National Library of Australia

Teleconference 23 August 2007

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

Teleconference commenced at 2:05pm

This Teleconference was held to discuss the draft of Chapters 6 and 7 of RDA, in particular the changes from previous drafts, mentioned in the cover letter.

Deirdre Kiorgaard led the discussion on the following changes:

Chapter 6 Changes

1. Separate placement of the instructions on determining the primary access point

This has been left for later chapters.  ACOC accepted this change.

2. Grouping of instructions in Chapter 6 under work, expression, manifestation and item

ACOC agreed in principle to this grouping, but felt there was significant confusion about the distinction between “work” and “expression” and the roles of creator and contributor at these levels.  In particular:

  • The compiler of a compilation is treated as the creator of the compilation whereas the author of a foreword is clearly a contributor. Are authors of different parts of an anthology creators or contributors?
  • Are editors “creators” of the serial work?
  • In movies, are directors, cameramen and producers creators or contributors? Is the movie a work or an expression
  • Why is the editor of a serial not considered to be a creator? According to the definition provided, it could be argues that they are responsible for the creation of a work.

It was also mentioned that the creator should be mandatory only where applicable.  Eg, in most cases serials do not have a creator.

Concern was expressed that determining the distinctions between creator and contributor will mean that:

  • a greater degree of cataloguer's judgement will be required
  • cataloguer's will need to understand the definitions for creator and contributor at 6.3.1.0.1 and 6.4.1.0.1, what they imply, and at what level certain activities/roles fit within the FRBR structure

3. Eliminating the distinction between creator and collaborator.

Accepted by ACOC.

4. Generalising instructions on academic disputations, musical works and art works

Accepted by ACOC.  ACOC expressed support for the generalisation of instructions wherever possible.

5. Keeping separate instructions for legal works, religious works, and official communications.

Deirdre advised that attempts had been made to generalise these rules, without success so far.  ACOC was happy to accept keeping them separate for now, but advised reconsideration of this after the release of RDA.

Some concern was expressed about arbitrary distinctions between “official” communications from heads of state or church bodies, and communications from less senior representatives of these bodies.

6. Developing a controlled vocabulary for Designation of role

Accepted by ACOC.  Deirdre advised that both ALA and LC are doing some work on this.

7. Creator/originating body as a required access point.

Accepted by ACOC.

8. Concept of originating body (21.1B2 retained)

This was not accepted by ACOC.  It was felt that these provisions need to be reworked rather than retained as they are.

It was suggested that originating body should be covered in the instructions for creator and that “if in doubt” instruction be added to address situations when there is a question about whether a corporate body is a creator. It was considered desirable to spell out when a corporate body is a creator.

Capter 7 Changes

1. Structure of chapter using relationship types; subdivision by work, etc.

ACOC supported JSC’s decision to use relationship types to structure this chapter, subdivided by the FRBR entity.

2. Explicit FRBR “primary” relationships

ACOC supported JSC’s decision to include a section on FRBR “primary” relationships.

3. “Name”, “Description”, “resource identifier” as conventions for referencing a related resource and

4. Identifiers, Controlled Access points & Composite descriptions used to record the primary relationships between work, expression, manifestation, and item

The revised conventions were considered to be more understandable, and easier to relate to current practice, than those used in the June 2006 draft. However, ACOC felt that the current conventions for recording relationships under 7.1.2 and 7.3 are similar and that it would be better if the conventions for recording all relationships be once given at 7.1.2. It was suggested that the instructions should recommend always recording either name or description in addition to the identifier, and that an option to “do all of the above” should be offered. It was also suggested that more guidance was needed on when to apply each convention. Alternative text for 7.1.2 to be included with ACOC response.

ACOC felt that the instructions for structured and unstructured description of related resources at 7.1.5 could be combined. Examples in both structured and free form could be given, with the examples in ISBD form labelled appropriately. If separate instructions for structured and unstructured description are retained, it was considered desirable to explain what is meant by ‘the same structure’ in 7.1.5.1.1.

5. Generalising instructions on music resources, art resources, and legal resources

ACOC again expressed support for the generalisation of instructions wherever possible.

6. Developing a controlled vocabulary for Designation of relationship

ACOC expressed support for the development of a controlled vocabulary for designation of relationship.

7. Relationships between resources that share characteristics not referenced

It was felt that shared characteristics are implicit in the description and do not constitute a bibliographic relationship. Therefore, 7.0.4 was considered to be unnecessary.

8. Relationship to a work/ expression as a required access point

ACOC agreed that the relationship to a work/expression should be a required access point. It is an essential requirement to meet FRBR user tasks. Requiring this relationship is also essential to address the issue of multiple versions.

General

1. Use of “families, persons, and corporate bodies”

ACOC also discussed again the chapter heading “Persons, groups, and corporate bodies” and our earlier suggestion of “persons and groups”.  Deirdre said it had been discussed but she was happy to raise it again.  On further discussion, ACOC felt that no distinction was really necessary and suggested using a single term, “Parties” instead.

2. Form of examples and

3. Grouping of examples

ACOC appreciated the large number of examples provided, and considered that they will be very useful, especially for the initial period after RDA’s release. However, in the online product it may be better to present fewer examples initially, with an option to expand the number of examples displayed if desired.

4. Definitions of terms

ACOC had no definitions of terms they wished to discuss

5. Writing styles

Not discussed

ACOC Seminar

Final organisational details for the Seminar were discussed, such as dinners, registration, showbags, scheduling and time management during the sessions.

The teleconference closed at 4pm.

Next teleconference

Monday 10 September 2pm.