National Library of Australia

Teleconference 29 June 2011

Present:  Kevin Marsh (ALIA), Ebe Kartus (ALIA), David Wells (ALIA), Deirdre Kiorgaard (NLA/ JSC representative), Robert Walls (NLA), Catherine Argus (NLA/Chair)

Apologies: Anne Robertson (EPC Representative)

Minutes: Jenny Stephens (NLA)

Teleconference commenced at 2.00pm EST (12 noon WA Time)

The main business of this meeting was to follow up on actions from the 15 April Face-to-Face meeting relating to ACOC constituency responses and proposals to JSC.

ACOC constituency responses

Response to 6JSC/ALA/1 [Revision of RDA 6.29.1.21: Reports of one court]

Deirdre Kiorgaard had previously agreed to seek comment from the community about this document.  She will do this in time for the next meeting.

Deirdre was not aware of any other responses required, but agreed to send all members a copy of the JSC forward schedule of work as it currently stands.  She advised the Committee that this schedule might well change once JSC has had a chance to fully review the US RDA Test report.

ACOC proposals

RDA 2.5.2 Designation of edition, and 2.5.6 designation of a named revision of an edition

Kevin Marsh reported on the proposals he drafted on these instructions.   After some consideration he decided not to proceed with combining the two rules, as they made logical sense as separate rules.  However, he felt that some re-allocation of examples was appropriate to make the distinction clearer, so this is the main emphasis of his proposed changes.

ACOC approved Kevin’s draft, but felt that the definition of “named revision” was not very clear and a revised scope statement for 2.5.6.1 should be considered for inclusion in the proposal.

Deirdre advised that if example changes only are being recommended this could be fast-tracked.  However, if a revised scope statement is also to be proposed, a full constituency proposal would be required.

Gap analysis with encoding standards

Ebe Kartus prepared and circulated a spreadsheet outlining MARC fields and subfields that were not linked to RDA rules.  Ebe explained that she compiled this by combining data from:

  • The MARC-RDA mapping tool in the RDA Toolkit
  • The 5JSC/Chair/12 document
  • The OCLC report Implications of MARC tag usage on library metadata
  • The MCDU project.

Her analysis showed that with the exception of fixed field data and classification numbers, most things were covered by RDA.  Deirdre advised that classification numbers would very likely be covered as part of the subject chapters still to be constructed.

ACOC agreed to advise JSC that this analysis has not found any major gaps and we have decided not to pursue this any further.

Notes on instructions and alternatives for “Selections”

Jenny Stephens circulated a revised version of this document in late May and Ebe advised that she had passed the document to her colleagues and is waiting for their response. Deirdre advised that a number of proposals that affect Chapter 6 are in the pipeline. She suggested that Jenny should review the JSC schedule of work to see if any of these proposals would be likely to address the same issues.

9.2.2.5.3 Names written in a non-preferred script

David Wells reported on his proposed a revision of this instruction.  He explained that the revision does not change the intent of the instruction, but aims to re-organise and simplify it so that this intent is clearer.  David drew attention to text relating to Yiddish and Hebrew names, and sought the advice of the Committee as to whether this text would still be necessary in the simplified version.

ACOC discussed the revision and agreed that overall it is much clearer and simpler, and probably no longer needed the specific reference to Hebrew and Yiddish names.  However, Catherine Argus questioned whether it was appropriate to have an instruction at this rule about names that only appear in transliterated form.  All agreed that this seemed out of place, but that it needed to go somewhere.  David agreed to look into this.

ACOC will proceed with a formal proposal along the lines of David’s revision, including the removal of the references to Yiddish and Hebrew names, and the relocation of the instruction on names found only in transliterated form. 

Temporary Data

Deirdre has not yet asked LC about their plans with regard to temporary data.

Inclusion of larger jurisdiction in place of production, publication, etc. elements.

Catherine was asked to draft a proposal to add an optional addition to RDA, to allow the larger jurisdiction to be recorded with the place of production, publication, etc. even if not present on the item. This is still to be done.

Next meeting

Monday 15 August 2011, 2pm

Meeting close: 3.00pm