Meeting 2 April 2007
Present: Ebe Kartus (ALIA: Chair), Ann Huthwaite (ALIA), Philip Hider (ALIA) from 9.45am, Deirdre Kiorgaard (NLA), Julie Whiting (NLA), Rob Walls (NLA), Anne Robertson (EPC representative), Wan Wong (NLA Observer)
Apologies: None
Minutes: Jenny Stephens (NLA) and Wan Wong (NLA)
Welcome:
Ebe Kartus, the Chair of ACOC opened the meeting at 8.45am
Minutes and Business Arising from Previous Meeting
Minutes from the 16 February Teleconference were accepted.
2007 ACOC Seminar
ACOC agreed to hold the Seminar at the State Library of Queensland. The program and administrative arrangements for the seminar were discussed.
2008 Seminar
ACOC discussed possible dates and venues for the 2008 SeminarGovernance and JSC/CoP
Deirdre outlined the membership and governance of both JSC and the Committee of Principals, and ACOC discussed possible National Library of Australia representation on the Committee of Principles.
ACOC Committee
ACOC discussed issues regarding the ALIA representatives on the Committee, and their terms of office. ACOC also discussed the Committee’s Terms of Reference and the Composition of Committee.
DDC issues
Anne Robertson gave a report on current EPC activities.
- The next Edition is due in about 3 years.
- Comments on DDC. Anne is very happy with the feedback she gets, particularly from the NLA, on suggested changes. However, it is difficult to get comments from people who use the Abridged Edition. Anyone who is interested in DDC can comment, but should do so through Anne. ACOC discussed using the ACOC website to link to the DDC Blog and list Anne’s contacts for comments. Philip offered to develop a survey to seek experts in particular areas
- OCLC have been working on an automated way of applying numbers for individual works of literature, using data from CiPs.
- Translators of DDC are getting more input into its development. There is currently an Arabic translation under development.
- EPC are reviewing the currency of their website and looking at ways to raise the profile of EPC.
Revisions
- Next major revision is Religion – it is based on what UDC are doing.
- Italy’s place in Europe.
- Working party on Law. Europe comes from a different legal tradition.
RDA
Scope
General
ACOC discussed the Scope and Structure Document and ALA’s comments on Chapters 6 and 7. Deirdre explained that ALA wants their comments to be addressed before any further work is done on RDA. RDA relationships to Dublic Core and MARC were also discussed.
ACOC is happy for RDA development to proceed, taking the ALA comments into consideration as much as possible. ACOC also felt that any mapping to Dublin Core elements should be done after RDA is complete
Chapter 6
This draft of Chapters 6 and 7 not yet available for public comment. Deirdre outlined the changes, and noted the removal of primary access points, to be dealt with later. She also noted that the examples have not been updated yet.
6.1.2
ACOC generally happy with this but would prefer the terms “persons and groups” to “Persons, families and corporate bodies”
6.1.3
ACOC suggests the collapse of all rules into one statement. There should also be an option not to give access point for editor if it is an aggregate work.
6.2.1 and 6.2.2 - Creators and collaborators
ACOC feels that a distinction between these is unnecessary, though subsidiary roles should be kept separate. ACOC suggests one set of instructions for creators/collaborators, and one set of instructions for subsidiary roles (with possible roles listed at the beginning). Recording of Creators/collaborators should be required, but subsidiary roles optional.
In Scope, prefer “significantly” to “chiefly”.
6.2.9
ACOC suggests that a better working definition for “Performers” is needed.
6.2.10
ACOC suggests that this can be included as part of 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 above.
6.2.11
Should include persons and other groups, not just “Bodies”
6.2.11-6.2.13
ACOC suggests combining these into a single section on “other persons or groups associated with resource other than the content”.
6.3-6.5
These should also be simplified, fewer categories of rules. Instead include a list at the beginning indicating the different types covered.
6.6
ACOC continues to support designation of roles. Perhaps the list could be placed in an Appendix if it gets too long.
6.7-6.10
ACOC feels it is easier to keep these special rules separate rather than have them clutter the general rules.
Chapter 7
General comment
ACOC feels there is too much duplication of rules.
7.1.4.2
ACOC discussed the difference between relationship labels and descriptive labels extensively. There was some debate as to whether they are the same thing, i.e. is a ‘relationship label’ more a description of a relationship?. This needs to be resolved.
Action: ACOC members to have further email discussion on Relationship labels, relator codes and linking.
7.1.5.2-3
ACOC discussed the terminology – “structured” and “unstructured” vs. “standard” and “non-standard”
ACOC prefers an approach similar to that in 7.1.5.1.2 whereby a description (either full or partial) that is the same structure that has been used for the resource being described, is preferred.
7.2
"Primary relationships” should be “Relationships between Group 1 entities”
7.2.1-3
These rules should be collapsed into one rule.
7.2.1.3
The statement here needs better wording.
Chapter 3
Deirdre briefly outlined the current draft of Chapter Three. In the cover letter, JSC has tried to explain what they’ve done and why. Then Deirdre outlined some of the things that have been done. Comments are due by July 16, 2007.
Comments
ACOC felt that media type is unnecessary.
There are some areas that seem quite complex because of exceptions:
- Cartographic resource – the traditional way of description is not always carrier based.
- Notated music - not a carrier term. Should this be in the content chapters?
- 3.4.3.1 – put these sorts of terms into a single list, therefore eliminating the need for exceptions.
Other issues
Mode of issuance
ACOC recognises there are issues with the single record vs. different records approach and generally agree with Judy Kuhagen’s email.
LC10 – Serial numbering
ACOC feels that if you have information, you should give it always and consistently. Agree with LC on this.
CONSER
Julie looked at the CONSER documents in detail and submitted a draft response from the National Library of Australia’s point of view. JSC is being asked to endorse the recommendations. ACOC does not feel this is JSC’s role.
5JSC/ACOC rep/2
ACOC discussed several MARC tags that have been identified as not being covered in RDA, and made the following recommendations:
- 263 Projected Date of Publication – Out of scope for RDA
- 507 Scale – This should be covered preceding 4.13*
- 518 Date of recording – Consider including in a separate element
- 524 – should be included in a separate element
*ACOC also felt that 4.13 should be expanded to include 3D
Action: Philip to draft a response about this.
ALA/4
NLA happy with this proposal, and ACOC also agrees.
Meeting closed at 5.15pm.
Next teleconference TBA


