Minutes of March 2009 JSC Meeting - Restricted Web viewMeeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group on Element Sets and Vocabularies77

6JSC/M/Restricted/284-3081

JOINT STEERING COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RDA

MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2011 MEETING

Teacher Building, Glasgow, GB

1-4 November 2011

[Note: includes Executive Sessions]


TABLE of CONTENTS

Executive Session 1

284 Communication with other resource description communities 56JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Rev/Chair follow up 16JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Chair follow up/2

285 Formal recognition of individuals and groups contributing to the development of RDA 11

286 JSC Membership and Policies and election of Chair 116JSC/Chair/1/rev/26JSC/Policy/1/Draft/2

287 Approval of the agenda 166JSC/A/1/rev

End of Executive Session 1

288 Minutes of the previous meeting held March 2009 165JSC/M/266-2835JSC/M/Restricted/266-283

289 GROUP 3 Elements and Subject 166JSC/LC rep/36JSC/CILIP/1

290 Music 176JSC/CCC/1 6JSC/CCC/2 6JSC/CCC/3 6JSC/CCC/4 6JSC/CCC/5

291 Persons, Families & Corporate Bodies 206JSC/ACOC/1 6JSC/LC/5 6JSC/BL/1 6JSC/ALA/3 6JSC/CILIP/3 6JSC/ALA/2 6JSC/LC/3 6JSC/LC/6

292 Appendices 356JSC/LC/1 6JSC/LC/4


293 Manifestations and Items 386JSC/ACOC/26JSC/LC/2 6JSC/ACOC/3

294 Works and Expressions 436JSC/Chair/36JSC/ALA/1 6JSC/LC/8 6JSC/LC rep/2 6JSC/LC/7 6JSC/CILIP/2 6JSC/ALA/4

Executive Session 2

295 Liaison with the co-publishers of RDA 636JSC/Restricted/Chair/1/Rev 3

296 Scope and maintenance of JSC/AACR/RDA Toolkit Web sites 68 6JSC/Restricted/Chair/5/Draft


297 Meeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group 706JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Chair follow up/2

298 Meeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group/ISSN Network 756JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Chair follow up/1

299 Meeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group on Element Sets and Vocabularies 776JSC/Chair/56JSC/Chair/4

Executive Session 3

300 Examples Working Group 806JSC/Chair/2/Draft/Rev

301 US RDA Test 81http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/JSC-Plan-to-respond-to-US-National-test-showing-progress-(linked-document).pdfhttp://www.rda-jsc.org/summaryprog.html

302 Update on related projects and other resource description communities 84

303 Next meeting 845JSC/Policy/6


304 JSC programme of work 85

305 Statement of policy and procedures for JSC 855JSC/Policy/4/Rev/2

306 Actions arising out of the JSC Meeting March 2009 85

307 Outcomes from November 2011 meeting 85

308 Any other business 86



Minutes: of the thirty-eighth meeting of the Committee held at the Teacher Building, Glasgow, GB, 1-4 November 2011.

Present: JSC

Alan Danskin, British Library, in the ChairJohn Attig, American Library Association Gordon Dunsire, Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsDeirdre Kiorgaard, Australian Committee on CataloguingMargaret Stewart, Canadian Committee on CataloguingBarbara Tillett, Library of CongressThurstan Young, British Library, Secretary

ISBD

Massimo Gentili-Tedeschi, Biblioteca Nazionale BraidenseElena Escolano Rodríguez, Subdirección General de Publicaciones, Ministerio de Defensa, SpainFrançoise Leresche, Bibliothèque nationale de France Mirna Willer, University of Zadar

ISSN

Louise Howlett, British LibraryFrançois-Xavier Pelegrin, International ISSN CentreRegina Romano Reynolds, Library of CongressMarja-Liisa Seppala, University of Helsinki

ALA Publishing

Troy Linker

Observers in attendance

Judith A. Kuhagen, Library of CongressKevin Marsh, Australian Committee on CataloguingGrace Beckett, University of LondonDorothy McGarry, ISBD ObserverChristine Frodl, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

Executive Session 1

284 Communication with other resource description communities

284.1 DNB

284.1.1 The Chair welcomed Christine Frodl to the meeting. Christine (Office of Library Standards, DNB) will become the DNB rep on JSC going forward.


284.1.2 The Chair reported that DNB have taken the decision to adopt RDA. DNB have sent the Chair and Secretary a press release in English. This announcement will be published on the JSC website.Action=Secretary

284.2 EURIG

284.2.1 The Chair reported that a European RDA Interest Group had been set up by the national libraries of Sweden, Spain, Germany and the U.K. The agreement to form EURIG was signed in September in Copenhagen and the group now includes 16 members representing national libraries and bibliographic agencies.

284.2.2 The Chair reported that the inaugural members meeting of EURIG would take place on 9 th

December 2011 in Frankfurt. He said that he would attend and act as the temporary Chair of the committee. Members will formally elect a committee at the meeting.Action=BL representative

284.2.3 The Chair reported that a EURIG technical meeting would take place in February 2012 in Paris sponsored by the BnF. He said that this would mainly cover the issues of concern to the BnF and AFNOR and added that he would attend as a representative of JSC.Action=BL representative

284.3 DCMI

284.3.1 Gordon Dunsire reported that there was a chance during the coming year that Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) could develop application profiles for RDA and ISBD. DCMI has established a Vocabulary Management Community.

284.3.2 Gordon Dunsire reported that the DCMI/RDA Task Group would be superseded by the DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task Group. He said that he would issue invitations to the JSC, ISBD, and FRBR Review Groups to join the Task Group. The ISBD Review Group is already in discussions with the FRBR Review Group concerning future alignment of vocabularies and element sets through the medium of RDF. Action=CILIP representative

284.4 FRBR

284.4.1 Gordon Dunsire explained that JSC needed to decide on RDA’s relationship to FRBR Group 1 entities before the vocabularies and element set were opened up to a wider audience for input. He said that interested parties could be brought together for a meeting in April or May 2012. A meeting on the 5th anniversary of the London meeting could be arranged, subject to funding. If a venue is available at the BL, funding for speakers may be available. A meeting at IFLA 2012 may also be a possibility. JSC agreed to discuss setting a date by email.Action=JSC


284.5 PCC Task Group

284.5.1 Barbara Tillett reported that the PCC Task Group reports on RDA implementation were now available and the Policy Committee was meeting to discuss actions and follow ups. She said that LC had already sent their responses to the reports.

284.6 Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative

284.6.1 Barbara Tillett reported that as part of the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative an advisory group would be set up and chaired by Deanna Marcum. She said that Deanna Marcum was seeking a two year grant to fund the initiative and that a list of contacts had been drawn up in order to invite worldwide engagement in the process. She added that technical working groups would be set up alongside the advisory group to focus on specific aspects and prototypes of possible replacements for MARC.

284.7 UNIMARC

284.7.1 Gordon Dunsire reported that the Permanent UNIMARC Committee had accepted the recommendations of a project conducted by himself and Mirna Willer on behalf of the ISBD Review Group to represent UNIMARC in RDF.

284.8 RDA, ISBD, and ISSN Harmonization Issues

284.8.1 Received and considered the following documents: 6JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Rev/Chair follow up 1

6JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Chair follow up/2

284.8.2 The JSC discussed harmonization issues with regard to RDA, ISBD, and ISSN.

284.8.3 The Chair explained that the harmonization issues pre-meeting would give the JSC an opportunity to highlight any issues that were non negotiable from the view point of harmonization with ISBD and ISSN. He added that the JSC also needed to agree upon a way in which this message should be conveyed.

284.8.4 The Chair noted that the ISBD RG had asked about the creation of an application profile in the RDA standard that represents the mandatory elements in the ISBD bibliographic record. John Attig commented that the JSC should have no objection to the creation of such an application profile but equally there should be no requirement that all the communities using RDA must apply it. Margaret Stewart commented that ISBD’s suggestions for an application profile went further than the core element mapping already present in Appendix D. It also recommended an order of display and prescribed punctuation for those elements.

284.8.5 The JSC discussed the ISBD RG’s recommendation that RDA make provision for the creation of a new bibliographic description based on major title changes in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. The Chair reported that ISSN is willing to look into the possibility of proposing a change to the ISSN Manual. This proposal would be made following consultation with the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean ISSN Centres and ISSN’s own linguists. He said that there was no compelling need for the JSC to make a change to RDA


because the existing instruction to create a new description based on a change in the first five words of the title only applies to scripts in which there are clear boundaries between words. JSC agreed to wait and see what change ISSN make to their own rules and then decide whether this should be applied to RDA.

284.8.6 The JSC discussed the ISBD RG’s recommendation that RDA provide instructions on creating a new bibliographic description based on other major changes to serials. Both ISBD and the ISSN Manual make provision for the creation of a new description when the title proper is generic and the issuing body either changes its name or issuance switches to a different body. The Chair noted that RDA contains a provision at 1.6.2.4 to create a new description if there is a change in responsibility that requires a change in identification of the serial as a work. John Attig responded that RDA’s provision in this situation is not confined to generic titles. The JSC agreed to consider this as a future development issue for RDA.

284.8.7 Both ISBD and ISSN make provision for the creation of a new description when a dependent title becomes independent. Judith Kuhagen commented that this was a harmonization issue that remained unresolved with AACR. She added that ISBD had never been able to provide a definition for when a dependent title became independent. The JSC agreed that this was not a significant development issue for RDA.

284.8.8 Both ISBD and ISSN make provision for the creation of a new description when a physical medium changes. The Chair commented that including this provision in RDA would result in more time being spent on the creation of new descriptions. He added that the creation of a new description based on a change of physical medium would make more sense in an environment which supported the creation of disaggregated as opposed to composite records. In the disaggregated scenario a new manifestation record would have to be created each time there was a change in physical medium. The JSC agreed.

284.8.9 Neither ISBD nor ISSN make provision for the creation of a new description when there is a change to mode of issuance. Judith Kuhagen noted that whereas ISSN regards mode of issuance as an attribute of the expression, RDA treats it as an attribute of the manifestation. The Chair agreed and added that, as an identifier, ISSN cuts across the work and product identifiers. He said that the JSC should seek to clarify ISSN’s different interpretation of mode of issuance but noted that this might be an area in which harmonization was difficult to achieve. The JSC agreed

284.8.10 Both ISBD and ISSN make provision for the creation of a new description when a serial is cumulated and the cumulations bear separate numbering. The Chair noted that the original and cumulated serial represented separate works from the perspective of RDA and that this should be explained to ISBD and ISSN. JSC agreed that this was an area in which harmonization would be difficult to achieve.

284.8.11 Neither ISBD nor ISSN make provision for the creation of a new description when a new set of base volumes is issued for an updating loose-leaf. The Chair noted that a proposal was being taken to the ISSN Directors meeting to include this provision in the ISSN manual. John Attig added that ISBD also appeared willing to include this provision. From an ISBD perspective, a change to an integrating resource involves a new title page and this requires a new description.


284.8.12 The JSC discussed additional issues raised by the ISBD RG and ISSN Network. In 2000 JSC, ISBD, and ISSN agreed that if the title of a serial or integrating resource appeared on the source of information for the title proper in full as well as in the form of an acronym or initialism, the full form should be chosen as the title proper. The acronym or initialism should be recorded as other title information. However, LC queried whether the acronym or initialism should now be treated as a variant title rather than other title information in RDA. Margaret Stewart noted that this would require a proposal to change the current wording at instruction 2.3.2.5 in RDA.. The Chair added that if such a change were made then a mapping could still be provided from a variant title in an RDA record to other title information in an ISBD or ISSN record. Gordon Dunsire responded that this would only be an asymmetric relationship since a reverse mapping from other title information to variant title would not be possible.

284.8.13 ISBD provides a Music Format Statement for which there is no equivalent instruction in RDA. Barbara Tillett commented that music communities in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K, had all supported the proposal to record musical presentation as an edition statement. The JSC agreed that there were no grounds for reconsidering this decision.

284.8.14 The ISBD RG agrees with JSC that the terms chorus and vocal score should be distinguished. The Chair welcomed the ISBD RG’s comments regarding this issue.

284.8.15 The sources of information set out by ISBD are inconsistent with those in RDA. The Chair commented that decisions made regarding sources of information by the JSC were intended to simplify the cataloguer’s decision making process and that ISBD should be encouraged to follow the same path. Margaret Stewart responded that RDA’s approach to sources of information represented a change from AACR2. She added that this change had the potential to result in significantly different descriptions. In the past, discussions of interoperability between ISBD and AACR had focussed on the number of records being produced. However, this issue required the JSC to consider the parameters of what interoperability between ISBD and RDA should mean.

284.8.16 The Chair queried what the impacts would be of ISBD’s sources of information remaining different from those of RDA and added that examples would be required to demonstrate the kinds of problem which might arise. Without examples, the possible impacts could not be known. Inconsistency may only effect a small fraction of descriptions. RDA still includes the concept of a preferred source and if a preferred source is available or appropriate to use then the resulting description should be similar to that of ISBD. Differences would only arise in cases where other sources of information are used and in these cases RDA offers more choice and consistency to the cataloguer than ISBD. These are principles which the JSC should not move away from. Marg Stewart responded by saying that that the different approaches to sources of information could have a large impact. For example, RDA allows parallel titles to be taken from sources other than the title proper, whereas ISBD specifies that both titles must appear on the same source. The Chair responded that the ISSN Network could be asked to look at the implications of this divergence. Judith Kuhagen noted that RDA also allows the statement of responsibility to be recorded whether it appears on the preferred source or not. She added that the JSC chose to remove restrictions on the recording of both parallel titles and statements of responsibility as a means of making RDA simpler. Focus was placed on recording the attribute and not limiting the source of the attribute. The Chair responded that the ability


to record information whether or not it appears on the chief source was another advantage which should be emphasised to the ISBD RG.

284.8.17 The order of sources in ISBD is different from that in RDA. The JSC agreed that a difference in the order of sources should not result in discrepancies in the number of records required, but could result in different descriptions. If these differences were significant, there could be an impact on interoperability. The Chair noted that a desirable scenario would involve the creation of one ISSN record that satisfies the requirements of both RDA and ISBD. He added that JSC’s decisions regarding the order of sources were based on the principles of simplification and efficiency which should be emphasised to the ISBD RG and ISSN Network.

284.8.18 The order of transcription in ISBD is different from that in RDA. ISBD’s order of transcription gives priority to typography, whereas RDA allows the cataloguer to choose whether sequence, layout, or typography are most important when transcribing elements from the resource. Margaret Stewart commented that AACR2 is also at variance with ISBD in this regard. The Chair noted that using typography as a means of judging prominence is more subjective than using sequence. He added that using sequence as the basis for an order of transcription offers a greater likelihood of consistent cataloguing results. Gordon Dunsire commented that the significance of typography was largely confined to a traditional print based publishing environment. He added that in his view ISBD should cease to use typography as a means of ordering transcription.

284.8.19 The JSC discussed the ISBD RG’s proposed creation of a National Cataloguing Agencies Profile and agreed that they had no objections to this but also that it would not be an RDA profile as such. Barbara Tillett added that LC, BL, DNB, LAC, and the National Library of Australia already have documented their decisions on RDA and in effect have a National Cataloguing Agency Profile. Although not a part of RDA itself, it is part of the national libraries’ implementation of RDA.

284.8.20 ISBD specifies the use of punctuation to indicate that information has not been transcribed as it appears on the resource and mandatory notes to indicate the context of information which has been recorded. The JSC agreed that these represented instances of data about data. Such issues should be handled by a schema rather than the resource description itself.

284.8.21 ISBD treats common and part titles differently to RDA. John Attig commented that this was something which JSC had been unable to agree on with both ISBD and ISSN in 2000 and that it remained an area of divergence.

284.8.22 The ISBD RG contends that in RDA statements of responsibility are attributes of the expression. The Chair observed that this is a misunderstanding. In RDA statement of responsibility is regarded as an attribute of the manifestation.

284.8.23 ISBD specifies that terms such as “new series” can be treated as subseries titles whereas in RDA they are treated as numbering information. The JSC agreed that this represented a similar issue to the musical presentation statement and that they should not consider revising RDA to support alignment. The data is still recorded and can be considered “interoperable”.


284.8.24 The ISBD RG proposes a wider scope for “type of composition” as a title proper. John Attig noted that discussions about this issue were still ongoing in the music community.

284.8.25 ISBD makes provision for recording the legal deposit date when no date of publication, production or distribution is present on the resource. The JSC agreed that legal deposit date may be recorded as a probable date of publication in RDA.

284.8.26 John Attig noted that accompanying material, although not included in the issues raised by ISBD RG and ISSN, is a harmonization issue. ISBD treats accompanying material as an element whereas RDA treats it as a relationship. The Chair responded that there might be an opportunity to discuss this and other issues not raised in the document if sufficient time were available at the end of the session with the ISBD RG and ISSN Network.

284.8.27 John Attig asked whether it would be possible for the ISBD RG to provide the JSC with a online version of the ISBD consolidated instructions. The JSC agreed that they and ISBD should seek to share current copies of their respective instructions with each other. Troy Linker commented that, since DeGruyter would be potentially distributing the RDA Toolkit in partnership with ALA Publishing, he might be able to arrange access to the consolidated version of ISBD for the JSC and access to RDA for the ISBD RG.

285 Formal recognition of individuals and groups contributing to the development of RDA

285.1 The Chair commented that he thought the DCMI Working Group should be formally recognised for their contributions to RDA. He invited suggestions for other groups which should also be acknowledged. John Attig suggested that, now their work had been concluded, the Examples and Appendices groups should be given recognition. Barbara Tillett noted that the Chairs of these groups had already been recognised.Action=Chair

286 JSC Membership and Policies and election of Chair

286.1 Fast Track Process for JSC Proposals

286.1.1 Received and considered the following documents:

6JSC/Chair/1/rev/2 Email from Barbara Tillett dated 28th October

286.1.2 The JSC discussed the document outlining a Fast Track process for JSC proposals.

[Post meeting note : Discussion of Fast Track was conducted as part of Executive Session 2 due to lack of time being available during Executive Session 1. However, since Fast Track shares the same agenda heading as JSC Membership and Policies, the discussion has been recorded as part of Executive Session 1.]

286.1.3 Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that section 2 of 6JSC/Policy/1/Draft/2 be reworded to substitute the phrase “negative impact on customers” with a phrase which more explicitly referred to not negatively affecting the implementation of RDA. The JSC agreed.


286.1.4 Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested the exclusion of typographical errors should be deleted from section 2. The JSC agreed.

286.1.5 Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that section 3.1 be reworded by adding the phrase “Chair or JSC rep” to the beginning of the first sentence. The JSC agreed.

286.1.6 Barbara Tillett suggested rewording section 3.2 by adding that the instruction number, date and source of any proposal should be entered as minimal accompanying metadata for a Fast Track change. The JSC agreed.

286.1.7 Barbara Tillett suggested that the reference to Bugzilla should be deleted from section 3.5. The JSC agreed.

286.1.8 The Chair will update 6JSC/Chair/1/rev/2 and issue a revised version of the document.

Action=Chair

286.1.9 The JSC discussed a list of examples which Judith Kuhagen had compiled and which Barbara Tillett had forwarded in an email representing the types of fix which LC was hoping could be handled by the Fast Track route.

286.1.10The JSC did not agree that all of the examples in the list could be fast tracked but did agree that all Fast Track proposals should be initiated, discussed and diverted to a non Fast Track route if they were considered out of scope.

286.1.11The JSC agreed that the current structure of the Fast Track Change log form should be changed to include new columns labelled “Date” and “Source”. The column currently labelled “Notes” should be relabelled “Progress”. The column currently labelled “Bug ID” should be deleted. The JSC agreed changes to the current structure of the Fast Track Change log: add new columns labelled “Date” and “Source”; relabel “Notes” as “Progress; delete the column labelled “Bug ID”.Action=Secretary

286.2 JSC Membership and Policies

286.2.1 Received and considered the following document: 6JSC/Policy/1/Draft/2

286.2.2 The JSC discussed its policies and procedures.

286.2.3 The Chair explained that he had asked Caroline Brazier to raise the issue of electing a new JSC Chair at COP because he could not continue in the role and it was clear that finding a successor would be difficult without commitment at that level. He said that he had left a placeholder in the document 6JSC/Policy/1/Draft/2 to include a procedure for electing Chairs in future. In the past elections were informal but, given the changing nature of the JSC’s membership and prospect of future enlargement, a more formal process seemed appropriate. It would be useful to have a clear succession plan and period of tenure for Chairs. The JSC agreed that the election of a Chair should take place on alternate years by electing a Chair-elect a year before they are due to take up the post as Chair. The Chair’s term of office would be two years for a maximum of three terms (6 years). Any member


of the JSC is eligible to serve as chair. Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested we should be open to anyone to chair JSC (during discussion of the JSC membership later).

286.2.4 The JSC agreed that the election of the next Chair-elect should take place at the 2012 JSC meeting because JSC may have expanded its membership by that time and new members should have the opportunity to vote.

286.2.5 The JSC discussed the future direction of JSC membership. At present the COP agreement specifies that national libraries and associations intending to implement RDA are eligible for membership of JSC. The Chair noted that, until the current agreement is changed, the existing model of membership will remain in place. However, a recommendation could be made to COP that the future structure of the JSC be more international and that it move from a model based on direct participation to one based on representation. This approach would make the JSC more inclusive but also ensure that it did not become too large to function from a logistical perspective. A representational model could be based on geography, language or conceivably another criterion. Barbara Tillett suggested that another category for representation might be international consortial groups such as PCC. The Chair added that COP had made provision for increasing the membership of the JSC by up to three members over the next three years. Therefore, an opportunity would be available in the run up to 2014 for a principle-based review of the current membership structure and also for the current COP agreement to be reconsidered. The JSC agreed. The Chair said that the JSC’s recommendations regarding the future structure of the JSC could form part of the meeting’s outcomes.

Action= Secretary

286.2.6 Deirdre Kiorgaard recommended publicizing the change procedures on the Web site and the List: proposals for changes to RDA should be routed to the appropriate constituency; otherwise through the Chair. John Attig suggested that the JSC also republicize its practice of inviting responses from a list of agencies when major changes are proposed. The JSC agreed.

286.2.7 The JSC discussed its relationship with the CoP. Deirdre Kiorgaard asked that the JSC remind the CoP of the correct process to go through the JSC Chair regarding membership of the JSC and for invitations for responses on issues relevant to specific groups. Barbara Tillett noted that the requirement for the JSC and COP to meet in conjunction with one another was only necessary during the period of RDA’s development. She added that prior to the period of RDA development the JSC and COP had met separately and this should be possible again going forward. The JSC agreed.

286.2.8 Deirdre Kiorgaard clarified that the preparation of annual reports by JSC for submission to the COP would take place each calendar year. The JSC agreed that the term “calendar year” should be added to section 1.4 (Relationship with the Committee of Principals) in its statement of policies and procedures (6JSC/Policy/1/Draft/2).

286.2.9 The JSC discussed RDA development and agreed that the first sentence in section 2.1 (RDA Development) should be reworded as “JSC is responsible for the development and maintenance of RDA content.”

286.2.10Gordon Dunsire suggested that the first clause of 2.2 should be reworded as “The content of RDA includes: the English language text of RDA”. Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that


the following reference should be added to 2.2 : “See section 12 for derivative products”. The JSC agreed.

286.2.11The JSC discussed section 3 (Source of RDA Drafts and Proposals). Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that the phrase “which will incorporate deferred issues and development of text to replace the placeholders” be deleted from section 3. The JSC agreed.

286.2.12John Attig suggested that section 3.1 be reworded to substitute the term “task force” with “group”. The JSC agreed.

286.2.13John Attig suggested that section 4.3 (Consultation on RDA Drafts and Proposals) be reworded to substitute the term “above” with “4.1”. The JSC agreed.

286.2.14John Attig suggested that sections 5.1 and 5.2 (Timing of Drafts, Proposals and Responses) be merged and that “four months” and “two and a half months” be substituted with no less than “three” months. The JSC agreed. The month and year would be announced at the end of the meeting (add to Section 9).

286.2.15The JSC discussed section 6 (Format of Drafts and Proposals). John Attig suggested that the following sentence should be added to section 6.4 :“Responses should also be in English.” The JSC agreed.

286.2.16The JSC discussed section 8 (Access to information on JSC and RDA development). Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that a reference to the wiki should be added to section 8. She added that documents on the wiki should be shared at the discretion of the JSC constituency representative, rather than the JSC Chair having to provide approval. In addition, she noted that wiki access should be withdrawn from individuals whose role in RDA development has come to an end. The JSC agreed. Troy Linker added that ALA Publishing could provide and support a shared space tool for the JSC to use. This would replace the one currently hosted by the NLA. Action=Troy Linker

286.2.17Deirdre Kiorgaard noted that the current JSC website is not fit for purpose and that it needs a major overhaul.

286.2.18The JSC discussed section 9 (JSC meetings). Kevin Marsh noted that the first sentence in section 9 stipulated “JSC will meet at least once a year”. The JSC agreed that since section 1.3 duplicated this information, the sentence could be deleted.

286.2.19Gordon Dunsire suggested that a reference to meetings being announced at least six months in advance should be added to section 9. The JSC agreed.

286.2.20Deirdre Kiorgaard requested that a reference to ACOC hosting a meeting at every second rotation be added to section 9.1. This reference was present in an earlier version of the document. The JSC agreed.

286.2.21Section 10 (Election of the JSC Chair) was discussed earlier.


286.2.22The JSC discussed section 11 (RDA Updates). Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that section 11.4 regarding collaborative tools should be located either at the beginning or end of the section. The JSC agreed. The Chair noted CoP’s agreement that major updates to RDA could take place twice a year and that monthly slots would be available for Fast Track changes to take place. However, it was not expected that updates would be needed every month.

286.2.23The JSC discussed section 12 (RDA Derivative Products). Deirdre Kiorgaard noted that the reference at the end of section 12.1 should be changed from 11.2 to 12.2. The JSC agreed.

286.2.24Gordon Dunsire noted that the MulDiCat reference (URL) should be updated at 12.2.1. The JSC agreed.

286.2.25Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that section 12.2.3 should be deleted. The JSC agreed. Troy Linker noted that if the translation of an less commonly used language cost $50,000 to release, then ALA Publishing would not want to add it to the Toolkit. However, if the same translation cost $5,000, then they would be willing to add it.

286.2.26Alan Danskin queried whether a list of translations with a date of their last update had been mounted on the JSC public website. John Attig responded that he recalled having created a link to a list from the website homepage.

286.2.27Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that section 12.3.3 should be reworded as “JSC will review and approve the content and revisions of RDA Concise before they are published”. The JSC agreed.

286.2.28The Chair noted that section 12.6 deliberately makes no reference to the RDA namespace being tied to any particular platform or being represented in RDF. He added that the release of the RDA element set and vocabularies would have to be authorized by the CoP. Although it is likely that CoP would support the release, their policy needs to be confirmed in this regard. Action = Chair

286.2.29Gordon Dunsire suggested that the Statement of policies and procedures for JSC should refer to the JSC’s relationships with other bodies. He added that the JSC already has formal relationships with IFLA bodies and an informal relationship with DCMI. The JSC agreed that a new section should be added which covered this.

286.2.30Margaret Stewart suggested that the JSC invite a formal ISBD liaison to the JSC as the ISBD RG have invited a member of the JSC to their group. The Chair suggested that a more generic section could be added to the Statement of policies and procedures for JSC about appointing representatives to specific cataloguing communities and welcoming observers from those communities to its meetings. John Attig responded that the JSC’s policy on this matter would require approval from the CoP and that the working size of the group should also be taken into consideration. The JSC agreed that a section dealing with the its relationship to other communities should be covered in a later version of the document. Deirdre Kiorgaard noted that there was a lot left to do as regards this issue.


286.2.31The Chair will update 6JSC/Policy/1/Draft/2 and issue a revised version of the document.Action=Chair

286.3 Election of Chair

286.3.1 Barbara Tillett was unanimously elected as the incoming Chair. Her term of office commenced at the conclusion of the November meeting.

287 Approval of the agenda

287.1 Received and considered the following document:

6JSC/A/1/rev

287.2 The JSC discussed the agenda. Insufficient time was available during Executive Session 1 to discuss the Fast Track, U.S. RDA Test, the Examples Working Group or actions from the March 2009 meeting. Therefore, the JSC agreed to discuss these as part of Executive Sessions 2 and 3.


288 Minutes of the previous meeting held March 2009

288.1 Received and considered the following documents:5JSC/M/266-2835JSC/M/Restricted/266-283

288.2 The minutes were accepted.

289 GROUP 3 Elements and Subject

289.1 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/LC rep/36JSC/LC rep/3/ACOC response 6JSC/LC rep/3/ALA response6JSC/LC rep/3/BL rep response 6JSC/LC rep/3/CCC response

289.1.1 The JSC discussed the LC rep’s discussion paper on Group 3 entities and “subject”. The LC rep explained that she had conducted this study in order to examine what “subject” might look like in RDA if the JSC chose not to wait for the FRBR model to be consolidated. The CILIP rep noted that the technical infrastructure to support subject access had moved on since the FRBR model was created 15 years ago. All entities and not just those belonging to Group 3 were capable of being regarded as subjects. The JSC agreed that the existing “placeholder” chapters should not be removed until a consensus was reached on how “subject” should be handled in RDA. The LC rep will draft a follow up document to 6JSC/LC rep/3 which summarizes the consensus reached so far in terms


of making basic statements about “subject” in RDA and fleshing out the “concept”, “object” and “place” entities. The entity “event” involves more complex issues and further discussions will be necessary in order to develop it in the RDA context. A general subject relationship will be declared to the effect that a work can have a subject relationship to anything. The follow up document will be distributed for further consultation, including to the FRBR RG .Action=LC representative.

289.2 Received and considered the following documents 6JSC/CILIP/1 6JSC/CILIP/1/ACOC response

6JSC/CILIP/1/ALA response 6JSC/CILIP/1/BL response 6JSC/CILIP/1/CCC response 6JSC/CILIP/1/LC response

289.2.1 The JSC discussed CILIP’s proposal regarding Group 3 entities and “subject”. There was no support for this from the JSC. However, the CILIP rep was satisfied with the outcomes which had been agreed from the LC rep discussion paper. The CILIP rep withdrew 6JSC/CILIP/1 on this basis.

290 Music

290.1 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/CCC/16JSC/CCC/1/ACOC response6JSC/CCC/1/ALA response 6JSC/CCC/1/BL response6JSC/CCC/1/LC response

290.1.1 The JSC agreed to revise the definition of vocal score based on the wording found in 6JSC/CCC/1/LC response. The CCC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/CCC/1. No responses to the revised version are required.Action=CCC representative

[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed to revise the definition of both vocal score and chorus score.]

Clean copies:

Vocal score

A score showing all vocal parts, with the instrumental accompaniment either arranged for keyboard(s) or other chordal instrument(s) or omitted.

Chorus score

A score of a work for solo voices and chorus showing only the parts for chorus, at least in those portions of the work in which the chorus sings, with the instrumental


accompaniment either arranged for keyboard(s) or other chordal instruments(s) or omitted.

290.2 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/CCC/26JSC/CCC/2/ACOC response6JSC/CCC/2/ALA response6JSC/CCC/2/BL response6JSC/CCC/2/Chair follow-up/16JSC/CCC/2/LC response

290.2.1 The JSC discussed CCC’s proposed revisions to 6.14.2.8, 6.16.1.3 and 6.28.1.11. The LC rep suggested that, because of its complexity and its implications for several other important related issues, the topic should be referred to the newly-formed CCC/LC/MLA RDA Music Group. The JSC agreed to defer 6JSC/CCC/2 to the Music Revisions Facilitations Taskforce.Action=CCC representative

290.3 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/CCC/36JSC/CCC/3/ACOC response6JSC/CCC/3/ALA response 6JSC/CCC/3/BL response6JSC/CCC/3/Chair follow-up/16JSC/CCC/3/LC response

290.3.1 The JSC agreed to revise 6.15.1.4 based on comments in the responses to 6JSC/CCC/3. These should be consolidated into a revised version of the proposal. Action=CCC representative

Clean copies:

6.15.1.3 Recording Medium of Performance

[new last paragraph]

Use continuo for a thorough bass part whether it is named as bassocontinuo, figured bass, thorough bass, or continuo.

6.15.1.4 Instrumental Music Intended for One Performer to a Part

For instrumental music intended for one performer to a part, record each instrument following the instructions given under 6.15.1.6 and 6.15.1.13.

Exceptions

For more than one percussion instrument, use percussion if the names of the individual instruments are not specified by the composer in the original title. If the medium includes a continuo part, record the name of the part as instructed under


6.15.1.3. If the work is for a standard combination of instruments, follow the instructions given under 6.15.1.5. If the medium includes instruments acting as an accompanying ensemble, record a term for the accompanying ensemble as instructed under 6.15.1.7.

6.15.1.6.2 Omit Elements

[deletion of 2nd and 3rd paragraphs]

Use continuo for a thorough bass part, with or without figures, realized or unrealized, whether it is named as basso continuo, figured bass, thorough bass, or continuo.

If the composition is intended for a keyboard instrument, but no particular Instrument is named and the work can be played on any keyboard instrument, use keyboard instrument.

6.15.1.13.1 One Family of Instruments, Collective Term, Etc.

[new last example]

bass instrumentkeyboard instrumentResource described: Early American hymns : for bass instrument and keyboard / Eleanor Whitsett. Preferred title: Early American hymns


290.4.1 The JSC agreed to revise 6.15.1.7 based on comments in the responses to 6JSC/CCC/4. These will be consolidated into a revised version of the proposal.Action=CCC representative

Clean copies:

6.15.1.7 Accompanying Ensembles with One Performer to a Part

For an accompanying ensemble with one performer to a part, record the appropriate term for the instrument or family of instruments followed by the word ensemble.

EXAMPLE

guitar ensemblestring ensemblepercussion ensemble


Record instrumental ensemble for an accompanying ensemble with one performer to a part consisting of instruments from two or more families of instruments when a more specific term is not available.

6.15.1.9 One or More Solo Instruments and Accompanying Ensemble

For a work for one or more solo instruments and accompanying ensemble, record the term for the solo instrument or instruments and the term for the accompanying ensemble, in that order. For the solo Instruments, apply the instructions given under 6.15.1.4, 6.15.1.6 and 6.15.1.13. For the accompanying ensemble, apply the instructions given under 6.15.1.7-6.15.1.8.

[no change in remainder of instruction]

6.15.1.13.1 One Family of Instruments, Collective Term, Etc.

If only the family of instruments or voices (see 6.15.1.10), or a collective term for other media, is indicated by the composer, or is available from any other source, record the family, collective term, etc.


290.5.1 The JSC agreed to revise 6.15.1.12 based on comments in the responses to 6JSC/CCC/5. These should be consolidated into a revised version of the proposal with a rewording of the first sentence in 6.15.1.2 based on the recommendation in 6JSC/CCC/5/ALA response.Action=CCC representative

Clean copy:

6.15.1.12 Accompaniment for Songs, Lieder, Etc.

If the preferred title for a work (other than one in a “popular” idiom) consists solely of the name of a type, or of two or more types, of composition for solo voice (e.g., Lieder, Mélodie, Songs) and if the voice is accompanied by anything other than a keyboard stringed instrument alone, record the name of the accompanying instrument(s) or ensemble followed by the word accompaniment. If such a work is not accompanied, record unaccompanied.

[no changes in remainder of instruction]

291 Persons, Families & Corporate Bodies

291.1 Received and considered the following documents


6JSC/ACOC/16JSC/ACOC/1/ALA response6JSC/ACOC/1/BL response 6JSC/ACOC/1/Chair follow-up/16JSC/ACOC/1/CCC response6JSC/ACOC/1/LC response

291.1.1 The JSC agreed to revise 9.2.2.5.3. The ACOC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/ACOC/1 based on the rearrangement of paragraphs recommended in 6JSC/ACOC/1/LC response. Examples will be added and corrected as recommended in 6JSC/ACOC/1/ALA response and 6JSC/ACOC/1/CCC response. The first sentence will be deleted from the alternative and the exception will be deleted. No responses to the revised version are required.Action=ACOC representative

[Post meeting note: The JSC agreed to also delete the third sentence from the alternative and reword the second and fourth sentences. The examples recommended in 6JSC/ACOC/1/ALA response were not included.]

Clean copy:

9.2.2.5.3 Names Found in a Non-preferred Script

If the name of a person is found in a script that differs from the preferred script of the agency, transliterate the name according to the scheme adopted by the agency creating the data.

EXAMPLE

LaoziName appears in original script as: 老子

Li AnName appears in original script as: 李安

Jamāl ‘Abd al-NāṣirName appears in original script as: عبد جمال الناصر

Parvez MusharrafName appears in original script as: مشرف پرويز

Yi Sŭng-manName appears in original script as: 李承晚

A. Skri abin Name appears in original script as: А. Скрябин

Evgeniĭ Evtushenko


Name appears in original script as: Евгений Евтушенко

Mosheh DayanName appears in original script as: משה דיין משה

Shelomit Kohen-AsifName appears in original script as: אסיף כהן־ שלומית

If a name is found in more than one non-preferred script, transliterate it according to the scheme for the original language of most of the works.

EXAMPLE

Muḥammad Riḍā al-Anṣārī al-Qummīnot Muḥammad Riz ā Anṣārī QumīWrote primarily in Arabic but also in Persian

Premacandanot Prem CandWrote primarily in Hindi but also in Urdu

If the name of a person is found only in a transliterated form in resources associated with the person, choose that form as the preferred name. If the name of a person is found in more than one transliterated form in resources associated with the person, choose the form that occurs most frequently.

EXAMPLE

Bo Yeon LeeForm of name in Korean script not found

Pattamaporn LaokiatsophonForm of name in Thai script not found

Record the other forms of the transliterated name as variant names(see 9.2.3.9).

Alternative

If there is a well-established form of name in reference sources in the language preferred by the agency creating the data, choose that form of name as the preferred name. If different forms are found in reference sources in the language preferred by the agency creating the data, choose the form that occurs most frequently.

EXAMPLE

Ang LeeName appears in original script as: 李安


Gamal Abdel NasserName appears in original script as:

الناصر عبد جمال

Pervez MusharrafName appears in original script as:

مشرف پرويز

Syngman RheeName appears in original script as:李承晚

A. ScriabinName appears in original script as:А. Скрябин

Yevgeny YevtushenkoName appears in original script as:Евгений Евтушенко

Moshe DayanName appears in original script as:

דיין משה

Shlomit Cohen--‐AssifName appears in original script as:

כהן־אסיף שלומית

291.2 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/LC/56JSC/LC/5/ACOC response6JSC/LC/5/ALA response 6JSC/LC/5/BL response6JSC/LC/5/CCC response

291.2.1 The JSC agreed to revise 0.6.4, 8.3 and 9.3.1.3. The LC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/LC/5. “Period of activity of the person” will be deleted from the first list in 0.6.4 and 8.3 and the term “parts” will be substituted by “additions” in 0.6.4 and 8.3. No responses to the revised version are required. Action=LC representative

[Post meeting note: The JSC agreed that the term “parts” should be retained in 0.6.4 and 8.3.]

Clean copies:


0.6.4 Section 3: Recording Attributes of Person, Family, and Corporate Body

When recording data identifying a person, family, or corporate body, include as a minimum the elements listed below that are applicable and readily ascertainable. Record the elements either as parts of the authorized access point representing the person, family, or corporate body, or as separate elements, or as both.

Preferred name for the person

Title of the person

Date of birth

Date of death

Other designation associated with the person Profession or occupation (for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person)

Identifier for the person

Preferred name for the family

Type of family

Date associated with the family

Identifier for the family

Preferred name for the corporate body

Location of conference, etc.

Date associated with the corporate body

Associated institution (for conferences, etc., if the institution’s name provides better identification than the local place name or if the local place name is unknown or cannot be readily determined)

Number of a conference, etc.

Other designation associated with the corporate body (for a body whose name does not convey the idea of a corporate body)

Identifier for the corporate body

If the preferred name for the person, family, or corporate body is the same as or similar to a name by which another person, family, or corporate body is known, record as many of the additional identifying elements listed below as necessary to


differentiate them. Record the elements either as parts of the authorized access point representing the person, family, or corporate body, or as separate elements, or as both.

Fuller form of name Profession or occupation Period of activity of the person Place associated with the family Prominent member of the family Location of headquarters, etc. Associated institution Other designation associated with the corporate body

[Note: Deletion of “Field of activity of the person” in both lists in 0.6.4 is the result of the 6JSC/CILIP/3/rev decisions.]

8.3 Core Elements

When recording data identifying a person, family, or corporate body, include as a minimum the elements listed below that are applicable and readily ascertainable. Record the elements either as parts of the authorized access point representing the person, family, or corporate body, or as separate elements, or as both.

Preferred name for the person

Title of the person

Date of birth

Date of death

Other designation associated with the person

Profession or occupation (for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person)

Identifier for the person

Preferred name for the family

Type of family

Date associated with the family

Identifier for the family

Preferred name for the corporate body Location of conference, etc.

Date associated with the corporate body


Associated institution (for conferences, etc., if the institution's name provides better identification than the local place name or if the local place name is unknown or cannot be readily determined)

Number of a conference, etc.

Other designation associated with the corporate body (for a body whose name does not convey the idea of a corporate body)

Identifier for the corporate body

If the preferred name for the person, family, or corporate body is the same as or similar to a name by which another person, family, or corporate body is known, record as many of the additional identifying elements listed below as necessary to differentiate them. Record the elements either as parts of the authorized access point representing the person, family, or corporate body, or as separate elements, or as both.

Fuller form of name Profession or occupation Period of activity of the person Place associated with the family Prominent member of the family Location of headquartersAssociated institution Other designation associated with the corporate body

If none of the other identifying attributes listed above for a person can be readily ascertained, designate the name as an undifferentiated name (see 8.11).

Include additional elements covered in this chapter and in chapters 9–11 in accordance with the policy of the agency creating the data, or as judged appropriate by the cataloguer.

[Note: Deletion of “Field of activity of the person” in both lists in 8.3 is the result of the 6JSC/CILIP/3/rev decisions; addition of words “for a person” in the penultimate paragraph is the result of a FastTrack entry.]

9.3.1.3 Recording Dates Associated with Persons

Record dates in terms of the calendar preferred by the agency creating the data. For details on the Christian calendar, see appendix H.

Record dates either as parts of the authorized access point representing the person, or as separate elements, or as both.

Record a date associated with a person by giving the year alone.

[no changes in remainder of instruction]


291.3 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/BL/16JSC/BL/1/ACOC response6JSC/BL/1/ALA response 6JSC/BL/1/CCC response6JSC/BL/1/LC response

291.3.1 The JSC discussed BL’s proposal for expanding the scope of the element Title of person and revising 9.4.1 and 9.19.1.2. There was no support for this from the JSC. The BL rep withdrew 6JSC/BL/1 on this basis.

291.4 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/ALA/36JSC/ALA/3/ACOC response6JSC/ALA/3/BL response 6JSC/ALA/3/Chair follow-up/16JSC/ALA/3/CCC response6JSC/ALA/3/LC response

291.4.1 The JSC discussed ALA’s proposal for revising 9.13. The JSC agreed that the issue of extending Affiliation as an element in RDA should be discussed with the FRBR RG before making a revision. In the short term, existing relationship designators from Appendix K should be used to express the relationship between the person and affiliated body and the element Biographical Information (9.17) should be used to document information regarding personal affiliation with a body. The JSC will invite proposals from constituencies for additional terms expressing affiliation in Appendix K. Once proposals have been received, a Chair document based on these will be submitted to the FRBR RG for consideration. Action=JSC ; Chair

291.4.2 The JSC discussed the issue of data about data as it relates to Affiliation. The JSC agreed that a list should be compiled of data about data issues as a whole which could then inform subsequent discussions in the context of RDA and the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative. This list could also be used to inform discussions with other metadata communities. The Secretary will draft a list of data about data issues based on previous JSC teleconferences which the JSC will then add to if necessary. Action=Secretary ; JSC

291.5 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/CILIP/36JSC/CILIP/3/ACOC response6JSC/CILIP/3/ALA response 6JSC/CILIP/3/BL response6JSC/CILIP/3/Chair follow-up/16JSC/CILIP/3/CCC response6JSC/CILIP/3/LC response

291.5.1 The JSC discussed CILIP’s proposal to merge the elements Field of Activity of the Person (9.15) and Profession or Occupation (9.16). The JSC decided that the elements should not


be merged but that their definitions should be reworded to make the distinction between them clearer. Field of Activity of the Person should be removed from the list of possible additions to an access point representing a person. Examples at 9.15 should be amended so that they represent fields of activity rather than classes of persons. Vocabularies to support the elements should not be developed within RDA itself. Instead, vocabularies are already in existence which could be used for this purpose. The ALA rep will consolidate comments on 6JSC/CILIP/3 into a revised version of the proposal. Action=ALA representative

Clean copies:

9.15 Field of Activity of the Person

CORE ELEMENT

Field of activity of the person is a core element for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person. For other persons, field of activity is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name.

9.15.1.3 Recording the Fields of Activity of the Person

Record the field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc., in which the person is engaged or was engaged by recording a term indicating the field.

EXAMPLE

PoetryPreferred name recorded as: Thomas

Stamp collectingPreferred name recorded as: Lang, Peter

QuiltmakingPreferred name recorded as: Bilyeu, Michele

Fiction writingMusic criticismPreferred name recorded as: Haldeman, Philip

CriminologyPreferred name recorded as: Johnson, Holly

MathematicsPreferred name recorded as: Thompson, AbigailPolitical sciencePreferred name recorded as: Tremblay, Manon


Indicate the source from which the information on field of activity was derived applying the instructions given under 8.12.

9.16.1.3 Recording Professions or Occupations

Record the profession or occupation in which the person works or has worked by recording a term indicating the class of persons engaged in the profession or occupation.

[remainder of instruction]9.19.1.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points to Represent Persons

[only 2nd and 4th paragraphs changed]

Make additions to the name as instructed under 9.19.1.2–9.19.1.6, in that order, as applicable.

Make the additions specified under 9.19.1.3–9.19.1.6 if they are needed to distinguish the person from another person with the same name.

9.19.1.2 Title or Other Designation Associated with the Person

[only paragraph e) changed]

e) a term indicating profession or occupation (see 9.16) for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person.

9.19.1.6 Profession or Occupation

If none of the elements specified under 9.19.1.3 (date of birth and/or death), 9.19.1.4 (fuller form of name), or 9.19.1.5 (period of activity of the person) is available to distinguish one access point from another, add a term indicating the class of persons engaged in the profession or occupation of the person (see 9.16).

[remainder of instruction]

9.19.1.7 Field of Activity of the Person

If none of the elements specified under 9.19.1.3 (date of birth and/or death), 9.19.1.4 (fuller form of name), 9.19.1.5 (period of activity of the person), or 9.19.1.6 (profession or occupation) are available to distinguish one access point from another, add a term indicating the field of activity of the person (see 9.15).

[examples]

9.19.2.1General Guidelines on Constructing Variant Access Points to Represent Persons


[only 2nd paragraph changed]

Make additions to the name, if they are considered to be important for identification, applying the instructions given under 9.19.1.2–9.19.1.6, as applicable.

Related instructions:

0.6.4, list after 1st paragraph:

Field of activity of the person (for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person)0.6.4, list after 2nd paragraph:

Field of activity of the person

8.3, list after 1st paragraph:Field of activity of the person (for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person)

0.8.3, list after 2nd paragraph:

Field of activity of the person

291.6 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/ALA/26JSC/ALA/2/ACOC response6JSC/ALA/2/BL response 6JSC/ALA/2/CCC response6JSC/ALA/2/LC response

291.6.1 The JSC discussed ALA’s proposal for revising 11.2.2. The JSC agreed that an instruction for ruling executive bodies should be added at 11.2.2.21.2. The instruction for heads of government previously at this number will be combined with heads of state at 11.2.2.21.1. The list of Type 9 examples at 11.2.2.19 will be expanded to include ruling executive bodies. The ALA rep will consolidate comments on 6JSC/ALA/2 into a revised version of the proposal.Action=ALA representative

Clean copies:

11.2.2.21.1 Heads of State, Heads of Government, Etc.

Record the title of a sovereign, president, other head of state, governor, head of government, or chief executive acting in an official capacity (see 6.31.1) as a subdivision of the authorized access point representing the jurisdiction. Record the title in the language preferred by the agency creating the data (unless there is no equivalent term in that language).

EXAMPLE


Indonesia. Presidentnot Indonesia. Presiden

Chiapas (Mexico). Governornot Chiapas (Mexico). Gobernador

Swaziland. Prime Minister

Managua (Nicaragua). Mayornot Managua (Nicaragua). Alcalde

King County (Wash.). Executive

Japan. Prime Ministernot Japan. Naikaku Sōri Daijin

Thailand. Prime Ministernot Thailand. Nāyok Ratthamontrī

If the official being identified is a specific incumbent of the office, add, in parentheses, the inclusive years of the reign or incumbency and the name of the person in a brief form and in the language of the preferred name for that person. Separate the years of the reign or incumbency from the name of the person using a space, colon, space.

EXAMPLE

Portugal. President (1996–2006 : Sampaio)

New Jersey. Governor (2002–2004 : McGreevey)

Iran. Shah (1941–1979 : Mohammed Reza Pahlavi)

Brunei. Sultan (1967– : Hassanal Bolkiah Muʾizzaddin Waddaulah)

Papal States. Sovereign (1800–1823 : Pius VII)

British Columbia. Premier (2000–2001 : Dosanjh)

Central African Republic. Prime Minister (2001–2003 : Ziguele)

Germany. Chancellor (1990–1998 : Kohl)

Germany. Chancellor (2005– : Merkel)

Israel. Prime Minister (1999–2001 : Barak)

New Zealand. Prime Minister (2008– : Key)

Seattle (Wash.). Mayor (1978–1990 : Royer)

If the title varies with the gender of the incumbent, use a general term (e.g., Sovereign rather than King or Queen).

EXAMPLE

Scotland. Sovereign (1649–1685 : Charles II)


Scotland. Sovereign (1542–1567 : Mary)

Spain. Sovereign (1833–1868 : Isabella II)

Spain. Sovereign (1975– : Juan Carlos I)

Spain. Sovereign (1479–1504 : Ferdinand V and Isabella I)

If there are two or more nonconsecutive periods of incumbency, create separate access points.

EXAMPLE

United States. President (1885–1889 : Cleveland)

United States. President (1893–1897 : Cleveland)

Canada. Prime Minister (1867–1873 : Macdonald)

Canada. Prime Minister (1878–1891 : Macdonald)

Record the relationships between the office and the person applying the instructions in chapters 30 and 32.

11.2.2.21.2 Ruling Executive Bodies

Record the name of a ruling executive body (e.g., a military junta) (see 6.31.1) as a subdivision of the authorized access point representing the jurisdiction. Record the name in the official language of the jurisdiction.

EXAMPLE

Argentina. Junta Militar

Somalia. Golaha Sare ee Kacaanka

Thailand. Khana Patiwat

Ghana. Armed Forces Revolutionary Council

If there is more than one official language in the jurisdiction, apply the instructions given under 11.2.2.5.2.

If necessary for identification, add, in parentheses, the inclusive years of the ruling executive body.

EXAMPLE

Chile. Junta de Gobierno (1813)

Chile. Junta de Gobierno (1973–1990)

Related instruction:

11.2.2.19 Government Bodies Recorded Subordinately


TYPE 9. A head of state, head of government, or ruling executive body (see also 11.2.2.21). EXAMPLE

Adelaide (S. Aust.). MayorDublin (Ireland). Lord MayorMorocco. Prime MinisterNew Brunswick. PremierNorway. SovereignUnited States. PresidentVirginia. Governor

291.6.2 The JSC agreed that the word “by” could be added before “applying” at 11.2.2.21.1 paragraph 5 and 11.2.2.21.3 paragraph 3. The ALA rep will submit a Fast Track proposal to make these changes.Action=ALA representative

291.6.3 The JSC discussed the issue of using the language of the jurisdiction to record the titles of heads of state. This is consistent with internationalization and the instruction for recording heads of government. The Chair noted that making this change would lead to linguistic inconsistency in access point construction because other aspects of the string are recorded in the language preferred by the agency. The JSC agreed that greater overall consistency would be achieved if heads of government were recorded in the language preferred by the agency and that internationalization would be better achieved by linking authority files containing the titles of heads of state in different languages.

291.7 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/LC/36JSC/LC/3/ACOC response6JSC/LC/3/ALA response 6JSC/LC/3/BL response6JSC/LC/3/Chair follow-up/16JSC/LC/3/CCC response

291.7.1 The JSC discussed LC’s proposal for eliminating names “not conveying the idea” of a person or corporate body. There was no support for this from the JSC. The LC rep withdrew 6JSC/LC/3.

291.8 Received and considered the following documents6JSC/LC/66JSC/LC/6/ACOC response6JSC/LC/6/ALA response 6JSC/LC/6/BL response6JSC/LC/6/CCC response

291.8.1 The JSC discussed LC’s proposal for revising RDA 19.2.1.1.1 to clarify the status of legislative hearings and to add another category in order to reflect current practice for named individual works of art by two or more artists acting as a corporate body. The JSC


agreed that 19.1.1.1 c), iii) should refer to “hearings” rather than “legislative hearings” since it was necessary for the scope to cover hearings of a non-legal nature. A new category 19.1.1.1 g) will be created for named individual works of art by two or more artists acting as a corporate body. Examples of such works and their creators suggested by CCC and CILIP will be added to 19.2.1.3. The LC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/LC/6.Action=LC representative

Clean copies:

19.2.1.1.1 Corporate Bodies Considered to Be Creators

[only paragraph c), iii) was changed; paragraph g) was added]

c) works that report the collective activity of

i) a conference (e.g., proceedings, collected papers) orii) an expedition (e.g., results of exploration, investigation) oriii) an event (e.g., an exhibition, fair, festival, hearing) falling within the definition of a corporate body (see 18.1.2) provided that the conference, expedition, or event is named in the resource being described

g) named individual works of art by two or more artists acting as a corporate body.

19.2.1.3 Recording Creators

[new section of examples for category g) in 19.2.1.1.1; inserted before the section on “Official Communications”]

EXAMPLE Individual Works of Art by Two or More Artists Acting as a Corporate Body

Critical Art EnsembleAuthorized access point representing the creator for: Molecular invasion

Seekers of LiceAuthorized access point representing the creator for: Quandries

Pierre et GillesAuthorized access point representing the creator for: Maison de poupée

General IdeaAuthorized access point representing the creator for: No mean feet

292 Appendices


292.1 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/LC/16JSC/LC/1/ACOC response6JSC/LC/1/ALA response 6JSC/LC/1/BL response6JSC/LC/1/CCC response

292.1.1 The JSC discussed LC’s proposal for revising A.2.1 and A.2.4 and its suggested options for handling languages which are currently missing from A.10-A.55. The JSC agreed to reword the instructions at A.2.1 and A.2.4 based on the wording proposed by LC. The example “Thomas (Anglo-Norman poet)” will be removed from A.2.4. In addition, the instruction at A.0 will be revised to replace “transcribing” with “recording”. The LC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/LC/1. No responses to the revised version are required. Action=LC representative

[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed that the term “transcribing” should remain in A.0 based on the fact that some references to using appendix A are found in instructions for transcribing and recording. Instead, the phrase “or recording” should be added to follow the term “transcribing”.]

Clean copies:

A.0 Scope

This appendix provides guidelines on capitalization for English and a selected number of other languages that are to be applied when transcribing or recording specified elements.

A.2.1 General Guideline

In general, capitalize the first word of each name; capitalize other words applying the guidelines given under A.10–A.55, as applicable to the language involved. For names with unusual capitalization, follow the capitalization of the commonly known form.

EXAMPLE

Alexander, of AphrodisiasDe la Mare, WalterMusset, Alfred deCavour, Camillo Benso, conte diThird Order Regular of St. FrancisSociété de chimie physiqueOntario. High Court of JusticeEl Greco SocietyeBay (Firm)netViz CorporationhHead (Musical group)


doctorjob.comlang, k. d.

A.2.4 Other Terms Associated with Names of Persons

[no changes to 1st paragraph and its examples]

Capitalize the first word and any proper names in other designations associated with a person (see 9.6), in terms indicating field of activity (see 9.15), and in terms indicating occupation or profession (see 9.16).

EXAMPLE

Joan, of Arc, Saint, 1412-1431Butler, Jean (Composer)

292.1.2 The missing content for languages will be added at the end of Appendix A, beginning with A.56. Organization of the appendix after A.30 will be in ISO two-letter code order. A statement explaining that languages are not listed in alphabetic order will be added at A.31 and the index will be updated. Action=LC representative

A.2.4 Other Terms Associated with Names of Persons

[no changes to 1st paragraph and its examples]

Capitalize the first word and any proper names in other designations associated with a person (see 9.6), in terms indicating field of activity (see 9.15), and in terms indicating occupation or profession (see 9.16).

EXAMPLE

Joan, of Arc, Saint, 1412-1431Butler, Jean (Composer)

292.2 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/LC/46JSC/LC/4/ACOC response6JSC/LC/4/ALA response 6JSC/LC/4/BL response6JSC/LC/4/CCC response

292.2.1 The JSC discussed LC’s proposal for revising E.1.3.3 to include punctuation guidance for see also references used with relationship designators and to widen the scope of the instruction to include families. The JSC agreed to revise E.1.3.3 based on the rearrangement of examples so that they follow the appropriate instructions. The first paragraph will be simplified based on the wording found in 6JSC/LC/4/ALA response. LC will add an example of a see also reference to a successor body using a relationship


designator. The LC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/LC/4. No responses to the revised version are required. Action=LC representative

Clean copy:

E.1.3.3 See also References to Authorized Access Points Representing Related Persons, Families, Corporate Bodies, and Works

Present a see also reference from the authorized access point as illustrated below.

EXAMPLE

Canadian Figure Skating Associationsee also Skate Canada

Klagesee also Nibelungenlied

Catholic Church. Breviarysee also Catholic Church. Liturgy of the hours

When using a relationship designator with an authorized access point, present the see also reference beginning with the relationship designator, followed by a colon, space, and the authorized access point for the related person, family, corporate body, or work as illustrated below.

EXAMPLE

Library and Archives Canadasee alsoPredecessor: National Archives of CanadaPredecessor: National Library of Canada

Union of American Republicssee alsoPredecessor: International Union of American RepublicsSuccessor: Organization of American States

Alternatives

When presenting a see also reference from the authorized access point representing a person, family, corporate body, or work to two or more authorized access points representing different related persons, families, corporate bodies, or works, present one see also reference, listing all the


authorized access points for related persons, families, corporate bodies, or works to which reference is being made.

EXAMPLE

Pennsylvania. Department of Public Welfaresee also Pennsylvania. Department of Public AssistancePennsylvania. Department of Welfare

Nongame Bird and Mammal Program reportsee also Nongame Bird and Mammal Section reportBird and Mammal Conservation Program report

If a see also reference to the authorized access point representing a related person, family, corporate body, or work does not give adequate guidance to the user of the catalogue, present an explanatory reference giving more explicit guidance (see E.1.3.4).

293 Manifestations and Items

293.1 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/ACOC/26JSC/ACOC/2/ALA response 6JSC/ACOC/2/BL response6JSC/ACOC/2/Chair follow-up/16JSC/ACOC/2/CCC response6JSC/ACOC/2/LC response

293.1.1 The JSC agreed to revise 2.7.2.3, 2.8.2.3, 2.9.2.3 and 2.10.2.3, allowing the option to supply the name of the larger jurisdiction when recording the place of production, publication, distribution or manufacture. The Secretary will delete the comma between the smaller and larger jurisdiction from the example in the proposed Optional Addition for 2.8.2.3. Action=Secretary

Clean copies:

2.7.2.3 Recording Place of Production

Record the place of production applying the basic instructions on recording production statements given under 2.7.1. Include both the local place name (city, town, etc.) and the name of the larger jurisdiction or jurisdictions (state, province, etc., and/or country) if present on the source of information.


Optional Additions

Include the full address as part of the local place name if it is considered to be important for identification or access.

Supply the name of the larger jurisdiction (state, province, etc., and/or country) as part of the local place name if it is considered to be important for identification or access. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4.

Include any preposition appearing with the place name that is required to make sense of the statement.

If the place name as transcribed is known to be fictitious, or requires clarification, make a note giving the actual place name, etc. (see 2.20.6.3).

2.8.2.3 Recording Place of Publication

Record the place of publication applying the basic instructions on recording publication statements given under 2.8.1. Include both the local place name (city, town, etc.) and the name of the larger jurisdiction or jurisdictions (state, province, etc., and/or country) if present on the source of information.

EXAMPLE

KölnWestport, Connecticut Lugduni BatavorumWellington, New Zealand Tolworth, EnglandCarbondale, Ill.Den HaagTaunton, SomersetChristianiaMplsSantiagoAldershot, Hampshire, EnglandBurlington, VT, USA

Optional Additions


EXAMPLE

6 Ludgate Hill, London



EXAMPLE

Dublin [Ireland]Dublin [Ontario]


EXAMPLE

V Praze

If the place name as transcribed is known to be fictitious, or requires clarification, make a note giving the actual place name, etc. (see 2.20.7.3).

2.9.2.3 Recording Place of Distribution

Record the place of distribution applying the basic instructions on recording distribution statements given under 2.9.1. Include both the local place name (city, town, etc.) and the name of the larger jurisdiction or jurisdictions (state, province, etc., and/or country) if present on the source of information.

EXAMPLE

Oshawa, Ontario Optional Additions




If the place name as transcribed is known to be fictitious, or requires clarification, make a note giving the actual place name, etc. (see 2.20.8.3.


2.10.2.3 Recording Place of Manufacture

Record the place of manufacture applying the basic instructions on recording manufacture statements given under 2.10.1. Include both the local place name (city, town, etc.) and the name of the larger jurisdiction or jurisdictions (state, province, etc., and/or country) if present on the source of information. EXAMPLE

Twickenham Long Beach Island West Hill, Ont.

Optional Additions




If the place name as transcribed is known to be fictitious, or requires clarification, make a note giving the actual place name, etc. (see 2.20.9.3.)

293.2 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/LC/26JSC/LC/2/ACOC response 6JSC/LC/2/ALA response 6JSC/LC/2/BL response6JSC/LC/2/CCC response

293.2.1 The JSC agreed to delete the second and third paragraphs at 2.10.6.1 because archival resources are covered by 2.7.6.1. In addition, 2.10.6.7 will be deleted because it duplicates 2.7.6.7.Action=LC representative

Clean copy:

2.10.6.1 Scope

A date of manufacture is a date associated with the printing, duplicating, casting, etc., of a resource in a published form.


For an archival resource, the date of manufacture is the date the resource was produced or the date or dates of record-keeping activity.

For a collection (i.e., one assembled by a private collector, a dealer, a library, etc.), the date of manufacture is the date of manufacture or publication of the resources contained in the collection.

Deletion of 2.10.6.7:

2.10.6.7 Archival resources and collections

If the date of manufacture of an archival resource falls within a single year, record that date or a more specific date therein. For a single resource, record the exact date or dates.

EXAMPLE

1906 March 17

If the archival resource or collection spans a period of time, record the inclusive dates (i.e., the earliest and latest dates of manufacture of the resource or of the record-keeping activity).

EXAMPLE

1849–1851 Optional Addition

Where the dates pertaining to the majority of the items in the resource being described differ significantly from the inclusive dates, follow the inclusive dates with the predominant or bulk dates, indicated as such.

EXAMPLE

1914–1939, predominant 1914–1918If no date can be found in the resource or determined from any other source, estimate the nearest year, decade, century or other interval as precisely as possible.

EXAMPLE

probably 1867approximately 1952–1978before 1867

When it may be misleading to record an estimated date, record date not identified.

293.3 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/ACOC/36JSC/ACOC/3/ALA response


6JSC/ACOC/3/BL response6JSC/ACOC/3/CCC response6JSC/ACOC/3/LC response

293.3.1 The JSC discussed ACOC’s proposal for revising 2.5.2. and 2.5.6. The JSC agreed to substitute “statements” for “terms” in the heading at 2.5.2.5.Action=ACOC representative

293.3.2 Instead of making the other changes recommended in 6JSC/ACOC/3, the JSC agreed to consider conflating the elements Designation of Edition and Named Revision of an Edition. Before making a decision on conflation, a consultation with the ISBD RG would be required in order to establish whether the equivalent ISBD elements Edition statement and Additional edition statement could also be conflated. The Chair commented that this issue could be added to the agenda for discussion with the ISBD RG.

294 Works and Expressions

294.1 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/Chair/36JSC/Chair/3/ACOC response6JSC/Chair/3/ALA response 6JSC/Chair/3/BL response6JSC/Chair/3/Chair follow-up/16JSC/Chair/3/CCC response6JSC/Chair/3/LC response

294.1.1 The Chair explained that, although submitted as a Chair proposal, 6JSC/Chair/3 emanated from Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. He thanked the DNB for bringing it forward. The JSC agreed to create new instructions for including the initial article when recording titles and the names of persons and corporate bodies. Existing instructions to omit initial articles will be made alternatives in order to support those constituencies unable to implement the new instructions because of systems constraints or legacy metadata. No exception to these alternatives will be made for inflected languages. Note: the decisions below include post-meeting decisions.

294.1.2 0.5

The JSC agreed to base the revision of the paragraph on Appendix C at 0.5 on the wording in 6JSC/Chair/3/CCC response followed by the extension in 6JSC/Chair/3/ACOC response. The phrase “a number of” used in 6JSC/Chair/3/CCC response should be deleted.

[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed that the wording should be changed to substitute the term “used” with the phrase “to be omitted”.]


Clean copy :

0.5 Structure

[only paragraph on appendix C changed]

Appendix C lists articles in languages that are to be omitted when applying the alternative instructions to record preferred titles for works and names of persons and corporate bodies.

294.1.3 1.7

The JSC agreed that the instruction at 1.7 could be left unchanged.

294.1.4 2.3.1.4

The JSC agreed that the instruction at 2.3.1.4 could be left unchanged.

294.1.5 6.2.1.7

The JSC agreed to revise the base instruction at 6.2.1.7 based on the positive wording in 6JSC/Chair/3/ALA response. The examples accompanying the base instruction will be revised based on DNB’s proposal. The existing base instruction at 6.27.1.3 will become an alternative instruction. The examples which accompany the existing base instruction will accompany the alternative instruction.

Clean copy:

6.2.1.7 Initial Articles

When recording the preferred title, include an initial article, if present. EXAMPLE

The invisible manDer seidene FadenEine kleine NachtmusikLa vida plenaThe most of P.G. Wodehouse

Alternative

Omit an initial article (see appendix C) unless the title for a work is to be accessed under that article (e.g., a title that begins with the name of a person or place).

EXAMPLE

Taming of the shrew


not The taming of the shrew

Ángeles borrachos y otros cuentos not Los ángeles borrachos y otros cuentos

Enfant et les sortilèges not L'enfant et les sortilèges

but

Los Angeles street map L'Enfant and Washington, 1791–1792

Le Corbusier et l'architecture sacrée

El Salvador y su desarrollo urbano en el contexto centroamericano

La Niña and its impacts

294.1.6 9.2.2.25

The JSC agreed to revise the base instruction at 9.2.2.25 and create an alternative instruction based on the wording in 6JSC/Chair/3/ACOC response. The examples will be revised based on 6JSC/Chair/3/CCC response.

Clean copy:

9.2.2.25 Characterizing Word or Phrase

Record a characterizing word or phrase applying the general guidelines on recording names given under 8.5.

Record the phrase in direct order. Consider such a word or phrase to be the name for a person if that person is commonly identified by it in resources associated with the person and in reference sources.

EXAMPLE

A Physician Statement of responsibility: by a Physician

A Military Chaplain Statement of responsibility: by a Military Chaplain

A Teacher of Book-keeping Statement of responsibility: by a Teacher of Book-keeping The Daughter of a Wesleyan Minister Statement of responsibility: by the Daughter of a Wesleyan


Minister

Une femme de ménage Statement of responsibility: par une femme de ménage

Alternative

Omit an initial article (see appendix C) when recording a characterizing word or phrase.

EXAMPLE

PhysicianStatement of responsibility: by a Physician

Military ChaplainStatement of responsibility: by a Military Chaplain

Teacher of Book-keepingStatement of responsibility: by a Teacher of Bookkeeping

Daughter of a Wesleyan MinisterStatement of responsibility: by the Daughter of a Wesleyan Minister

Femme de ménageStatement of responsibility: par une femme de ménage

If the person is commonly identified by a real name or another name see 9.2.2.6), and a word or phrase characterizing that person has appeared in resources associated with the person, record the word or phrase as a variant name (see 9.2.3.10).

294.1.7 9.2.2.26

The JSC agreed to revise the base instruction at 9.2.2.26 and create an alternative instruction based on the wording for 9.2.2.25 in 6JSC/Chair/3/ACOC response. The examples will be revised based on DNB’s proposal.

Clean copy:

9.2.2.26 Phrase Naming Another Work by the Person

Record a phrase naming another work by the person applying the general guidelines on recording names given under 8.5. Record the phrase in direct order. Consider such a phrase to be the name for a person if that person is commonly identified by it in resources associated with the person and in reference sources.


EXAMPLE

The Author of Honesty the best policyStatement of responsibility: by the Author of Honesty the best policy

The Editor of The young gentleman’s bookStatement of responsibility: by the Editor of The young gentleman’s book

The Writer of The Lambton wormStatement of responsibility: by the Writer of the Lambton worm

L‘Auteur de l’Adresse au peuple bretonStatement of responsibility: par l’auteur de l’Adresse au peuple breton

Alternative

Omit an initial article (see appendix C) when recording a phrase naming another work by the person.

EXAMPLE

Author of Honesty the best policyStatement of responsibility: by the Author of Honesty the best policy

Editor of The young gentleman’s bookStatement of responsibility: by the Editor of The young gentleman’s book

Writer of The Lambton wormStatement of responsibility: by the Writer of the Lambton worm

Auteur de l’Adresse au peuple bretonStatement of responsibility: par l’auteur de l’Adresse au peuple breton

Autor des Buches Traumberuf BuschpilotStatement of responsibility: von dem Autor des Buches Traumberuf Buschpilot

Record as a variant name a form using the title of the other work as the first element followed by a comma and the word or words that precede the title in the phrase (see 9.2.3.10).

If the person is commonly identified by a real name or another name (see 9.2.2.6), and a phrase including the title of another work has appeared in resources associated with the person, record the word or phrase as a variant name (see 9.2.3.10).


294.1.8 11.2.2.8

The JSC agreed to revise the base instruction at 11.2.2.8 based on the positive wording suggested for 6.2.1.7 in 6JSC/Chair/3/ALA response. The examples accompanying the base instruction will be revised based on DNB’s proposal. The existing base instruction at 11.2.2.8 will become an alternative instruction. The examples accompanying the existing base instruction will accompany the alternative instruction. The final example accompanying the alternative will be deleted since it is incorrect.

Clean copy:

11.2.2.8 Initial Articles

When recording the preferred name of a corporate body, include an initial article, if present.

EXAMPLE

The Library AssociationDer Wehrbeauftragte

Alternative

Omit an initial article (see appendix C) unless the name is to file under the article (e.g., a corporate name that begins with an article that is the first part of the name of a person or place). EXAMPLE

Amis de la terre du Morvannot Les Amis de la terre du Morvan

Library Associationnot The Library Association

Danske Præsteforeningnot Den Danske Præsteforening

butEl Niño Task ForceLe Corbusier Sketchbook Publication CommitteeLos Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra

294.1.9 C.0

The JSC agreed that C.0 should be revised based on the wording in 6JSC/Chair/3/CCC response followed by the extension in 6JSC/Chair/3/ACOC response. The phrase “a number of” used in 6JSC/Chair/3/CCC response should be deleted.


[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed that the wording should be changed to substitute the term “used” with the phrase “to be omitted”.]

Clean copy :

C.0 Scope

This appendix lists initial articles in languages that are to be omitted when applying the alternative instructions to record preferred titles for works and names of persons and corporate bodies.

294.1.10C.1

The JSC agreed that the first sentence in C.1 should be revised based on the wording in 6JSC/Chair/3/ACOC response.

Clean copy:

C.1 General Instructions

Omit the articles listed under C.2 and C.3 as instructed in the alternative instructions at 6.2.1.7 (titles of works), 9.2.2.25 (characterizing word or phrase used as the name of a person), 9.2.2.26 (phrase naming another work by the person), and 11.2.2.8 (names of corporate bodies). Consider only those definite and indefinite articles in the languages included in the lists under C.2 and C.3. The lists do not cover articles in all languages.

Generally consider those articles identified for a language also to apply to a dialect of that language.For languages not included in the lists in C.2 and C.3, consult reference sources to determine if the language uses definite and/or indefinite articles.

294.1.11C.2

The JSC agreed that C.2 should be revised based on the wording in 6JSC/Chair/3/CCC response.

Clean copy:

C.2 Articles Listed by Language

An asterisk (*) after an article indicates that the same form is also used in other contexts (e.g., the cardinal numeral one, a demonstrative pronoun); take care to distinguish the meaning.

[no changes in lists]


294.1.12C.3

The JSC agreed to revise C.3 based on the wording in 6JSC/Chair/3/CCC response.

Clean copy:

C.3 Articles Listed by Word or Words

An asterisk (*) after an article indicates that the same form is also used in other contexts (e.g., the cardinal numeral one, a demonstrative pronoun); take care to distinguish the meaning.

[no changes in lists]

294.1.13The Secretary will summarize the changes agreed by the JSC regarding initial articles. Christine Frodl will draft a revised version of 6JSC/Chair/3 based on this summary. Action=Secretary; Christine Frodl


294.2.1 The JSC agreed to revise 6.29.1.21 in order to simplify the instructions for determining the authorized access points for court reports. The ALA rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/ALA/1. The instruction at 6.29.1.21 will be revised based on LC’s wording in 6JSC/ALA/1/LC response. The examples accompanying 6.29.1.21.1 and 6.29.1.21.2 will also be revised based on 6JSC/ALA/1/LC response. No responses to the revised version are required.Action=ALA representative

Clean copy:

6.29.1.21 Reports of One Court

For law reports of one court, construct the authorized access point representing the work as instructed under 6.29.1.21.1 (reports ascribed to a reporter by name) or 6.29.1.21.2 (reports not ascribed to a reporter by name) as applicable.

6.29.1.21.1 Reports Ascribed to a Reporter or Reporters by Name

If the reports are ascribed to a reporter or reporters by name, construct the authorized access point by combining (in this order):

a) the authorized access point representing the reporter (or first named reporter), formulated according to the instructions given under 9.19.1


b) the preferred title for the reports, formulated according to the instructions given under 6.19.2.

EXAMPLE

Manning, James, 1781–1866. Common bench reportsAuthorized access point for: Common bench reports : cases argued and determined in the Court of Common Pleas / [reported] by James Manning, T.C. Granger, and John Scott

6.29.1.21.2 Reports Not Ascribed to a Reporter or Reporters by Name

If the reports are not ascribed to a reporter or reporters by name, construct the authorized access point by combining (in this order):

a) the authorized access point representing the court, formulated according to the instructions given under 11.13.1

b) the preferred title for the reports, formulated according to the instructions given under 6.19.2.

EXAMPLE

Canada. Federal Court. Canada Federal Court reports Authorized access point for: Canada Federal Court reports / editor, Florence Rosenfeld

Arizona. Court of Appeals. Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Appeals of the State of ArizonaAuthorized access point for: Report of cases argued and determined in the Court of Appeals of the State of Arizona ...

Germany. Bundesverfassungsgericht. Entscheidungen des BundesverfassungsgerichtsAuthorized access point for: Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts

Nigeria. Supreme Court. Monthly judgments of the Supreme Court of NigeriaAuthorized access point for: Monthly judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

The following instructions will be deleted:

6.29.1.21.2.16.29.1.21.2.26.29.1.21.2.36.29.1.21.2.4

294.3 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/LC/86JSC/LC/8/ACOC response6JSC/LC/8/ALA response


6JSC/LC/8/BL response6JSC/LC/8/CCC responsePossible replacement proposals for LC/8

294.3.1 The JSC discussed LC’s proposal for revising 6.27.1.2 and 6.27.1.3 in order to specify that when constructing the authorized access point for a serial work, the preferred title should only be preceded by the authorized access point for a person if the serial will not be continued by another person as the creator. The JSC did not agree to revise 6.27.1.2 or 6.27.1.3 by creating new exceptions at these instructions. However, the JSC did agree to create a new instruction at 19.2.1.1.3 “Persons or Families Considered to be Creators of Serials” based on option #1 in the document “Possible replacement proposals for LC/8” distributed by the LC rep at the meeting. The instruction will begin with a positive context, rather than the negative one set out in the replacement proposal. It was noted that it is not always easy to determine whether a person is responsible for the creation of a new serial. A list of criteria will be provided to assist decision making. Examples will be provided in the replacement proposal. The LC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/LC/8. Action=LC representative

Clean copy:

19.2.1.1.3 Persons or Families Considered to be Creators of Serials

A person or family is considered to be the creator of a serial if it is responsible for the serial as a whole, not an individual issue or a few issues.

Indications that a person or family may be considered responsible for the serial as a whole include the following:

a) the name or part of the name of the person is in the title properb) the person or family is the publisher of the serial c) content consists of personal opinions, etc.d) lack of another person, another family, or a corporate body involved with the serial.

EXAMPLE

Stone, I. F. (Isidor Feinstein), 1907-1989Authorized access point representing the creator for: I.F. Stone’s weekly. Stone was also the publisher

Bolles, Richard NelsonAuthorized access point representing the creator for: What color is your parachute? An annual publication of Bolles’ career advice

Lehrer, JonahAuthorized access point representing the creator for: Frontal cortex. A blog


If different issues of the serial are likely to be created by different persons or families, do not consider a person or family to be the creator.

If it is likely that the serial would continue without that person’s or family’s responsibility for the serial, do not consider the person or family to be the creator. In case of doubt, do not consider the person or family to be the creator.

294.4 The JSC agreed to revise the exception label “Motion pictures and video recordings” at

6.27.1.3 and 7.18.1.3 by replacing it with “Moving image resources”. The LC rep will submit a Fast Track proposal to make this change.Action=LC representative

294.4.1 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/LC rep/26JSC/LC rep/2/ACOC response6JSC/LC rep/2/ALA response 6JSC/LC rep/2/BL response6JSC/LC rep/2/CCC response

294.4.2 The JSC discussed LC’s discussion document for revising the use of “Selections” in Chapter 6 as a means of avoiding confusion when constructing authorized access points. The ALA rep commented that the existing instructions in RDA allowed meaning to be conveyed by the sort order of access points. These meanings would no longer be reflected if the order of elements within access points became fixed as a result of LC’s suggested revision. However, the ALA rep could not offer an alternative to that proposed in the discussion document. He expressed the hope that future systems would be able to pick apart facets, then display them in whichever order was deemed appropriate. The JSC agreed that LC should submit a formal proposal incorporating the changes to wording in 6JSC/LC rep/2/CCC. The wording suggested by CCC for the alternative at 6.14.2.7.2 will not include the phrase “unless the parts form a group called suite by the composer” since separate instructions for suites are already present at 6.28.2.3 Action=LC representative

294.5 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/LC/76JSC/LC/7/ACOC response6JSC/LC/7/ALA response 6JSC/LC/7/BL response6JSC/LC/7/CCC responsePossible replacement for LC/7

294.5.1 The JSC discussed LC’s proposal for revising chapter 7 to include an instruction for recording changes in content characteristics over time and discussed the creation of a new related element and element subtype. The JSC agreed to create a new instruction at 7.29 based on option #2 in 6JSC/LC/7 and the rewording suggested in 6JSC/LC/7/ALA response. The glossary and index will be updated in line with the change. A new RDA expression level element “Note on Content” will be created along with a new element subtype “Note on Changes in Content Characteristics”. The LC rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/LC/7.


Action=LC representative

[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed that the element name and instruction label “Note on Content” at 7.29 should be replaced by “Note on Expression”. In parallel, the element name and instruction label “Note” at 2.20 and 3.22 should be substituted with “Note on Manifestation or Item”. The glossary and index will be updated in line with the additional changes].

Clean copy:

7.29 Note on Expression

7.29.1 Basic Instructions on Making Notes on Expression

7.29.1.1 Scope

A note on expression is an annotation providing additional information relating to content recorded as an expression attribute.

7.29.1.2 Sources of Information

Take information for notes on expression from any source.

7.29.1.3 Making Notes on Expression

When making a note on expression, apply the general guidelines on notes given under 1.10.

7.29.2 Note on Changes in Content Characteristics

7.29.2.1 Scope

A note on changes in content characteristics is a note providing information on changes in content characteristics that occur in subsequent issues or parts of a resource issued in successive parts or between iterations of an integrating resource.


Use evidence presented by the resource itself (or on any accompanying material or container) as the basis for making notes on changes in content characteristics of the expression. If desired, take additional evidence from any source.

7.29.2.3 Change in Content Characteristics

Make notes on changes in content characteristics as instructed under 7.29.2.3.1 (multipart monographs and serials) or 7.29.2.3.2 (integrating resources), as applicable.


7.29.2.3.1 Multipart Monographs and Serials

If a content characteristic is changed in a subsequent issue or part, make a note if the change is considered important for identification or selection. If the changes have been numerous, a general statement may be made.

EXAMPLE

Volumes 1-3 in French, volumes 4-7 in German.Armenian, 1999-2007; Cyrillic, 2008-Volumes 3-5 lack illustrations.Volumes 1, 4, and 8 lack indexes.

7.29.2.3.2 Integrating Resources

Make notes on content characteristics no longer present on the current iteration if the change is considered important for identification or selection. If the changes have been numerous, a general statement may be made.

EXAMPLE

In French and English, 2002-2009 Web site now only in French

Related changes:

2.20 Note on Manifestation or Item

2.20.1 Basic Instructions on Making Notes on Manifestations or Items

2.20.1.1 Scope

A note on manifestation or item is an annotation providing additional information relating to manifestation or item attributes.

For notes on describing carriers, see 3.22.


Take information for notes on manifestation or item from any source.

2.20.1.3 Making Notes on Manifestation or Item

When making a note on manifestation or item, apply the general guidelines on notes given under 1.10.

= = = = =


3.22 Note on Manifestation or Item

3.22.1 Basic Instructions on Making Notes on Manifestations or Items

3.22.1.1 Scope

A note on manifestation or item is an annotation providing additional information relating to manifestation or item attributes.

For notes on identifying manifestations and items, see 2.20.


Take information for notes on manifestation or item from any source.

3.22.1.3 Making Notes on Manifestation or Item

When making a note on manifestation or item, apply the general guidelines on notes given under 1.10.

= = = = =

Glossary:

Note

An annotation providing additional information relating to data recorded in another element.

Note on Changes in Content Characteristics

A note on changes in content characteristics that occur in subsequent issues or parts of a resource issued in successive parts or between iterations of an integrating resource.

Note on Expression

An annotation providing additional information relating to content recorded as an expression attribute.

Note on Manifestation or Item

An annotation providing additional information relating to manifestation or item attributes.

294.5.2 The RDA Element analysis table will be revised to include the new element “Note on Content” along with the new element subtype “Note on Changes in Content Characteristics”. Details of the new element and element subtype will be sent to Nanette Naught for incorporation in the Element Set View.


Action=Secretary

[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed that the element name “Note on Content” should be replaced by “Note on Expression”. In parallel, the element name “Note” should be substituted with “Note on Manifestation or Item”.].

294.6 Received and considered the following documents:6JSC/CILIP/26JSC/CILIP/2/ACOC response6JSC/CILIP/2/ACOC response 6JSC/CILIP/2/BL response6JSC/CILIP/2/CCC response

294.6.1 The JSC discussed CILIP’s discussion document on discrepancies between 6.29.1.33 and 6.29.3.3 in recording the date of signing a treaty. The JSC agreed to revise the wording of 6.29.1.33, 6.29.3.3 and other instructions in Chapter 6 to make recording the date of signing a treaty more generally consistent.

294.6.2 6.4

The JSC agreed that 6.4 should be revised based on the wording in 6JSC/CILIP/2/LC response.

Clean copy:

6.4 Date of Work

CORE ELEMENT

Date of work is a core element to identify a treaty. Date of work is also a core element when needed to differentiate a work from another work with the same title or from the name of a person, family, or corporate body.

294.6.3 6.4.1.3

The JSC agreed that the first paragraph of 6.4.1.3 should be revised based on the wording in 6JSC/CILIP/2/LC response. The second sentence in the paragraph will be made more permissive by adding the term “generally” before “record”.

Clean copy:

6.4.1.3 Recording Date of Work

[1st paragraph]

Record the date of the work in terms of the calendar preferred by the agency creating the data.


For works other than treaties, generally record the date of the work by giving the year or years alone. For treaties, generally record the date of the work by giving the year, month, and day (see 6.20.3.3).

294.6.4 6.20

The JSC agreed to revise 6.20 based on the wording in 6JSC/CILIP/2/LC response.

Clean copy:

6.20 Date of a Legal Work

CORE ELEMENT

Date of work is a core element to identify a treaty. Date of work also is a core element when needed to differentiate a legal work from another work with the same title or from the name of a person, family, or corporate body.

294.6.5 6.20.3

The JSC agreed to delete the core statement at 6.20.3 following 6JSC/CILIP/2/LC response.

Clean copy:

6.20.3 Date of Signing a Treaty, Etc.

CORE ELEMENT

Date of work is a core element when needed to differentiate a work from another work with the same title or from the name of a person, family, or corporate body.

294.6.6 6.20.3.3

The JSC agreed that 6.20.3.3 should be revised to allow the recording of less information when year, month and date are not all available. Annotations will be made to the existing examples and new examples will be added based on 6JSC/CILIP/2/CCC response. The new example for the signing of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization will be revised to include a full date based on the revision suggested for the same example at 6.29.1.33 in 6JSC/CLILP/2/ACOC response.

Clean copy:

6.20.3.3. Recording Date of Signing a Treaty, Etc.

Record the date a treaty, etc., or a protocol to a treaty, etc., was signed applying the basic instructions given under 6.20.1. Record the date as fully as possible in this order: year, name of the month, number of the day.


EXAMPLE

1978 December 18Date of signing of a treaty between Australia and PapuaNew Guinea

1948 March 25Date of signing of an agreement between Corporación deFomento de la Producción (Chile) and the World Bank

1783 September 3Date of signing of a treaty between France and GreatBritain

1713Year of signing of the Treaty of Utrecht

1994 April 15Date of signing of the Agreement Establishing the WorldTrade Organization

Indicate the source from which the date was derived applying theinstructions given under 5.8.

294.6.7 6.29.1.33

The JSC agreed that the third and sixth paragraphs of 6.29.1.33 should be revised based on the wording in 6JSC/CILIP/2/ACOC response. The example accompanying the sixth paragraph of 6.29.1.33 should also be revised based on 6JSC/CILIP/2/ACOC response. The new wording suggested for the access point representing a single treaty at paragraph 6 will also be applied to the access point representing a compilation of treaties at paragraph 3.

Clean copy:

6.29.1.33 Additions to Access Points Representing Treaties, Etc.

[3rd and 6th paragraphs; 1st example for 6th paragraph]

If the access point representing a compilation of treaties, etc., is constructed using the collective name for the treaties, etc., (see 6.19.2.8), and the compilation contains all the treaties, etc., add the date, earlier date, or earliest date of signing (see 6.20.3).

If the access point representing a single treaty is constructed using the name by which the treaty is known, add the date, earlier date, or earliest date of signing (see 6.20.3).


EXAMPLE

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1994 April 15)Resource described: Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations / General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. —Spine title: Final texts of the GATT Uruguay Round agreements including the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization as signed on April 15, 1994, Marrakesh, Morocco. Signatories not listed in text nor found in reference sources consulted

294.6.8 The CILIP and BL reps will draft a revised version of 6JSC/CILIP/2 based on the changes agreed by the JSC.Action=CILIP representative; BL representative

294.6.9 The ALA rep will submit a proposal based on the LCPS at 6.29.1.33 for adding an instruction at 6.21 on how to distinguish between two treaties signed on the same day.Action=ALA representative


294.8 The JSC discussed ALA’s proposal for expanding the scope of the element Artistic and/or Technical Credit, revising 7.24 and the related glossary definition. The JSC agreed that the scope of the element should undergo limited expansion as an interim measure. In the longer term, the broader issue of making a distinction between the three elements Statement of responsibility, Performer, Narrator, and/or Presenter and Artistic and/or Technical Credit will need to be addressed. ALA will take forward this broader issue with the possible assistance of ACOC.Action=ALA representative; ACOC representative

294.8.1 7.24.1.1

The JSC agreed that 7.24.1.1 should be revised based on the wording proposed by ALA. The phrase “sound recording, multimedia or moving image” will be added to precede the term “resource”. The phrase “not recorded elsewhere in the description” will be substituted with “if not recorded in another element” and a reference to 7.23 will be added based on 6JSC/ALA/4/LC response. A reference will be added from 7.24.1.1 to 7.23 based on 6JSC/ALA/4/CCC response.

[Post meeting note: JSC agreed that the phrases “sound recording, multimedia or moving image” will not be added to precede the term “resource”. The phrase “not recorded elsewhere in the description” will be deleted and left unsubstituted.]


Clean copy:

7.24.1.1 Scope

An artistic and/or technical credit is a listing of persons, families, or corporate bodies making contributions to the artistic and/or technical production of a resource.

For instructions on recording persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a work or expression as relationships, see chapters 19 and 20.

For instructions on recording performers, narrators, or presenters, see 7.23.

294.8.2 7.24.1.3

The JSC agreed that 7.24.1.3 should be revised based on the wording proposed by ALA. The phrase “sound recordings, multimedia or moving image” will be added to precede the term “resource”. The phrase “not recorded elsewhere in the description” will be substituted with “if not recorded in another element” and the example category captions will be substituted with example explanations based on 6JSC/ALA/4/LC response. The graphic novel examples proposed by ALA will be deleted but moving image examples will be added based on those suggested by LC. The examples will not include ISBD punctuation since the information recorded as Artistic and/or Technical Credit does not correspond to any of the ISBD areas of description.

[Post meeting note: JSC agreed that the phrases “sound recording, multimedia or moving image” will not be added to precede the term “resource”. The phrase “not recorded elsewhere in the description” will be deleted and not substituted.]

Clean copy:

7.24.1.3 Recording Artistic and/or Technical Credits

Record the names of persons, families, or corporate bodies who have contributed to the artistic and/or technical production of a resource if they are considered to be important. Include a statement of function with each name or group of names.

EXAMPLE

Producer, Richard Mohr; recording engineer, Lewis Layton

Producers, Gary Usher, Curt Boettcher, Terry Melcher, Bruce Johnston, and Brian Wilson; engineer, Bill Fletcher; container notes, Joe Foster; archiving credit, Gary Usher, Jr.

Producer, Robert Palmer; assistant, Randall Lyon; recording engineer, Bruce Watson; mixers, Robert Norris, Robert Palmer

Editor, Thomas J. Nordberg; music, Nick Urata

Editor, Bernat Vilaplana; music, Javier Navarrete; costume designers, Lala Huete, Rocío Recondo; production designer, Engenio Caballero; special


effects supervisor, Reyes Abades; visual effects supervisors, Everett Burrell, Edward Irastorza

Art director, Maria Eugenia Sueiro; editor, Alejandro Brodersohn; music, Cesar Lerner

Music, Joseph Horovitz; editing, Ray Helm; graphic designer, John Tribe

Title music by William Walton; music composed by Geoffrey Burgon; literary consultant, John Wilders; script editor, Alan Shallcross

Edited and special effects by You Oughta Be in Pixels; production design by Paula Dal Santo; director of photography, Luis Molina Robinson; music by Mark Oates

Casting, Angela Heesom; directory of photography, Will Gibson; hair and makeup design, Jen Lamphee; special make-up effects, Connelly Make-Up FX Team; costume designer, Nicola Dunn; production designer, Robert Webb; composer, François Tétaz; editor, Jason Ballantine; executive producers, Gary Hamilton, Martin Fabinyi, Simon Hewitt, Michael Gudinski, George Adams; co-producer/executive producer, Matt Hearn

Executive producer, Craig Savage; multimedia producer, Craig Umanoff; editorial director, Clayton DeKorne

294.8.3 2.4.1.1

The JSC agreed to add a reference from the sixth paragraph of 2.4.1.1 to 7.24 based on 6JSC/ALA/4/LC response.

Clean copy:

2.4.1.1 Scope

[6th paragraph]

For statements identifying persons who have contributed to the artistic and/or technical production of a resource, see 7.24.

294.8.4 Glossary

The JSC agreed to revise the glossary definition of Artistic and/or Technical Credit

Clean copy:

Artistic and/or Technical Credit

A listing of persons, families, or corporate bodies making contributions to the artistic and/or technical production of a resource.

294.8.5 The ALA rep will draft a revised version of 6JSC/ALA/4 based on the changes agreed by the JSC.


Action=ALA representative[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed to revise 7.23.1.1]

Clean copy:

7.23.1.1. Scope

A performer, narrator, and/or presenter is a person, family, or corporate body responsible for performing, narrating, and/or presenting a work.

For instructions on recording persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a work or expression as relationships, see chapters 19 and 20.

For instructions on recording artistic and/or technical credits, see 7.24.

Executive Session 2

295 Liaison with the co-publishers of RDA

295.1 Progress on the U.S. National Test Recommendations

295.1.1 Received and considered the following document6JSC/Chair/Restricted/1/Rev 3

295.1.2 The JSC discussed the proposal for creating an RDA Basic View. The Chair explained that the requirement for an RDA Basic View arose from feedback provided by the JSC constituencies. This indicated the need for a clearer distinction between the identification of core elements and basic instructions in the RDA Toolkit. Troy Linker commented that, from a technical view point, this was not problematic but that it was necessary to establish a use case in order to assist the developers. The Chair responded that it was necessary to relabel the “Core” view as “Basic instructions” because the Core view currently displayed both the core elements and the minimum instructions required for understanding RDA. A new view, “Core element instructions,” was also necessary because users wanted to display the mandatory content of RDA independently from the basic instructions. Troy Linker said that he would draft a use case based on this analysis and hoped the changes specified in 6JSC/Chair/Restricted/1/Rev 3 could be completed by January 2012. Action=Troy Linker

295.2 Appointment of Copy Editor

295.2.1 Troy Linker reported the selection of Chris Oliver as the copy editor. ALA Publishing were contracting with McGill University for half of her working week for an initial six month period with the anticipation that this would be extended once the six months had elapsed. Chris Oliver’s initial term as copy editor began on 1st November 2011. She will start the process of rewording RDA with chapter 9 followed by 10, 11, 6 and 17 in that order. The appointment of an RDA copy editor will be announced on the RDA Toolkit Blog together with details of the chapters to be rewritten.Action=Troy Linker


295.2.2 The JSC will review and approve changes made to the wording of RDA by the copy editor and the U.S. Test Committee will then further review these changes. If any additional changes are requested by the U.S. Test Committee, these will be fed back to the copy editor and the JSC. The JSC will have final approval on any changes made. Troy Linker said he would circulate the editing plan to the JSC by email. Action=Troy Linker

295.2.3 Troy Linker demonstrated the editing template which consists of a Word document in tabulated form juxtaposing the original wording with the copy editor’s proposed rewording. This will be available for the JSC to review. If the JSC require changes to the proposed rewording, these will be fed back to the copy editor before an approved version is sent to IMT. The copy editor will post queries to the JSC Chair on occasions when she requires clarification of the instructions. The copy editor will follow the Editor’s Guide, to which she may also propose changes.

295.2.4 The editing plan specifies that the first five reworded chapters will all have been completed for the JSC to review by 18th April 2012 and that they will be made available for U.S. Test review by the end of May 2012. It is hoped that rewording of the first five chapters will give the U.S. community sufficient confidence to set an implementation date for RDA.Translators of RDA will be kept in the feedback loop as regards rewording of the chapters. They will be added to the schedule for reviewing the rewording of Chapter 9.Action=Troy Linker

295.2.5 Updates to RDA resulting from the November 2011 JSC meeting will be made before the changes resulting from rewording. This will give the copy editor an opportunity to fold the RDA updates into her reworded text. RDA updates arising from the JSC review will be tracked in the revision history on the Toolkit but changes which occur as a result of the rewording will not because they do not change the meaning or intent of the instructions.

295.3 RDA update process

295.3.1 Troy Linker reported on how updates to RDA will be flagged in the Toolkit. An icon will be included after the instruction to indicate that an update has taken place. The update icon will be labelled according to the year and month in which an update occurred. The plan is that it will be possible to toggle update icons on and off according to user preference.

[Post-meeting note: The JSC agreed that the update icon label should be changed to substitute the month with a sequence number, i.e., 2012/01 instead of March 2012.]

295.3.2 Clicking on an update icon will link to a separate document which displays the revision history for an instruction. If an instruction is revised more than once, its revision history will show the progression of changes over time. It is intended that the revision history content will be made searchable using an option in Advanced Search. It will also be made browsable by providing a table of contents in the Toolkit contents pane.

295.3.3 The JSC discussed what content should be included in revision history documents. The JSC agreed not to flag fast tracked changes or include them in the revision history. However, the JSC did not agree on whether examples or tracked change versions of


revisions should be included in revision history documents. Troy Linker will mock up a revision history document for the JSC to review. Action=Troy Linker

295.3.4 The JSC discussed how instruction number changes and deletions should be flagged in the Toolkit. Such updates could create potential problems in cases where user generated documents such as workflows link to the RDA instruction numbers. Instruction numbering is currently needed to embed the sort order which expresses a hierarchy in RDA. It also offers users a concise means of referencing instructions. However, the JSC agreed that it would be useful to explore the possibilities for developing an alternative sorting and referencing system based on the identifiers which currently link to instructions behind the scenes in the Toolkit. Such an approach could bypass the problems associated with instruction number changes and deletions. At present, RDA instruction numbers will continue to provide a means of sorting and referencing. Changes to and deletions of instruction numbers will be recorded in the revision history.

295.3.5 The JSC discussed options for scheduling updates to RDA. The Chair explained that COP had made provision for updates to take place on a monthly basis with a maximum of two major updates per year. The JSC agreed a monthly schedule for fast track and Toolkit changes. Changes arising from JSC proposals should be covered by semi annual updates. Changes arising from the rewording of RDA will not be included in the scheduling for major updates but will be dealt with separately.

295.3.6 The JSC agreed a working plan to finalize the first major update package for RDA over a period of three months to March 2012. ALA Publishing will plan to prepare this update package for release during April 2012.

295.3.7 The JSC agreed a working plan to finalize a second major update package for September 2012. ALA Publishing will plan to prepare this for release during October 2012. The 2012 JSC meeting will be arranged to roughly coincide with the second update.

295.3.8 Major updates to RDA in English require equivalent changes to be made to other language versions of the text. A time lag will be involved in this process. However, Troy Linker said that he hoped to give translators a head start with drafting updates by sharing the XML associated with English textual changes two weeks after a package is received from the JSC. Translators can then begin their work whilst ALA Publishing focus on metadata related issues which apply to all language versions of the text.

295.3.9 The JSC and ALA Publishing agreed a working plan to release the first major update package for translations between October and November 2012.

295.3.10Troy Linker explained that ALA Publishing had made no commitment to keep the print version of RDA synchronized with the online product. This applied both to English and other language versions of the text. ALA Editions have expressed a preference for print updates in English to occur on an annual basis. However, the number of changes arising from JSC and the rewording of RDA may make a semi-annual print update necessary over the next two years. JSC and wording related changes will be co-mingled in print updates but it will be possible to differentiate them by separate labelling.


295.3.11Based on the discussion which had taken place at the meeting, Troy Linker said that he would send the JSC a summary of proposals and a draft calendar for updating RDA.Action=Troy Linker

295.4 JSC Element Set and Vocabularies/Open Metadata Registry

295.4.1 Troy Linker reported on the developing relationship between the RDA Toolkit and the Open Metadata Registry. A system had been built to call down data from the Registry into the Toolkit. Once a table is in place which matches local identifiers present in the Toolkit with URIs in the Registry, further progress can be made on sharing data between the two. There will be cases in which Toolkit and Registry data does not match up because of differences in the way it has been structured. However, if compatible data is dealt with first, then incompatible data can be dealt with at a later stage. ALA Publishing plans to cache updates to the Registry and then incorporate these into the Toolkit at set intervals, possibly on a quarterly basis. It will also be possible to update the Registry from the Toolkit if considered useful. Until the infrastructure is ready to support exchange between the Registry and Toolkit, it will still be necessary to make editorial changes in both locations as a means of maintaining synchronization.

295.4.2 Troy Linker and Diane Hillmann have discussed the issue of putting the URL for the Registry in the co-publisher’s name. She has verbally agreed to this.

295.4.3 Translating the Registry is part of the Translation Agreement. The mechanism has not yet been established.

295.4.4 The JSC discussed whether Toolkit identifiers should be encoded in the Registry or whether Registry URIs should be encoded in the Toolkit instead. The JSC agreed that the encoding should occur both ways unless the Toolkit could use URIs for the purpose of encoding rather than local identifiers.

295.5 Toolkit Development

295.5.1 Troy Linker reported that a Development Blog had been added to the Toolkit site which categorizes development issues according to type, priority and archive. A further category is planned which covers the target date for issue resolution. A use case is listed for each issue along with details of the proposed development. Users are also able to post comments regarding development issues.

295.5.2 Troy Linker reported on changes being made to the Toolkit in response to feedback from the U.S. RDA Test.

295.5.3 A wizard is being developed to assist with the creation of workflows. This will consist of best practice, training, and help documentation.

295.5.4 The simultaneous opening of workflows and other tools in separate windows is already enabled.

295.5.5 User controlled suppression of selected workflows will be enabled.


295.5.6 A paging concept will be introduced to improve response times for loading RDA chapters. Page lengths have been chosen which optimize load times. Page breaks will always be at the “.X” instruction level, i.e., 6.4, 6.5 etc. Chapter page numbers and previous / next page icons will be included as links at the top of individual page displays to support navigation. The RDA Toolkit development server will be opened up to testers in Australia and New Zealand so that they can gauge the improvements made to Toolkit responsiveness. Action=Troy Linker

295.5.7 Synch TOC functionality will be adjusted so that users can specify whether this process is run manually or automatically.

295.5.8 The RDA table of contents will automatically open at the chapter level to save users having to do this manually.

295.5.9 Document ordering functionality will be added to the search results display. This will accompany the current relevance ordering functionality.

295.5.10RDA Core and Core Plus functionality will be adjusted in line with the discussions regarding RDA Basic View which took place at the November JSC meeting.

295.5.11The question mark will be accepted as a wild card character for searching. This will accompany the asterisk which is already an accepted wild card character.

295.5.12Normalization of search terms will be provided in the Toolkit to a limited extent. AACR2 terms will be linked to related RDA terms by see references in the RDA index. However, no such linkage will be provided in the RDA Quick Search or Advanced Search features. Searching the RDA content using variant English spellings will be normalized by a behind the scenes thesaurus. The RDA Toolkit Virtual User Group will help to establish what terms should go into this thesaurus.

295.5.13Searching for resources in the Toolkit Tools section is already possible using Advanced Search.

295.5.14Bookmark functionality will be adjusted so that users can input URLs to annotations to enable linking to workflows, wikis, etc. Users will be able to edit and rename bookmarks rather than having to copy, delete and then recreate them. Users will also be able to share workflows within institutional subscriptions to the RDA Toolkit.

295.5.15System time out will made adjustable according to user preferences. Time out will still occur within set parameters. A change has already been made to store the current page when time out occurs rather than returning users to the introductory screen.

295.5.16Connectivity and firewall issues should be resolved to a great extent by the paging approach. Other issues will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis with individual institutions.

295.5.17The JSC discussed integrating full examples into the RDA Toolkit. The JSC agreed that pdf documents containing full examples on the JSC website should be added to the list of documents on the Toolkit Resources tab, under the heading “Other Resources”.


295.5.18Troy Linker reported that the first meeting of the RDA Toolkit Virtual User Group was attended by nearly two hundred users. The meeting established the principle of an open microphone forum at which users could share their comments with the Toolkit developers and other users. Future meetings will be arranged on the basis of rotating time zones in order to facilitate international participation.

295.5.19Troy Linker demonstrated the JIRA system which will replace Bugzilla for purposes for reporting and fixing bugs in the Toolkit.

295.5.20Troy Linker reported that ALA Publishing plan to replace the existing support ticket system with one which offers improved functionality.

295.6 Printed RDA

295.6.1 Troy Linker reported that besides a print version of RDA in English, print versions were also planned for the French, German, and Spanish translations. The Finnish translation may also be produced in print. Around one thousand two hundred copies of print RDA have now been sold.

295.6.2 Since offering RDA in print, complaints regarding the price of the product have subsided. Print RDA has satisfied a demand for a version of the product which is available for a one off payment rather than by serial subscription.

295.6.3 Troy Linker said that he would send the JSC statistics regarding RDA Toolkit usership broken down by nationality and single / multiple usership. Action=Troy Linker

295.6.4 Troy Linker said that he would send the JSC information from COP regarding the budget for the JSC. Action=Troy Linker

295.7 Derivative Products

295.7.1 The JSC discussed the development of a concise version of RDA. The Chair commented that it will be necessary for the implementation of RDA to take place in 2013 before a concise version is rolled out. Troy Linker responded that to roll out a concise RDA in 2013 or the following year, preparations had to begin now. He added that in the first place it was necessary to establish the need and market for such a product. The JSC agreed that ALA Publishing should produce a proof of concept model for a concise RDA founded on the basic instructions in the Toolkit. Feedback on this model from potential customers will then establish whether there is a requirement and market for such a product.

296 Scope and maintenance of JSC/AACR/RDA Toolkit Web sites

296.1 Received and considered the following document6JSC/Restricted/Chair/5

296.2 The Chair explained that he had drafted an analysis of the roles played by the AACR and RDA Toolkit websites, the JSC public website, workspace and wiki and the ALA Connect


website. Information is often duplicated across several sites and consequently there is scope for rationalization. A significant amount of information on the AACR and JSC public sites is out of date. John Attig commented that the wiki and workspace had to remain separate from the public sites because they provide a means for the JSC to collaborate and archive documents not for public view.

296.3 The JSC discussed the possibility of using a wiki both for the purpose of collaboration and for archiving non public documents. However, the current JSC wiki only has limited support. Troy Linker commented that he had advised CoP of JSC’s need for a better collaborative web tool which has professional hosting and support. This could be paid for using the JSC fund. The JSC agreed to consider locating the JSC workspace and wiki on one ALA platform. Action=JSC

296.4 The JSC discussed the need for updating the JSC website. Troy Linker commented that migration to Drupal would make the JSC website easier to maintain in future. ALA Publishing would be willing to assist with setting this up. The JSC agreed to consider priorities for updating the JSC website.Action=JSC

296.5 The JSC agreed that there was an urgent need to update the content of the JSC website. Troy Linker said that he would send the Chair a list of changes which ALA Publishing would like to see made on the JSC website. Barbara Tillett suggested that the incoming JSC Secretary could work with ALA to make proposals. As the individual responsible for designing several of the JSC’s sites, John Attig offered to explain what he originally did and why if the need arose.Action=Troy Linker; JSC Secretary; ALA representative

296.6 Troy Linker said that he would send the Chair a style guide developed by ALA Publishing which could be used to overhaul the JSC website.Action=Troy Linker

296.7 The Chair noted that the FAQs on the JSC website are a priority in terms of updating. Many of them could be removed because they overlap with FAQs on the RDA Toolkit. He added that the committee page would also need to be updated.

296.8 The JSC agreed that the AACR site should be deprecated to the RDA Toolkit site. Troy Linker will provide suggestions on how this can be done.Action=Troy Linker

296.9 The Chair will update the document 6JSC/Restricted/Chair/5.Action=Chair



297 Meeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group

297.1 Received and considered the following document: 6JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Chair follow up/2

297.2 Attendance

297.3 JSC: Alan Danskin (Chair – Meeting Chair, BL); John Attig (ALA); Gordon Dunsire (CILIP); Margaret Stewart (CCC); Deirdre Kiorgaard (ACOC); Barbara Tillett (LC); Thurstan Young (Secretary – Recorder, BL)

297.4 ISBD RG: Mirna Willer (Chair, University of Zadar); Elena Escolano Rodríguez (Subdirección General de Publicaciones, Ministerio de Defensa, Spain); Massimo Gentili-Tedeschi (BNB); Françoise Leresche (BnF)

297.5 ISSN Network: Louise Howlett (BL); François-Xavier Pelegrin (ISSN International Centre); Regina Romano Reynolds (LC), Marja-Liisa Seppala (University of Helsinki)

297.6 Observers: Judith A. Kuhagen (LC); Troy Linker (ALA Publishing); Kevin Marsh (ACOC); Grace Beckett (University of London); Christine Frodl, (DNB); Dorothy McGarry.

297.7 The JSC and ISBD RG discussed scope for harmonization between RDA and ISBD.

297.8 Sources of Information. RDA changed its sources of information from those which were set out in AACR2 and there were two drivers for this move. The Chair explained that RDA was intended to provide cataloguers with a consistent set of sources of information for creating descriptions to simplify, whereas in AACR2 sources varied according to the element. He added that RDA preferred to take information from the item in order to describe that item. It permits information to be recorded which might have been excluded in AACR2 because it did not appear on the chief source. This was intended to provide the user with more help in finding the resource. Françoise Leresche responded that the broader scope given to sources of information in RDA had changed the nature of the parallel title element. Whereas in AACR2 and ISBD the parallel title can only be taken from the same source as the title proper, in RDA it can be taken from anywhere on the resource. The CCC rep pointed out that RDA takes a different approach, treating the data as another element rather than as an extension of the title proper in another language.The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that the definition of parallel title in RDA was broader than that in ISBD, which covers resource description but not access. However, in cases where titles are taken from a source other than the source for the title proper, this could be flagged in RDA by recording a note. As a result, any such parallel titles recorded using RDA could be excluded from a mapping to the equivalent ISBD element. Creating a mapping for the parallel title is an example of practical interoperability between the two standards without there being a need for exact alignment between their respective elements. The CILIP rep noted that to achieve interoperability it is not necessary to create the same record from separate sets of rules. The LC rep noted that the International Cataloguing Principles 5.3 footnote states descriptive data should be based on an internationally agreed standard which, in the case of the library community, is ISBD. She added that RDA was intended to comply with the ICP and that RDA Appendix D provides the means for mapping


between RDA and ISBD elements. Mirna Willer commented that if interoperability could not be achieved then this may present a problem. She suggested that one could not rely on the names of elements in terms of establishing an equivalence. Instead, their definitions had to be considered. In the case of parallel title, the definitions of the ISBD and RDA elements are recognizably different.

297.9 Title source. Regina Reynolds noted that RDA 2.2.2.4 instructs the user to take embedded metadata as the preferred source of information in cases where a resource neither consists of pages, leaves, sheets, cards or moving images and does not bear a label. This approach is inconsistent with that taken by ISSN as regards online resources. ISSN would use a title screen as the preferred source of information rather than embedded metadata. The ALA rep responded that ALA was already considering whether there was scope for fine tuning the RDA instructions regarding sources of information. He added that ALA would discuss the possibility of including this issue amongst the ones they were looking at as the basis for a proposal. ALA and the ISSN Network will liaise on the matter and if ALA does not submit a proposal then the ISSN Network will do so instead. The Chair will send the ISBD RG and ISSN Network details of how proposals should be submitted. Action=ALA representative; ISSN; Chair

297.10 Selection of sources of information. Elena Escolano noted that RDA instructs users to record equivalent elements in the “order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography” on the source of information. She added that this suggested an order of preference which considers typography to be of least importance, whereas ISBD regards typography to be of the highest importance. The ALA rep responded that the phrase quoted actually lists a sequence of equivalent alternatives, rather than an order of preference. The CILIP rep commented that if there was scope for misinterpreting the term “order” as it appears in relation to sequence, layout, or typography, this could be an issue dealt with by the process of rewording RDA. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed.

297.11 National Cataloguing Agencies’ Profile. Françoise Leresche explained that it would be useful to include a National Cataloguing Agencies’ Profile in RDA as a means of informing the user which aspects of the standard were mandatory, which were conditional and which were optional when creating an ISBD record. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that Appendix D.1 should be amended in order to specify which elements are mandatory and conditional in ISBD. ISBD RG will submit a proposal to the JSC regarding the mandatory and conditional elements which should be specified in RDA Appendix D.1 It will also specify changes to ISBD punctuation in Appendix D.1 consistent with the consolidated edition of the standard.Action=ISBD RG

297.12 The JSC and ISBD RG agreed to share current copies of their respective instructions with each other. Mirna Willer will send the Chair a list of ISBD RG members and consultants to be given access to the RDA Toolkit. The ISBD RG will send the Chair Word and PDF files containing the consolidated edition of ISBD for use by the JSC and its consultants.Action=JSC; ISBD RG

297.13 Credibility or trust in the information. Elena Escolano noted that ISBD is used for purposes of identification. It specifies the circumstances under which a title can be taken from outside the preferred source, a mandatory note, and the use of square brackets only


in the transcription areas 1 and 6 to explain a cataloguer added the data, so it’s not misunderstood by other cataloguers. The Chair explained that RDA specifies several ways in which the source of information used to identify a resource can be indicated. Sources can be indicated by using a note or another means such as square brackets. Elena Escolano commented that RDA instructions are inconsistent in this regard. In the case of devised titles, RDA 2.3.2.11 specifies a note should be recorded to indicate that the title has been devised but it does not allow the user to enclose the devised title in square brackets instead. For other elements, the user is given a choice of recording a note or using square brackets to indicate that information has not been transcribed. The Chair responded that certain types of resource such as graphics, sound and video recordings frequently require a devised title. He added that to always enclose devised titles in square brackets under these circumstances would be somewhat meaningless. It would also be redundant if a note on the devised title has already been recorded. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that in cases where ISBD requires the use of square brackets and RDA does not, an application profile can be used to ensure that they are displayed.

297.14 Marks of omission. Elena Escolano commented that RDA instructions are inconsistent regarding the use of marks of omission to indicate the incomplete transcription of information from the resource. Whereas RDA 2.3.1.4 requires the use of an ellipsis to indicate the omission of data from a title, 2.4.1.4 does not allow its use to indicate the omission of data from a statement of responsibility. The Chair explained that instead of an ellipsis, 2.4.1.5 allows the use of a bracketed phrase such as “and six others” in order to indicate the data which has been omitted from a statement of responsibility. Barbara Tillett added that this approach offers more information to the user than an ellipsis. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that controlled terms used to indicate the omission of data from a statement of responsibility could be used to generate equivalent terms in the languages of other cataloguing agencies. They could also be used to generate the Latin abbreviation “et al.” prescribed by ISBD as an equivalent to “and others”.

297.15 Statements of responsibility related to expression. Massimo Gentili-Tedeschi commented that since the statement of responsibility and statement relating to performers, narrators, and presenters are treated as separate elements by RDA this meant that the two would not display together in synthetic records. Elena Escolano added that whereas in RDA a statement of responsibility is transcribed from the resource, details relating to performers, narrators and presenters may be recorded in a normalized way. In an ISBD description the aforementioned entities would all be transcribed as part of the statement of responsibility. The ALA rep responded that the issue of how elements displayed was dependent on individual system design rather than RDA. The Chair added that the current treatment of performers, narrators and presenters in RDA may be based on expediency in AACR2 and MARC. As part of the follow up work on 6JSC/ALA/4, ALA will investigate the possibility of relating the statement of responsibility more closely with statements identifying performers, narrators, and presenters. This could help to resolve the discrepancy between transcribing the former and recording the latter in a normalized form. The ALA rep will share this work with the ISBD RG once it has been completed and invite comments from them before submitting a proposal to the JSC aimed at resolving the matter.Action=ALA representative


297.16 Different interpretation of nature of data (musical presentation statement). Massimo Gentili-Tedeschi noted that what AACR2 treats as a musical presentation statement is treated as part of the edition statement in RDA. He added that these were two distinct concepts which should not be conflated and that, in the view of IAML, RDA’s approach was inconsistent with ISBD. The Chair responded that the approach taken in RDA was intended to provide simplification and to show the conceptual equivalence. He added that JSC’s decision to treat the musical presentation statement as a part of the edition statement was based on recommendations received from music communities. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that IAML should submit a proposal to JSC requesting the creation of a musical presentation statement in RDA.Action=Massimo Gentili-Tedeschi

297.17 Unnumbered monographic series. Françoise Leresche commented that RDA is inconsistent with regard to the treatment of phrases such as “new series” and “second series” in series statements. Whereas in the case of an unnumbered series these phrases are recorded as subseries titles, if the series is numbered then they are recorded as part of the series numbering. In ISBD phrases of the type mentioned above are only referred to in the context of numbered series. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that a decision had to be made regarding how ISBD treats such phrases in the context of an unnumbered series before further discussion could take place regarding their treatment in RDA. The ISBD RG will discuss this matter internally and with the ISSN NetworkAction=ISBD RG; ISSN Network

297.18 “Type of composition” as title proper. Massimo Gentili-Tedeschi commented that the term “type of composition” is defined more narrowly in RDA than in ISBD. He added that the scope of type of composition in RDA should be broadened to match that in ISBD. The CILIP rep responded that the definitions of type of composition in the RDA glossary and in ISBD at instruction 1.1.3.5 were identical as were the accompanying sets of examples. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that RDA and ISBD were compatible as regards their treatment of type of composition.

297.19 Resource lacking collective title. Elena Escolano commented that the alternative at RDA 2.3.2.9 instructs that a title should be devised for a resource lacking a collective title when the titles proper of the parts appear on the source of information for the resource as a whole. She added that this is inconsistent with the ISBD instruction at 1.1.4.4. The ALA rep responded that the main instruction at 2.3.2.9 was compatible with the ISBD instruction. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that an ISBD application profile could be used to specify that the RDA alternative instruction is not applied as regards resources lacking a collective title.

297.20 Other title information. Elena Escolano commented that RDA limits the supply of other title information to cartographic resources and moving image resources whereas ISBD does not. She added that the scope of supplying other title information in RDA should be broadened out to include other types of resource. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that ISBD RG should submit a proposal to broaden the scope for supplying other title information in RDA. Action=ISBD RG


297.21 Elena Escolano commented that the scope of other title information at RDA 2.3.4 does not include variant titles appearing on the same source as the title proper. She added that in order to support interoperability, it would be useful to map variant titles appearing on the same source as the title proper in RDA to other title information in ISBD. The Chair responded that in cases where the variant title does not appear on the same source as the title proper, RDA 2.20.2.3 instructs that a note can be recorded which reflects this. The absence of a note could be taken to infer that the variant title is taken from the same source as the title proper. The ALA rep added that recording a note on the source of a variant title is not mandatory in RDA. Therefore, to ensure interoperability with ISBD, it would be necessary to only map RDA records which contain this information where applicable. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that the mapping of variant titles appearing on the same source as the title proper in RDA to other title information in ISBD should be dealt with by using an application profile.

297.22 Date of publication. Elena Escolano commented that RDA 2.11.1.1 does not allow a legal deposit date to be recorded instead of a copyright date in cases where a publication date does not appear on the resource. She added that it was a frequent practice in European publishing to print a legal deposit date on the resource, and that this date often reflected the actual date of publication more accurately than the copyright date. The ISBD instruction at 4.3.7 permits a legal deposit date to be recorded instead of a copyright date in cases where a publication date does not appear on the resource. The Chair responded that a legal deposit date could be included at RDA 2.8.6.6 as an example of a supplied publication date. Explanatory text would need to clarify that, for the purposes of supplying a publication date, “legal deposit” only refers to a date printed on the resource. It does not relate to the date of receipt by a legal deposit library. The ACOC rep also noted that the Australian definition of “legal deposit” is different from that in some parts of Europe. Therefore, care should be taken over the RDA definition of this concept in order to assure an international perspective. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that ALA should submit a fast track change to RDA 2.8.6.6, illustrating the use of a legal deposit date to supply a date of publication.Action=ALA representative

297.23 Common Title / Part title. Elena Escolano commented that RDA 2.3.1.7 instructs a part title should be transcribed following a common title if they are both presented on the same source of information and they are not grammatically linked. This is inconsistent with the ISBD instruction at 1.1.4.6 which specifies no limitations regarding the transcription of a common title followed by a dependent title based on sources of information or grammatical linkage. Judith Kuhagen responded that the approach taken in RDA is intended to simplify the task of judging whether or not a link exists between a common and part title. It reflects the AACR2 instruction at 12.1B4. The Chair added that the same information would be transcribed using both RDA and ISBD, only it would occur in different areas of the description. Furthermore, the number of resulting descriptions would be the same using both RDA and ISBD. Although the JSC would be willing to reword 2.3.1.7 as a means of making it clearer, the present outcome of the instruction would not change. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed that this issue currently represents an irreconcilable difference between RDA and ISBD. Regina Reynolds noted that, from the U.S. perspective, ISSN had not come across any cases in which this discrepancy had caused a conflict on records created following both ISBD and AACR2.


297.24 The Chair explained that the JSC was considering whether to merge the two RDA elements Designation of Edition and Named Revision of an Edition. Before making a decision on conflation, the JSC will submit a proposal to the ISBD RG that the equivalent ISBD elements Edition statement and Additional edition statement are also conflated. If the JSC and ISBD RG can agree to make these changes together then this would support interoperability. The BL rep will draft a paper for JSC discussion in the first instance. Action=BL representative

298 Meeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group/ISSN Network

298.1 Received and considered the following document: 6JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/Chair follow up/1

298.2 The JSC and ISBD RG discussed scope for harmonization between RDA, ISSN and ISBD.

298.3 CJK. François-Xavier Pelegrin noted that the ISSN Network welcomed the ISBD RG’s proposal to create a specific rule dealing with major changes in the titles proper of serials which do not divide text into words. The proposed new rule would accommodate serial title changes in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. The ISSN Network has launched an internal discussion regarding this issue, its main priority being that the process of recording a title in the roman form and in the original script should achieve the same result. Elena Escolano responded that the ISBD RG’s proposal had met with agreement from the Chinese and Korean cataloguing communities. She added that, whilst a proposal for how the rule should be worded would be welcome from the ISSN Network, the ISBD RG felt that the sense of their original proposal should be retained. The ISSN Network agreed to draft changes to their own instructions regarding title changes for CJK material and make these available to ISBD RG and JSC for comment. The Chair responded that the JSC would look forward to seeing what emerges from the draft proposals.Action=ISSN Network

298.4 Media type. Regina Reynolds commented that RDA makes no distinction between tangible and intangible computer mediated resources. This means that if, for example, a resource first issued as a CD-ROM later becomes an online product, no new description is required. However, the ISSN Network would require a new description to be generated under these circumstances. The Chair responded that in RDA the media type “computer” is intended to indicate that a computer device is required to access the resource. The distinction between tangible and intangible resources is made at the level of carrier type. The CILIP rep suggested that a new instruction could be added to RDA 1.6.2. This would specify that, in cases where the carrier type for a computer mediated serial shifts from a tangible carrier to an online resource, a new description is required. The JSC and ISSN Network agreed that the ISSN Network should submit a proposal to add the new instruction along with a use case to support the change. The Chair said he would send information on how to do proposals to ISSN and ISBD groups.Action=ISSN Network, JSC Chair

298.5 Change in mode of issuance. Regina Reynolds commented that RDA requires a new description if the mode of issuance of a serial changes. However, the ISSN Network would not require a new description under these circumstances and would prefer that the


existing description for the serial is revised to reflect the change instead. She added that changes in mode of issuance could occur very subtly. For example, if a serial becomes an integrating resource then this may be accompanied by a loss of numbering and an increased frequency of updates. However, such changes may go unnoticed by cataloguing agencies and not be regarded as significant enough for a creator or publisher to request a new ISSN. The ALA rep responded that both RDA and ISBD require a comprehensive description of the resource whereas ISSN does not. From the perspective of creating a comprehensive description for an integrating resource which has previously been issued as a serial, it would be preferable to start from scratch and record elements which are specific to the changed mode of issuance rather than carrying forward elements from the original. The same approach would be desirable as regards other scenarios involving a changed mode of issuance. The JSC and ISSN Network agreed that testing should be carried out on the feasibility of revising existing ISSN records to include elements reflecting a changed mode of issuance. Additional RDA specific elements should then be added to these records. The BL will create these test records for the JSC to review.Action=BL representative

298.6 Seriality and digital materials. François-Xavier Pelegrin noted that FRBR does not take into account the full complexity of serial descriptions. The CILIP rep responded that FRBR Chapter 1.3 already contains the following placeholder: “The notion of seriality and the dynamic nature of digital entities recorded in digital formats merit further analysis”. He added that the FRBR RG would welcome approaches from the ISSN Network, ISBD RG, and JSC regarding issues of seriality that require further study. In particular, mode of issuance and frequency are both regarded as expression level elements by FRBR, whereas they are treated as manifestation level elements in RDA. The JSC, ISSN Network and ISBD RG agreed to query this discrepancy with the FRBR RG along with the general treatment of seriality and the dynamic nature of digital materials in FRBR.Action=JSC; ISSN Network, ISBD RG.

298.7 Serial cumulations. Regina Reynolds explained that the ISSN Network plans to provide guidance on how to judge whether the cumulation of a serial represents a new work. She queried whether this is an issue covered by RDA. The Chair responded that there is no specific instruction which deals with cumulations in RDA. However, because the cumulation of a serial does not involve a change in content, this would be regarded as a new manifestation rather than a new work. He added that, as a new manifestation, the cumulation of a serial would require a new description in RDA. The JSC, ISSN Network, and ISBD RG agreed that their practice was consistent as regards creating new descriptions for cumulations. Once the ISSN Network has considered providing additional guidance on cumulations, the JSC will consider whether this guidance can assist in clarifying the boundaries between works, expressions, manifestations and items in RDA. The BL rep will amend JSC feedback provided in 6JSC/Restricted/Chair/2/revised. It should state that the cumulation of a serial represents a new manifestation rather than a new work. Action=ISSN Network; JSC; BL representative

298.8 Re-basing integrating resources. Regina Reynolds commented that the ISSN Network does not currently apply RDA’s provision to create a new description for the re-basing of an integrating resource. However, it would be willing to harmonize with RDA on this


issue in future. The JSC and ISSN Network agreed that a rule should be added to the ISSN Manual which specifies that the rebasing of an integrating resource creates a new work requiring a new ISSN.Action=ISSN Network

298.9 New descriptions for title changes for integrating resources. Regina Reynolds noted that RDA and ISBD do not require the creation of a new description for major title changes occurring on integrating resources whereas the ISSN Network does. Instead, RDA and ISBD specify that the title proper should be changed in the existing description. This approach differs from that taken by RDA and ISBD to major title changes occurring on serials. She added that in circumstances where the title proper changes for an integrated resource, the resource may still exist under its original title as part of a digital archive, in printed copies and be referenced under that title in citations. Furthermore, the original title proper of an integrated resource acts as a basis for recording the key title and the key title cannot change. From these perspectives, it would be preferable if the title proper of the original description could be retained rather than being amended. The Chair responded that from a library perspective, a description should refer to whatever currently exists in its collection. Catalogue users would expect to use the latest title proper of an integrating resource as a means of searching for it rather than superseded titles. Judith Kuhagen added that, unlike serials, changes to integrating resources do not lead to the creation of discreet units. Therefore, it is necessary to redescribe the whole resource each time an update takes place rather than creating separate descriptions. The JSC and ISSN Network agreed that this issue currently represents an irreconcilable difference between RDA and ISSN.

298.10 The Chair explained the methodology for communications following the JSC meeting. Outcomes from the meeting would be published within a month following the meeting. These would include a high level summary of what was agreed with the ISBD RG and the ISSN Network. A consolidated version of the discussion document would be placed on the JSC website to reflect the detail of decisions made at the meeting. Minutes of the meeting would be distributed afterwards. Mirna Willer commented that the ISBD RG would produce a general report of the meeting. This would highlight any actions which ISBD needed to take forward. François-Xavier Pelegrin commented that the ISSN Network would follow the same approach.Action=Chair; Secretary; ISBD RG; ISSN Network

299 Meeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group on Element Sets and Vocabularies

299.1 ROF Briefing Paper

299.1.1 Received and considered the following document: 6JSC/Chair/5

299.1.2 The JSC, ISBD RG and ISSN Network discussed a briefing paper on mapping ISBD Area 0 vocabularies to RDA carrier and content vocabularies via the RDA/ONIX Framework for resource categorization (ROF). This was originally submitted to the JSC by Gordon Dunsire in his capacity as consultant to the ISBD/XML Study Group.


299.1.3 The CILIP rep commented that it was in the mutual interest of the JSC and ISBD RG to map the ISBD Area 0 vocabularies to RDA carrier and content vocabularies via the hub and spoke structure of the ROF. This structure offers the possibility of mapping other as yet undetermined vocabulary sets to RDA and ISBD in the future. He added that it would be preferable to develop the ROF mappings in Resource Description Framework (RDF) rather than any other syntactical framework from the perspective of supporting linked data and the semantic web. The Open Metadata Registry could be used as a management tool to conduct this work. The JSC agreed that the RDA content, carrier and media type vocabularies in the OMR should be published so that they can then be incorporated into the ROF mapping. The CILIP and ALA Reps will liaise on publishing these vocabularies in the OMR. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed to check that the mappings from ISBD Area 0 vocabularies to RDA content and carrier vocabularies are correct so that they can then also be incorporated into the ROF mapping.Action=ALA representative; CILIP representative; JSC; ISBD RG

299.1.4 The CILIP rep commented that it is necessary to either purchase a new base domain as a means of declaring the ROF element sets and vocabularies or reuse an existing domain currently owned by either the JSC or ISBD. Using a new domain would have the advantage of avoiding confusion between the RDA vocabulary domain and the ROF. It could also help ensure that the framework remains independent of RDA. The JSC agreed that it would be preferable to purchase a new domain for the ROF for the reasons outlined above. By not branding the ROF explicitly as RDA, this could encourage its expansion to include other non RDA vocabularies in future. The JSC agreed to discuss this issue further. Action=JSC

299.1.5 The CILIP rep noted that RDA currently uses human readable English language labels for element set URIs in the OMR. He recommended that opaque URIs should be used when publishing RDA element set URIs in future and when publishing the ROF URIs. Since opaque URIs do not contain human readable labels in any language, they could be regarded as fairer from the perspective of an international audience. There is also a risk that labels will get out of synch with non-opaque URIs over time. Those RDA element set URIs already published with labels cannot be changed. However, they could be deprecated if new opaque URIs were published for the same elements. The JSC agreed that opaque URIs should be used in future. However, those elements which have already been published should not be deprecated.

299.1.6 The CILIP rep explained that the ROF should be extended to include reciprocal properties for all base properties with appropriate range in the carrier and content categories. This would provide interoperability between the ROF and the mapped vocabularies belonging to RDA and other standards. The JSC agreed to discuss this issue further.Action=JSC

299.1.7 The CILIP rep noted that the creation of element subtypes in RDA would need to be reflected in the ROF as qualified categories. Since the only subtype identified so far qualifies a category which is already present in the ROF, the framework would not have to be extended in order to accommodate it. The JSC agreed to discuss this issue further.Action=JSC


299.1.8 The CILIP rep explained that a formal group needs to be set up as a means of managing and developing the ROF on a long term basis. The JSC agreed to submit a proposal to the publishing community recommending that a permanent governance be provided for the ROF. This will be done once the ROF has been registered and the mappings have been incorporated into it. The process of registration and creation of mappings will expose issues of governance which are not currently apparent. Action=JSC

299.1.9 The ALA rep noted that the JSC categorization document for RDA vocabularies needs to be revised. A decision is required regarding whether 6JSC/ALA Rep/1 should be updated before the vocabularies are transferred to the OMR. Gordon Dunsire suggested that publishing should take place as soon as possible without the mapping. John Attig was concerned about making the terms available without the link and possible mis-use as a result, but agreed to go ahead and publish. The JSC agreed to discuss this issue further.Action=JSC

299.2 ISBD RDA Briefing Paper

299.2.1 Received and considered the following document:

6JSC/Chair/4

299.2.2 The JSC, ISBD RG and ISSN Network discussed a briefing paper on mapping the ISBD and RDA element sets. This was originally submitted to the JSC by Gordon Dunsire in his capacity as consultant to the ISBD/XML Study Group.

299.2.3 The CILIP rep commented that, from the perspective of interoperability, it was in the mutual interest of the JSC and ISBD RG to map appropriate parts of the RDA and ISBD element sets. Since both element sets are still in development it is not currently possible to map all their elements. It may also transpire that certain elements are incompatible. He added that, as regards linked data, it would be beneficial to develop the element mapping in RDF. Since the OMR is already used for the purpose of vocabulary management, it would make sense to use the same tool to support the element mapping as well. Although the OMR cannot currently handle mappings, it may be possible to create the element mapping as a turtle file in Notepad. This could then be ingested into the OMR in anticipation of mapping functionality being provided. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed.

299.2.4 The CILIP rep commented that the mappings for specific elements should be published as and when they become available rather than waiting until the whole mapping process is complete. Equivalent elements which have identical labels, definitions and scope notes will be easier to map than those which do not. The Chair responded that the exercise of updating Appendix D would help identify which element mappings were unproblematic and consequently which could be dealt with first. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed.

299.2.5 The CILIP rep commented that the RDA element set had been registered in RDF as bounded properties. However, for the purposes of mapping to the ISBD element set it was necessary to register unbounded versions of the RDA properties. This is because the RDA bounded properties are subject to tighter semantic constraints than their ISBD equivalents. He added that the mapping was at a pilot stage and that what had been done so far would


need to be checked. The JSC agreed to discuss further the use of bounded and unbounded properties in the RDA namespace on the OMR.Action=JSC

299.2.6 The Chair commented that it was necessary to determine whether a separate namespace would be required for the element mapping. The CILIP rep responded that he would check this with Jon Phipps.Action=CILIP representative

299.2.7 The Chair commented that it was necessary to establish how the element mapping would be managed. Mirna Willer responded that whilst the JSC and ISBD RG could take responsibility for technical aspects of the mapping process, approval of their decisions and long term funding would have to be provided by the COP and IFLA Cataloguing Section. The CILIP rep added that if the Cataloguing Section did not provide a commitment to long term funding in 2012 then the element mapping process would have to be shelved. The JSC and ISBD RG agreed to feed the issue of providing support for the mapping process back up their respective management chains. Action=JSC; ISBD RG

299.2.8 Regina Reynolds commented that the ISSN element set had started out as a subset of the ISBD element set but that over time the two diverged. If efforts were made in future to align once more, then an independent mapping of the ISSN element set to the RDA element set might be unnecessary. The CILIP rep responded that if the ISSN Network wanted to become involved with the mapping process, then their first step should be to refresh existing documentation as regards ISSN alignment with ISBD. If ISBD equivalent elements were found to be unavailable for purposes of mapping, then RDA equivalents might be available instead.

299.2.9 The CILIP rep commented that because no protocols currently exist between the JSC and FRBR RG it would be advisable to decouple the RDA entities and attributes from those of FRBR whilst the latter undergo consolidation. A decision by the JSC regarding this issue is important because it will have an effect on future mapping exercises. The JSC agreed to discuss this issue further.Action=JSC

Executive Session 3

300 Examples Working Group


6JSC/Chair/2/Draft/Rev

300.2 The JSC discussed the RDA Examples Group terms of reference.

300.3 Deirdre Kiorgaard suggested that the second sentence in the section “Resources and method of working” should be reworded to specify that access to the RDA Toolkit for members of the Examples Group would be free. The JSC agreed.


300.4 Deirdre Kiorgaard noted that in the section “General Guidance for Examples” the language preferred by the agency is specified as English. She queried whether this was appropriate, given that other language communities were in the process of translating RDA. Troy Linker responded that the RDA translators had been advised to retain the existing examples in the text. However, if any examples are irrelevant to a particular language community, then relevant equivalents can be added to the version of the text which serves that community. The JSC agreed that, at present, the general guidance for examples should not be expanded to encompass agencies cataloguing in languages other than English. However, this approach may be subject to change in future.

300.5 The Chair noted that if examples were supplemented with scanned images of title pages or other sources of information, as specified in the section “Sources of Information”, then permission would have to be granted for the use of these scans. The JSC agreed that a log of permissions should be kept.

300.6 Barbara Tillett suggested that the first sentence in the section “Explanatory Text” should be reworded to substitute the phrase “Indicate the type of resource” with “Characterise the resource”. The JSC agreed.

300.7 The Chair will update 6JSC/Chair/2/Draft/Rev and issue a revised version of the document.Action=Chair

300.8 The JSC agreed that once 6JSC/Chair/2/Draft/Rev had been updated, volunteers from its constituencies would be sought to join the Examples Working Group.Action=JSC

301 US RDA Test

301.1 Received and considered the following documents:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/JSC-Plan-to-respond-to-US-National-test-showing-progress-(linked-document).pdf

http://www.rda-jsc.org/summaryprog.html

301.2 The JSC discussed progress made on its response to the U.S. RDA Test recommendations.

301.3 Judith Kuhagen noted that when the list of U.S. RDA Test recommendations was drawn up NLA, NLM, and Regina Reynolds had voiced concerns relating to the distinction between works expressions, manifestations, and items and the different modes of issuance in RDA. They had been tasked to provide the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee with a fuller explanation of their concerns. However, this seems to have not been done. She added that the Coordinating Committee had been sent an LC training document entitled “Where is it in RDA” in order to demonstrate where the different entities are addressed. The JSC agreed to prepare a similar document which outlines where the different modes of issuance are dealt with in RDA. Both documents can then be used to help the Coordinating Committee articulate any perceived outstanding problems. If these are forthcoming then they will form the basis of a teleconference discussion between the JSC and the Coordinating Committee.

http://www.rda-jsc.org/summaryprog.html




Action=JSC

301.4 John Attig commented that in RDA chapters covering attributes of more than one entity the dividing point between entities is marked by a centred heading which may be easily overlooked. He will send Troy Linker and the JSC details of this and any other display issues which he considers may result in a misunderstanding of the RDA content.Action=ALA representative

301.5 Judith Kuhagen explained that the LC training materials which deal with elements belonging to chapters 6, 9, 10 and 11 had initially focussed on each element in isolation. Less prominence was given to the way in which some elements can be combined as a means of creating access points. This may have contributed to the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation that RDA should identify those elements which are and are not to be included in access points. She added that the training materials have now been reorganized to place more emphasis on the creation of access points as a means of addressing the concern expressed by the Coordinating Committee. The JSC agreed that the latest LC training materials should be used as the basis for creating a JSC authorized workflow in the Toolkit which specifies how authorized access points should be constructed in a MARC21 context. Judith Kuhagen will send a draft workflow document to JSC for consideration before submitting it to Troy Linker for inclusion in the Toolkit. Action=Judith Kuhagen.

301.6 The Chair noted the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation that links should be provided from the RDA instructions 19.2, 19.3, 20.2, 21.2-21.6, and 22.2-22.4 to the instructions for creating the authorized access points for persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with the resource. He added that the JSC had provisionally considered this as a fast track issue. Deirdre Kiorgaard responded that it may be out of scope for fast track if the instruction references need to be placed in context. The JSC agreed that the issue should be submitted as a fast track proposal but with sufficient accompanying detail to determine whether or not it is appropriate for this route. Alan Danskin will investigate this matter further. Action=BL representative

301.7 John Attig commented that RDA does not provide any instructions on how to describe relationships, only sets of examples. This issue corresponds with the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation that more instructions should be added to RDA regarding the use of contents notes and the information included in such notes. He added that he was planning to discuss how this matter should be addressed with ALA.Action=ALA representative

301.8 The Chair noted the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation that the JSC should work with the cartographic community regarding appropriate relationship designators for persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with these resources. The JSC agreed to contact AACCM in order to discuss this issue with them. Judith Kuhagen will contact AACCM in the first instance.Action=Judith Kuhagen

301.9 The Chair suggested that the JSC could include the outline schedule for updating RDA in the meeting’s outcomes. This would address the Coordinating Committee’s


recommendation that the JSC should define and publicize the process by which RDA is updated in the online environment. Barbara Tillett added that details of the update schedule could also be sent to the relevant discussion lists. The JSC agreed. The Secretary will highlight selected proposals and meeting outcomes on the JSC website and inform the relevant lists.Action=Secretary

301.10 John Attig commented that there was a need to publicize the process by which revision proposals should be submitted to the JSC. The Chair responded that the Secretary could add a news item to the JSC website detailing updates to JSC policies. A link to this could be sent to the relevant discussion lists. The JSC agreed.Action=Secretary

301.11 Troy Linker suggested that he could present a webinar detailing the end-to-end process of making updates to RDA. This would cover the timing of updates to the online and print products, the submission of proposals and the raising of support tickets in the Toolkit. The JSC agreed that it would be useful if all aspects of the updating process could be brought together in one package. The JSC will provide Troy Linker with advice on the webinar’s content.Action=JSC; Troy Linker

301.12 The Chair commented that the JSC had already agreed to submit the full examples for integration into the RDA Toolkit in line with the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation. However, before this can be done they will need to be updated to MARC21. Marg Stewart will request LAC to change the full examples in line with MARC21 updates so that they can then be sent to Troy Linker.Action=CCC representative

301.13 The Chair commented that the JSC is working with ALA Publishing to improve the usability of the Element Set View in response to the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation. Troy Linker responded that he would send the JSC a list of ideas for restructuring the Element Set View. These ideas will also be publicized on the Development Blog in order to gain feedback from other parts of the RDA Toolkit’s usership. Action=Troy Linker

301.14 Christine Frodl commented that the DNB had sent Troy Linker a summary of the testing it had carried out on the RDA Toolkit, including the Element Set View. Troy Linker responded that he would add this analysis to the Development Blog.Action=Troy Linker

301.15 The Chair commented that the JSC is in a position to update the RDA mappings to and from MARC 21 following work done by Corine Deliot and Laura May. This addresses the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation that mappings be provided from RDA to other metadata schemas. A METS mapping is out of scope, MODS is undergoing a period of development and the mapping from RDA to Dublin Core is still at a very basic stage. However, the JSC agreed that it may still be useful to publish the Dublin Core mapping as a means of demonstrating engagement between the RDA and DC communities. The Chair will check the status of the Dublin Core element mapping with Diane Hillmann and


Gordon Dunsire in terms of whether it requires changes and whether it is publishable in its present form.Action=Chair

301.16 The Chair will update the table showing progress made on responding to recommendations from the U.S. National Test.Action=Chair

302 Update on related projects and other resource description communities

302.1 Appointment of ISBD RG Liaison

302.1.1 The Chair requested that a member of the JSC volunteer to act as the JSC’s liaison with the ISBD RG. Margaret Stewart explained that this role would require the incumbent to attend ISBD RG meetings at IFLA, answer queries from the ISBD RG and feed back information to the JSC. Christine Frodl volunteered to act as the ISBD RG liaison and the Chair said that he would inform Mirna Willer that she was taking up the role. Action=Chair

302.2 IFLA Names of Persons

302.2.1 Received and considered the following document: Email from Deirdre Kiorgaard dated 14th October

302.2.2 Deirdre Kiorgaard explained that three years previously the National Library of Indonesia had sent the NLA a complete revision of its guidance regarding the way in which Indonesian personal names should be recorded. At the time the NLA’s advice to the National Library of Indonesia was that this information should be fed into a process being undertaken by IFLA to update its guidance on the recording of personal names. However, since then IFLA has made little progress on its revision. The JSC agreed that the existing instructions in RDA should not be amended in order to reflect the new guidance sent to the NLA. However, if the National Library of Indonesia were to load this onto a website then a link to it could be provided from the Other Resources tab on the RDA Toolkit. Deirdre Kiorgaard will suggest to the National Library of Indonesia that they contact Troy Linker regarding how a link could be arranged. Indonesian speaking staff at the NLA will be available to support the communication process.Action=ACOC representative

303 Next meeting


5JSC/Policy/6

303.2 The JSC discussed scheduling a date and location for their next meeting. The JSC agreed to a provisional date of the week commencing 21st October 2012 and a provisional venue of Annapolis, USA. The JSC will update the JSC calendar with details of their availability for 2012.Action=JSC


[Post meeting note: The JSC agreed to meet during the week commencing 5 th November 2012 in Chicago.]

304 JSC programme of work

304.1 The Chair commented that the programme of work on the JSC wiki would be updated with the actions which were agreed at the 2011 meeting of JSC.Action=Chair

304.2 John Attig queried whether the Chair had drafted the JSC annual report for 2011. The Chair responded that he would be drafting annual reports for both 2010 and 2011.Action=Chair

304.3 The Chair noted that the JSC would need to arrange a teleconference in order to discuss revising John Attig’s 6JSC/ALA/rep/3/Chair follow-up document on the vocabulary terms used to record Extent. He added that the JSC had already fed back comments on John Attig’s revised vocabularies spreadsheet. John Attig responded that he would review all of the documentation he had produced so far on the vocabularies and then extract a new list of those issues still requiring decisions from the JSC.Action=ALA representative

304.4 Gordon Dunsire noted that before further progress could be made on publishing the RDA element set, it would be necessary to arrange a discussion between the JSC and OMR regarding issues identified by Barbara Tillett and Erin Stahlberg in relation to certain elements. The Chair responded that he would forward an email from Gordon Dunsire to the rest of JSC which outlines what these outstanding issues are. A teleconference can then be arranged to discuss them with the OMR.Action=Chair

305 Statement of policy and procedures for JSC


5JSC/Policy/4/Rev/2

305.2 The Chair commented that he would update the JSC’s statement of policy and procedures.Action=Chair

306 Actions arising out of the JSC Meeting March 2009

306.1 The Chair commented that most of the actions from the March 2009 meeting had been dealt with or superseded. The JSC agreed.

307 Outcomes from November 2011 meeting

307.1 The Chair commented that an updated JSC membership roster should be included in the document highlighting outcomes from the November 2011 meeting. The policies and


procedures document, the fast track process and provisional update process should also be highlighted. The JSC agreed.

307.2 The Chair suggested that the JSC proposals regarding Group 3 elements and Subject should be highlighted in the outcomes document and queried whether there were any other specific proposals which the JSC felt should be covered. The Secretary suggested that 6JSC/Chair/3 should be highlighted. John Attig added that 6JSC/CILIP/3 should also be highlighted and that any further suggestions should be made in response to a draft of the meeting outcomes. The JSC agreed.

307.3 The Chair noted that the JSC’s discussion of the U.S. RDA Test recommendations should be highlighted in the outcomes document. The JSC’s intention to update the action plan should also be mentioned. The JSC agreed.

307.4 The Chair commented that outcomes from the discussions with the ISBD RG and ISSN Network should be included in the outcomes document. He added that prominence should be given to those issues which the JSC, ISBD RG and ISSN Network had agreed on. It should be made clear that the ISBD and ISSN constituencies will be making proposals to the JSC for changes which they would like to see in RDA. It should also be mentioned that the JSC intends to make change proposals to ISBD and FRBR. The JSC agreed.

307.5 The Chair commented that a first draft of the meeting outcomes would be distributed to the JSC, ISBD RG and ISSN Network so that each constituency could feed back its preferences with regard to what should be given significance in the final version. An action list for the JSC and a joint action list for the JSC, ISBD RG and ISSN Network should also be distributed. The JSC agreed.Action=Secretary

307.6 The Chair noted that outcomes from the JSC’s discussions regarding its governance and an approach to internationalizing its membership should not be mentioned in the outcomes document without prior agreement from the COP. The JSC agreed. The Chair will seek agreement from the COP that these discussions can be covered in the outcomes.Action=Chair

308 Any other business

308.1 The Chair commented that the outgoing JSC Secretary would send the incoming Secretary documentation regarding the role.Action=Secretary

308.2 Deirdre Kiorgaard asked the Chair whether documentation could be sent the new JSC representatives regarding their roles. The Chair responded that it could. Action=Secretary

308.3 John Attig commented that once an action list had been compiled, the JSC would need to agree a timeframe regarding the completion of these actions. He added that proposal revisions should be submitted as soon as possible so that they could be fed into the RDA update process. The JSC agreed.


308.4 Judith Kuhagen commented that once proposal revisions had been agreed by the JSC, she could start entering them in the editing templates for forwarding to ALA Publishing. She added that, although her contract as JSC Secretary would not commence until January 2012, she was willing to begin this process beforehand. This would avoid the outgoing secretary having to learn how to use the editing templates himself. The JSC agreed.

308.5 The Chair commented that all revisions being incorporated into the first RDA update would need to have been reviewed and approved by March 2012. Therefore, revised proposals would need to be submitted by January 2012. The JSC agreed.

308.6 The Chair thanked the JSC’s members for their participation and moved to conclude the meeting. The JSC agreed.


Documents

Minutes of March 2009 JSC Meeting - Restricted Web viewMeeting with representatives of ISBD Review Group on Element Sets and Vocabularies77