National Library of Australia

Teleconference 11 September 2006

Present: Ebe Kartus (ALIA; Chair), Ann Huthwaite (ALIA), Philip Hider (ALIA), Julie Whiting (NLA), Rob Walls (NLA), Deirdre Kiorgaard (NLA)
Apologies: Anne Robertson (EPC representative)
Minutes: Catherine Argus (NLA)

JSC business

5JSC/RDA/Part A/Categorization

The draft response was discussed.

ACOC noted the bias in the proposal towards published materials caused by the alignment with ONIX. The suggestion was made that the framework could be expanded to include unpublished and online resources.

The option in 4.2.0.2.2 of using ‘other’ to record the content of a resource was discussed. An alternative option of using an appropriate term was considered. It was suggested that the list in 4.2.0.2.1 should be as comprehensive as possible.

ACOC discussed the desirability of removing the Alternative to record only the predominant type from 3.2.0.2.4, 3.3.0.2.4, 4.2.0.2.4.

A revised draft response will be circulated and discussed by email.

5JSC/ALA/2 Digital media proposals

ACOC discussed the placement of technical data in notes.

The distinction between elements, notes and access points in RDA more generally was also discussed.

It was felt that commenting on the specifics of the proposal was difficult, given that discussions on other parts of Chapter 3 are not complete.

5JSC/ CILIP/3 Accessible formats for visually impaired people

ACOC agreed to discuss the draft repose by email.

5JSC/CCC/1 Other agreements involving jurisdictions 7.9.5.5

ACOC agreed not to submit a response to the proposal.

5JSC/CILIP/2 Dimensions of binding

The draft response was discussed and approved.

5JSC/LC/8 Bible uniform titles

ACOC agreed to discuss the proposal by email.

5JSc/RDA/Part A/Chapters 6-7

The deadline for responses has been extended to September 25.

Chapter 6

Some members of ACOC thought that the difference between citation, access point and embedded description was not clear. Possible options for addressing this were discussed. Suggestions included providing guidance in 6.1.2 on when to use each convention, and defining the various relationships at the beginning of the chapter followed by instructions on the conventions for recording those relationships.

ACOC opted not to comment on the retention of special rules for music resources, art resources and legal resources.

Chapter 7

ACOC discussed options for replacing the phrase ‘persons, families or corporate bodies’ throughout Chapter 7. Some members of ACOC suggested that the phrase should be replaced with ‘entities’ or ‘persons and groups’.

7.1.3.2

It was suggested that the sentence about additional access points for persons, families and corporate bodies that have collaborated in or contributed to the creation or realization of the content of the resource should be separated from the sentence about other additional access points.

7.2

Concern was expressed that previous discussions on the ‘rule of three’ have not been reflected in the draft.

It was suggested that general guidance was required at 7.2.0.3 on determining when a modification of a previously existing work should be considered to be a new work.

Some members considered that the current arrangement of 7.2.1 is too complex.

7.6

The desirability of allowing the designation of joint, primary responsibility was discussed. It was suggested that 7.6 could be expanded to include designation of joint creator.