowen suggested that the group could produce a report for the October 2005 meeting, and the approved examples could go into the revised draft in 2006. [Note: see 4JSC/M/632.24.]
630.6 Plan for new rule revision proposals
The Chair summarised that the plan for dealing with new rule revision proposals was that the JSC would apply judgement as to which should go forward, and which should be added to the JSC list of tasks. John Attig asked whether proposals should be presented in terms of AACR2, or in terms of the latest draft of AACR3. The Chair said that constituencies would have to write them in terms of AACR2, but that the JSC representative would convert them to AACR3. Hugh Taylor suggested that proposals could be discussed informally by email before becoming a formal document. Barbara Tillett said that this would help the JSC to do initial vetting. The Chair noted that this would help the constituencies not to waste time.
630.7 Rule revision proposals from the Editor
The Chair noted that a decision had been made on the mechanism for rule revision proposals from the constituencies, but that there still needed to be discussion on rule revision proposals from the Editor. The Editor noted that for some issues he had prepared separate documents for the meeting, e.g. his response (4JSC/Editor/Part I/Sources of information) to the CILIP/BL paper on multiparts (4JSC/CILIP-BL/2/CILIP-BL follow-up). He added that to some extent his proposals would be buried in the drafts. The Editor said that he tried to incorporate in the draft responses to the area 5 prototype (4JSC/ALA/60) where there was reasonable consensus.