Teleconference 8 September 2011
Kevin Marsh (ALIA), Ebe Kartus (ALIA), David Wells (ALIA), Deirdre Kiorgaard, (NLA/JSC Rep) Robert Walls (NLA), Catherine Argus, (NLA/Chair), Anne Robertson (EPC Representative)
Jenny Stephens (Minutes)
Start time: 2.00pm
ACOC Responses to 6JSC proposals for November JSC meeting
This meeting was the first of three held to discuss ACOC responses to RDA proposals to be considered at the November meeting of JSC. The proposals can be found on the JSC website at http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html
As the current JSC representative, Deirdre chaired this meeting. Draft responses were prepared by Deirdre and discussed by ACOC.
6JSC/LC/1 –Appendix A
ACOC supports the retention of the Appendix, and the proposed changes, noting that under Proposed change number 3, Missing languages, our preference would be for Option A - alphabetical integration.
6JSC/LC/4 - Punctuation guidance for see also references used with relationship designators [Appendix E]
ACOC supports this proposal.
Persons, Families & Corporate Bodies
6JSC/LC/5 - Clarifying Date Associated with the Person and Core Requirements
ACOC supports this proposal, with some changes to the way the instructions are revised to express this.
ACOC note some clarification was required for the suggested rewording of 0.6.4 in the draft ACOC response.
6JSC/BL/1 - Title of person: change to 9.4.1 and 126.96.36.199
ACOC supports harmonisation with FRAD but in this case felt it was not desirable to include all terms of address in RDA as this would make all of them core to record, and required for the access point. ACOC did agree, however, that terms of address could be expanded to include titles of honour, and rank of office generally.
6JSC/ALA/3 - Revision of RDA 9.13, Affiliation
ACOC supports the expansion to include nature and date of affiliation, and would also support such expansion in other elements where it is relevant. However, as affiliation is essentially a “relationship”, ACOC would like to see this proposal discussed in the broader context of the instructions on relationships.
6JSC/CILIP/3 – Field of activity (9.15) and Profession/Occupation (9.16)
ACOC does not support the combining of these elements as they each serve a distinct purpose, and suggests instead that the definition of Field of activity be further developed to clarify the distinction.
The proposal also mentions controlled vocabularies, which ACOC considers to be unnecessary to include in RDA.
6JSC/ALA/2 - Revision of RDA 11.2.2: Heads of State and Heads of Government
ACOC supports this proposal but notes that it may result in the need for significant global changes and suggests that JSC consider offering some guidance to assist libraries to do this.
6JSC/LC/3 - Elimination of RDA treatment for “names not conveying the idea of …”
ACOC generally agrees that this would simplify the cataloguing process, but is uncertain of the impact of the change on users of the catalogue. ACOC will therefore suggest that user testing be considered before making this change.
6JSC/LC/6 - Additions to RDA 188.8.131.52.1 (Corporate bodies considered to be creators)
ACOC agrees that the proposed additions are needed but questions their placement.
In examining this proposal ACOC has questioned the suitability of the reference to 18.1.2 at this instruction and suggests 11.0 as a preferable reference.
Manifestations and Items
6JSC/LC/2 - Date of manufacture (RDA 2.10.6)
ACOC supports this proposal.
ACOC agreed to post copies of our draft responses to the ACOC Website prior to submission to JSC, to allow Australian colleagues to read and offer comments.
It was confirmed that the ACOC statement on Gap Analysis drafted by Ebe is ready to be sent to JSC.
The next teleconference will be held on 16 September 2011.
Finish time: 3.15 pm.