Teleconference 24 March 2005
Present: Ebe Kartus (ALIA: Chair), Ann Huthwaite (ALIA),
Philip Hider (ALIA), Deirdre Kiorgaard (NLA), Julie Whiting (NLA), Anne Robertson (EPC representative), Catherine Argus (NLA observer)
Apologies: Rob Walls (NLA)
Minutes: Fran D'Castro (NLA)
Welcome
Ebe Kartus, the Chair of ACOC opened the meeting.
Discussion on Proposed Response to Draft AACR3 Part 1
The teleconference concentrated on: comments on the draft response; areas to highlight in the final response; and arrangements for finalising ACOC’s comments.
Arrangement of Part 1 and Timeframe
Some of the ACOC members shared ALA concern about the proposed structure of generalised rules followed by technical description. However, following the ISBD structure was not accepted as the solution either. It was felt that cataloguers want specific advice to assist them in cataloguing.
It was felt that Maps and Music are difficult to integrate into the general chapter, and would be more useful in their own chapters.
There was discussion on whether resources issued in successive parts and integrating resources should continue to exist separately, merge into a single supplementary chapter following the general rules, or be integrated into the general chapter. It was agreed that it is useful to keep them separate from the general chapter, but they could be easily combined in the one supplementary chapter.
Chief source of information
The term “title proper” was criticised as a cataloguer’s construct, and the use of “Title” alone proposed. As the equality of title and the most complete source of information may be confusing, these should be prioritised, with the title given preference. The associated list was considered to be too book-centred, and needed testing against an electronic example, for example, a Web page. It was agreed a more generalised definition of Title, accompanied by a succinct list would be best (minimising agonising over decisions). An additional chapter (or a separate publication) containing a wide range of examples, would also be very useful.
GMDs and SMDs
GMDs and the issue of “adjectivising” generated considerable discussion. Keeping to one term was preferred by some as more consistent with ISBD conventions. A possible compromise was using 2 separate terms joined by a semi-colon. The issue of access versus description was touched upon. It was agreed that any decision needs to be unambiguous. There is a current lack of helpful definitions.
There are still major outstanding issues to be resolved regarding Content versus Carrier in SMDs.
Digital
Additional guidelines are needed for cataloguing remote files and more guidance is required for static versus dynamic e-resources. It was suggested that recording the extent of static resources could be mandatory, while recording details of dynamic resources could remain optional. For remote access, the same level of detail should be given as for printed material. Illustrations and size are also very important for remote users.
The current Draft lacks examples combining multiple characteristics.
Recording Mode of access was discussed. While there are valid arguments for including URLs or URNs in the Description, care must be taken where aggregator services may be involved. If an e-resource is publicly or freely available, then this fact should be recorded.
Main issues the Committee wishes to highlight in finalised response
There is concern about the current arrangement of Part 1, the need to improve the treatment of digitised resources (both online and static), and generalised sources of information. The current draft is too print-focussed. There is some uncertainty whether the bibliographic description section works well, and if continuing resources should be separate or integrated.
The separate treatment of digital media is a fundamental problem. Part 1 treats print as being “standard”, with digital being considered “special”. Today’s reality is that both are now standard for libraries.
There were also specific concerns regarding FRBR (should this be moved from Part 2 to Part 1?), editions not being adequately addressed (especially the difference between Edition and Expression), possible merging of resources issued in successive parts and integrating resources into one chapter, and some remaining verbose text.
There was a general agreement that the General Chapter should be kept, with supplementary chapters as required, rather than reorganise Part 1 according to ISBD. Provided the ACOC suggestions are integrated, the Committee were basically happy with the structure. It was also recognised that AACR3 should contain the simplest possible text, for maximum clarity of meaning and usefulness to cataloguers. It is more important for cataloguers to interpret principles, than for AACR3 to explicitly address every situation.
Approach to finalising response prior to deadline
Today's discussions will be incorporated into the ACOC Response, important recommendations summarised at the beginning, and the completed response sent directly to JSC to meet the March 28 deadline.


