Meeting 5 December 2008
Present: Ebe Kartus (ALIA: Chair), Ann Huthwaite (ALIA), Philip Hider (ALIA), Deirdre Kiorgaard (NLA), Anne Robertson (EPC representative), Catherine Argus (NLA – for Julie Whiting), Bemal Rajapatirana (NLA – for Rob Walls)
Apologies: Julie Whiting (NLA), Rob Walls (NLA)
Minutes: Jenny Stephens (NLA)
Ebe Kartus, the Chair of ACOC, opened the meeting at 8.45am
ACOC Seminar 2008
Ebe spoke about the draft of the final budget from this year’s seminar. There is a substantial surplus. ACOC decided to advise ALIA to keep the money available to go towards RDA training when the final version is available.
ALIA asked if ACOC wished to organise a seminar as a satellite event to IFLA 2010. ACOC agreed that this should be considered, and resolved to contact the IFLA cataloguing section to offer our interest in co-hosting or hosting a satellite event to IFLA 2010
ACOC Seminar 2009
ACOC briefly discussed next year’s Seminar. It was decided that it will be a repeat of the 2008 Seminar (with updates), probably mid-year. The location will be chosen based on ease of access to those who could not attend the 2008 seminar, and may depend in part on where Libraries Australia is held. A face-to-face meeting will be organised early in 2009 to discuss this further.
Several ACOC members were due to stand down over the next twelve months, including the JSC representative. The change-over of these positions will need to be structured to minimise impact on the work of the Committee.
NOTE: Members were given responsibility for leading discussion on particular sections of the draft.
Deirdre Kiorgaard introduced the general comments document that had been distributed prior to the meeting. Deidre highlighted that the PDF version of the draft is similar to what could be expected from a print-out from the online version. The examples in the PDF are similar to how they will look online and this has caused problems with printing the PDF because they are very image intensive.
There are a number of errors with the grouping of examples, and also the fonts of the examples.
The “deferred issues” referred to in the Cover letter to the Draft are largely because the timeframe doesn’t allow adequate time to address them.
Deirdre also drew attention to the sections of the cover letter referring to AACR2 changes and RDA Element set. The key point about the element set is that the level of detail and granularity is important for mapping to and from other standards and for machine manipulation of the resulting data. It also assists with formatting the metadata for the online product.
Discussion led by Ann Huthwaite. Key issues included:The definition of “resource” is not clear. This needs to be clarified and clearer guidance given on how it is used throughout, e.g. in chapter 3 we are describing the manifestation and item, not the work or expression. A suggested rewording of the definition will be included in ACOC’s comments.
- FRBR emphasis should be more up front.
- It was felt that the word “Identifying” in chapter titles should be replaced with “describing”
- ACOC agreed that they were happy with the current set of “core elements”. However, there was some confusion about whether the data had to be supplied in all core elements even if there was no data present on the item. Also, if only one expression exists, only the relationship to the work should be core. ACOC will suggest some phrasing to clarify this.
- When editions should be considered a new expression. Deirdre drew attention to Section 6.13 which stipulates what constitutes a new expression.
- The vendor changes required to accommodate RDA and FRBR. Deirdre agreed to re-circulate the list of required vendor changes that was circulated earlier this year.
Chapters 1 and 2, and Appendices A, B and C
Discussion led by Ebe Kartus, with contributed written comments by Julie Whiting. Issues included:
- ACOC recommends usability testing to specifically address how the cross-referencing works for users at different levels of expertise.
- 1.4 – ACOC recommends that the online version only show the list under an “expand” option.
- 1.5.2 – ACOC proposes the term “DVD” rather than “digital videodisc” here
- 1.7.3 – ACOC recommends some examples of more unusual punctuation.
- 1.10 – ACOC comments that there is no indication in RDA of the purpose and function of notes. Should this be given in Ch 0?
- ACOC suggests that the first part of Chapter 2 could be shortened by combining some of it with information at the beginning of Chapter 1. A suggested revision will be drafted.
- 2.2.2 – ACOC recommends greater prominence for online resources here. Either a separate section or better representation in the embedded examples.
- 2.6.5-2.6.9 – ACOC recommends combining these instructions into one, as they all give the same instruction.
- 126.96.36.199 – ACOC would like to see the addition of an option to only add the first listed place of publication.
- 188.8.131.52 – ACOC recommends that the ISSN should be able to be taken from any source.
Appendices A, B and C
Abbreviations – ACOC queried why place names are still being abbreviated. Deirdre agreed to follow this up.
- ACOC also queried the continuing use of B.C. and A.D. in association with dates. Deirdre will also follow this up.
Chapters 3 and 4
Discussion led by Philip Hider. Issues included:
- 3.1.4 – ACOC wishes to ensure that the term “extent” is linked to the definition of that term in the Glossary.
- 184.108.40.206 - Recording carrier type. There are not enough terms under Unmediated carriers – For e.g., what would be the type for a photograph?
- 220.127.116.11 - Recording extent. ACOC recommends that the exceptions should be highlighted earlier, e.g. in the first sentence, given their importance.
- 18.104.22.168 - Other terms used to designate the type of unit. This rule seems to contradict 22.214.171.124. Scope for common usage terms under (c) should be highlighted much earlier, preferably at 126.96.36.199.
- 188.8.131.52 - Units and sets of units with identical content. This is the first mention of ‘sets’ – contradicting earlier rules which preclude this term in the extent.
- 184.108.40.206.5 – Websites could be mentioned here.
- 220.127.116.11 - Comprehensive description of a collection. This is introduced rather late, again contradicting earlier rules which would preclude the terms item and container, particularly 18.104.22.168, which uses ‘various pieces’.
Storage space conflicts with the definition of extent and is really a characteristic, similar to dimensions, which could be covered separately.
- 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 - ‘… specify the number of carriers’ – It should be stipulated that the terms to use here are the carrier type terms.
- 188.8.131.52 – ACOC questions whether these terms are really necessary, and whether users know what a portfolio is. It is in fact used in two different ways even within this chapter.
- 3.22 Note. Should it be made clearer that a note can be made for any of the other elements too, not just extent and dimensions?
- Chapter 4 is very small and the title is not very clear. ACOC suggests that more consistency needs to be achieved in the titles of Chapters 2-4, to more accurately reflect what the cataloguer is doing, i.e. describing, rather than what the end-user is doing, or supposedly doing, through the description. (As the title of Chapter 3 does)
- ACOC queries whether other data relating to “obtaining”, at the item level, should be covered in this chapter. For example, call numbers?
Discussion led by Deirdre Kiorgaard. Issues included:
- 5.1.3 - The definition “The term title of the work refers to a character or group of words and/or characters by which a work is known.” is more confusing than the definition of ‘title of the work’ given in the Glossary, i.e. “A word, phrase, character, or group of characters by which a work is known.”
- 5.1.4 - Access point. If access point includes both preferred and variant access points, that should be stated.
- 184.108.40.206 – The examples are difficult to interpret without the context of the work or expression. An explanatory note would be helpful. They also appear to use a convention of including the information found in the source in round brackets. Is this necessary?
Deirdre identified 5 key issues for this chapter and asked if ACOC had any comments about these issues.
(1) which sources to use when identifying the title of a work or expression, and
(2) the role of language/script in that choice, and
(3) the use of standard references such as IFLA’s Anonymous Classics.
(4) the use of Selections (220.127.116.11.2 alternative) and other conventional collective titles (see 18.104.22.168)
(5) the elements to use in constructing access points to represent works and expressions (6.27).
ACOC members had no concerns about 1-3, or 5, but sought more information regarding 4. Deirdre will supply further information on this issue.
Other issues included:
- 6.0 - Purpose and scope. The definitions of work and expression should appear in the body of the text, not in footnotes.
- 22.214.171.124 - Sources of information. ACOC suggests a revised definition of “reference source”, e.g. “Reference source. Any source from which authoritative information may be obtained, including authority files, reference works”
- 126.96.36.199 - Alternative linguistic form of title. JSC needs to consider whether these need to be separately identified, specifically as other language forms, not lumped with other variant titles.
- 188.8.131.52 - Other variant title for the work. This instruction is very difficult to understand as written. and should be re-written, e.g. “Record any other variants, and any variant forms of the title recorded as the preferred title, that are not covered under 184.108.40.206 , as required
- 6.6 - Allow for other distinguishing characteristics to be recorded even when not required to distinguish, per the instructions for form, date and place.
- 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 - The ISO list referred to is arranged by codes not terms. Is there a version of that list arranged by terms that could be referred to?
- 6.27.3 - Elements for “Date of … ” and “Other distinguishing characteristic of … ” can be added to both works and expressions. As a result, headings for works and expressions could be identical, and it will be necessary to ensure that the element is labelled.
- 7.9.2 - These instructions are framed in terms of the author’s relationship to the degree, rather than the thesis. E.g. at 22.214.171.124 “Record a brief description of the degree for which the author was a candidate …”. Should this be “Record a brief description of the degree for which the work was presented …”?
SECTION 3 and Appendices F,G,I and K.
Discussion led by Bemal Rajapatirana.
- Should birth and death dates be core elements? ACOC agreed that Bemal should write a case for this.
Appendices F,G,I and K.
ACOC queries whether the lists of designations will grow over time and what principles govern their inclusion or exclusion.
Discussion was led by Catherine Argus.
It was noted that nowhere does it explicitly say that in some cases the names of certain larger places should be abbreviated as per Appendix B.11. Abbreviations just start to appear in the examples at 126.96.36.199.2.
This contrasts with 188.8.131.52.2 where explicit reference is made to abbreviating in accordance with Appendix B.
No comments apart from typographical errors were made on these sections.
- ACOC members to revise their comments and submit them to Deirdre by 15 December 2008
- Deirdre to prepare ACOC response to draft
The meeting closed at 5.05pm
Next meeting: TBA