CC:DA/PCC/2012/02
June 23, 2012
PCC Report for CC:DA at ALA Anaheim June 23, 2012
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). Submitted by Lori Robare, PCC liaison to CC:DA
CC:DA/PCC/2012/02
June 23, 2012
PCC Report for CC:DA at ALA Anaheim June 23, 2012
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). Submitted by Lori Robare, PCC liaison to CC:DA
CC:DA/TF/ Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition/4/Rev
November 16, 2012; rev. February 26, 2013
Final Report from the Task Force on the Chicago Manual of Style
The Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, has submitted its final report. Most of the recommendations involve minor editorial changes to RDA and related documentation. One of the recommendations, however, involves a substantive change to RDA which would have a major impact on authorized access points. I would like to suggest that CC:DA discuss and vote on this recommendation; the rest can be handled as Fast Track proposals.
The recommendation in question relates to CMOS 8.159, which deals with capitalization of hyphenated compounds. In the 16th edition, this provision reads:
The following rules apply to hyphenated terms appearing in a title capitalized in headline style. For reasons of consistency and editorial efficiency, Chicago no longer advises making exceptions to these rules for the rare awkward-looking result (though such niceties may occasionally be observed in display settings, as on the cover of a book). For rules of hyphenation, see 7.77–85.
1. Always capitalize the first element.
2. Capitalize any subsequent elements unless they are articles, prepositions, coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor), or such modifiers as flat or sharp following musical key symbols.
3. If the first element is merely a prefix or combining form that could not stand by itself as a word (anti, pre, etc.), do not capitalize the second element unless it is a proper noun or proper adjective.
4. Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number (twenty-one or twenty-first, etc.) or hyphenated simple fraction (two-thirds in two-thirds majority). This departure from previous Chicago recommendations recognizes the functional equality of the numbers before and after the hyphen.
The Task Force proposes to revise RDA A.29 to conform to this provision (see p. 9 of the TF report); formerly in RDA, only the first word in such a compound was capitalized.
In addition to RDA A.29, this issue is also the basis for the following TF recommendations:
RDA 9.2.2.25
RDA 11.2.2.11
RDA 11.2.2.24.2
RDA 11.2.3.6
RDA 11.2.3.7 [two instances]
RDA 19.2.1.3 [2nd instance]
RDA A.11.4
RDA A.14 [2nd instance]
RDA A.16.2 [two instances]
RDA A.16.5
RDA A.17.6
RDA Glossary, Tonic Sol-fa
As Kathy Glennan reported at Midwinter, she asked Gary Strawn to look at the impact of this change on the NACO authority file. He provided some statistics, but the bottom line was that instances needing to be changed would be difficult to identify by program and even more difficult to correct safely.
Given the impact of this recommendation and given that differences in capitalization are not taken into account by the NACO normalization rules, it seems questionable that this is a revision that CC:DA would wish to propose. My understanding is that CMOS governs the text of RDA itself, but governs the results of applying RDA instructions only when there is no applicable RDA instruction. In this case, the text of RDA A.29 applies, and need not conform to the provisions of CMOS.
Beyond this single issue, I propose (a) to communicate to the JSC Secretary the recommended revisions to the RDA Editor’s Guide; and (b) to make Fast Track proposals for the following TF recommendations:
RDA 1.1.2
RDA 1.1.3
RDA 2.20.10.3
RDA 6.2.2.4
RDA 6.30.2.2
RDA 8.12.1.3
RDA 19.2.1.3 [1st instance]
RDA A.10 [three instances]
RDA A.14 [1st instance]
For the sake of completeness, the TF recommended that no change be made in the following instructions:
RDA 7.17.3.3
RDA B.11
RDA H.1
Again, I suggest that CC:DA discuss and vote on the recommendation for RDA A.29 (and related instructions); if there is any disagreement with any of the other recommendations, these should be raised during the discussion.
John
CC:DA/RDATrainingTF/2011/01
June 5, 2012
ALCTS CSS RDA Planning and Training Task Force Report for Annual 2012
Prepared by Kate Harcourt and Mary Woodley 06/05/12
Printable PDF: How to Submit a Revision Proposal
Association for Library Collections & Technical Services
(A division of the American Library Association)
Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
How to Submit a Revision Proposal to CC:DA
Table of Contents
Introduction
Who Can Submit a Revision Proposal?
What Types of Proposals Are Acceptable?
How Will Proposals Be Evaluated?
Preliminary Steps To Take in Submitting a Proposal
Formal Elements of a Revision Proposal
Forwarding the Proposal
What is the Timetable for Submitting a Revision Proposal?
Where Can I Find Examples of Revision Proposals?
Introduction
RDA: Resource Description and Access is a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery. RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions covering all types of content and media.
RDA was developed and is maintained by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC), which is responsible for making decisions regarding the content of RDA. This international group is made up of representatives from the American Library Association, the Australian Committee on Cataloguing, the British Library, the Canadian Committee on Cataloguing, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, the German National Library, and the Library of Congress.
The JSC receives, discusses, and makes decisions on proposals received from one of the JSC constituencies or from non-JSC groups. Each JSC constituency is expected to respond to every proposal, and reaches decisions by consensus.
The Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) is the body within the American Library Association (ALA) that is charged with initiating and developing proposals for the revision of RDA. Within the United States, all additions and changes to RDA (except those originating from the Library of Congress) must be channeled through this group.
Who Can Submit a Revision Proposal?
Anyone can submit a revision proposal to CC:DA by following the instructions detailed below. CC:DA welcomes input and suggestions for revision. At the same time, it should be noted that the revision process is a formal one that requires careful preparation and patience upon the part of the petitioner. The latter is particularly important because, although approved and endorsed by CC:DA, a proposal must usually pass through a lengthy review, revision, and subsequent review process before it is approved by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC).
What Types of Proposals Are Acceptable?
The JSC accepts two types of proposals:
CC:DA is open to considering revision proposals that range from small, isolated additions or changes to the text (e.g., the Committee submitted a proposal to change an RDA instruction and a related glossary definition to expand the scope of Artistic and/or Technical Credit to include sound recordings) to major changes of the code (e.g., addition of a new chapter or deletion of an instruction).
How Will Proposals Be Evaluated?
Whether minor or major revisions result, each proposal is carefully evaluated by the Committee and considered from several different angles. Although each area below might not be equally important for every proposal, the following list provides an overview of the factors and questions that the Committee routinely considers in its evaluation process.
Preliminary Steps To Take in Submitting a Proposal
Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of the revision process, as well as the careful evaluation and close examination that each proposal will receive, it is advisable to undertake several preliminary steps before undertaking the preparation of a formal proposal:
Formal Elements of a Revision Proposal
The proposal should be sent in electronic form to facilitate distribution over the Committee’s electronic discussion list. This will speed up the process by allowing CC:DA to consider the proposal as soon as it is received. Proposals distributed to CC:DA are also posted on the CC:DA Web site.
Electronic copies must be in Microsoft Word (1997 version or higher).
The CC:DA Webmaster prepares documents for distribution to CC:DA and for posting on the CC:DA Web site. The Webmaster may be contacted for assistance in the mechanical and editorial details of preparing a proposal. The Webmaster may contact the proposer for corrections or clarifications; the proposer will have the opportunity to review the final version of the proposal.
Address:
The proposal should take the form of a dated memorandum addressed as shown below. Once received by the Chair of CC:DA, the proposal will be assigned a document number.
To:
[Name], Chair, ALA/ALCTS/CaMMS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
From:
[To be supplied]
Subject:
[To be supplied]
Note: On the From: line, please include the name of the person submitting the proposal, followed by the constituent group he or she represents, if applicable. On the Subject: line, please include the following types of information if applicable to the proposal: the RDA instruction number; captioned words associated with the instruction; whether examples, footnotes or appendices are affected:
Examples:
Background:
The proposal should include a background statement that provides the context in which the revision should be considered. A thorough explanation of the problem(s) in RDA that will be remedied by the revision, an historical overview of the steps, discussions, events, etc. that have led to its creation, and citations to any related documents are appropriate for inclusion in this section of the proposal. As the organizational needs of the proposal dictate, the Rationale and Assessment of impact discussed below may also be included here.
Proposed revisions:
According to JSC policy, “There will be one proposal per document.” CC:DA interprets this to mean that all revisions in the proposal must be closely related, not that a separate proposal is required for each instruction affected by the revision. It is therefore common for proposals to include revisions to more than one instruction. Furthermore, these revisions may occur in different parts of RDA.
To assist CC:DA and the JSC in discussing the proposal, the specific changes being requested should be given as a numbered list, if possible. This not only draws attention to the specifics, but allows reference to each change by number.
To enhance the clarity and readability of the proposal, the text of the proposed changes should be given in two versions: one using markup to show the changes from the current text, and one showing a clean version of the proposed text. The current text of RDA should be copied from the RDA Toolkit and should retain the original typography.
The proposed revisions should be indicated as deletions or additions to the current text.
The markup should use strike-through to indicate deletions and double-underlining to indicate additions.
Rationale/Explanation for the proposed revisions:
Each proposal should contain a rationale or justification for the suggested revision, including a statement of the problem presented by the current instruction.
Assessment of the impact and survey of related instructions:
Finally, the proposal should include an assessment of the impact resulting from implementation of the revision(s), including the need to study and/or change other instructions within RDA.
Other considerations for inclusion in the proposal:
It may be useful to include surrogates or other ways of depicting resources to be cataloged that illustrate the instruction being addressed (e.g., a recent proposal from the Music Library Association that included surrogates of two CDs to show circumstances where the inability to use a source that presents a collective title as the preferred source leads to complications). It may also be advisable to include evidence of having considered the scope of the proposed change and to offer suggestions for broadening or narrowing that scope, if applicable. Finally, it may be helpful to mention other constituencies that have been consulted or made a part of the proposal-drafting process (e.g., consultation or coordination with OLAC, the Canadian Association of Music Libraries, etc.).
Forwarding the Proposal
The revision proposal should be forwarded to the Chair of CC:DA, either directly or through any voting or non-voting member of CC:DA. The roster of current CC:DA members is available on the CC:DA Web site.
What is the Timetable for Submitting a Revision Proposal?
While CC:DA will accept a revision proposal at any time, revision is a complicated and lengthy procedure, and the more complicated and longer the proposal, the more time will be required to consider it. For a proposal to be guaranteed to receive consideration at the next CC:DA meeting, the following minimal time should be allowed:
Where Can I Find Examples of Revision Proposals?
All RDA revision proposals are posted on the JSC website. Check here for examples of recent proposals, paying particular attention to the ALA proposals.
Revised by CC:DA: June 4, 2012
Archived by CC:DA: January 9, 2016
CC:DA/TF/Sources of Information/
September 1, 2012
Charge
The Task Force on Sources of Information is charged to review the current instructions under RDA 2.1 Basis for Identification of the Resource and 2.2 Sources of Information to address previously identified concerns of MLA and OLAC and to adopt a more principled approach to instructions for sources of information that will work for all materials. The task force should review the MLA proposal CC:DA/MLA/2011/1 and the related committee discussion on the wiki and discussion list. Continue reading
CC:DA/TF/Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K/1 and 2
Task Force on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K
Formed: March 1, 2012
New members added: July 2014
Chair: Maxwell (originally Winzer, then Lipcan, then Roeder)
Charge
The Task Force on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K, will Propose changes to the list of relationship designators in RDA Appendix K to enrich the vocabulary used to specify relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies. The task force should review the relationship types used in the Union List of Artist Names and any other relevant vocabularies.
Timeline: final report at least a month prior to the 2012 Annual Conference.
Reports
Interim report (Annual 2012)
Interim report (Midwinter 2013)
Proposal (Annual 2013)
Revised proposal (July 2013)
Proposal (Annual 2015)
Status: final report by Annual 2012; revised timeline: revised proposal by Midwinter 2015
Submitted: interim report (Annual 2012); interim report (Midwinter 2013); proposal (Annual 2013); revised proposal (July 2013)
CC:DA/TF/ Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition
March 1, 2012
Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition
Charge
The Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, will review the impact of changes in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., on RDA instructions and examples and propose appropriate revisions to RDA. The text of RDA is expected to conform to the Manual, and changes to the RDA Editor’s Guide may be needed. Further, data recorded following RDA instructions is expected to conform to the Manual in details not specifically covered by RDA instructions. In particular, the task force should review the provisions on capitalization in the Manual, which might require revisions to Appendix A of RDA and relevant examples.
The task force should submit an interim report at the 2012 ALA Annual Conference and a final report at least a month prior to the 2013 Midwinter Meeting.
Report
Report: Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition at ALA Annual 2012
Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition: Report at ALA Midwinter 2013
Final Report from the Task Force on the Chicago Manual of Style shortly before ALA Annual 2013
CC:DA/Pro/14/2012 June 1
June 1, 2012
Passed as amended by CC:DA: 1980 Jan 21 Revised by CC:DA: 1983 Jan 7 Revised by CC:DA: 1988 Jan 9 Revised to substitute ALCTS for RTSD: 1990 Mar 1 Revised by CC:DA: 1991 Jun 29 Revised by CC:DA: 1992 Jun 27 Revised by CC:DA, per CCS Executive Committee: 1993 Jun 18 Revised by CC:DA: 1997 Jun 28 Revised by CC:DA: 2002 Jun 17 Revised per CCS Executive Committee: 2003 May 30 Revised by CC:DA: 2008 Jan 12; approved by CCS Executive Committee: 2008 Mar 10
Passed by CC:DA: 1980 Jan 22
Revised by CC:DA: 1981 Jan 30
Revised by CC:DA: 1988 Jan 9
CC:DA/Pro/14/2012 June 1 CC:DA Procedures 2012 [PDF]
Announcing
The ALCTS International Relations Committee, the ALCTS CaMMS RDA Conference Forums and Programs Task Force, and the ALCTS CaMMS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) invite you to RDA Worldwide. This panel discussion will be given at ALA Annual, on Sunday, June 24, 2012, from 1:30-3:30 pm, in Room 304AB, Anaheim Convention Center.
Resource Description and Access (RDA), the new guidelines for library cataloging and metadata creation, is intended for use in an international context. RDA is also very much a work in progress. To what extent has RDA succeeded in going beyond AACR2’s Anglo-American context? How is implementation now proceeding in different world regions, and what are the potential impacts on developments in the United States? This panel discussion will present multiple perspectives on these unfolding questions.
The panel will feature four speakers. Troy Linker, Publisher, ALA Digital Reference, will serve as responder. The panel will be moderated by David Miller, ALCTS IRC Chair.