Chicago Manual of Style Task Force report

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:

8.159 Hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles

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

How to Submit a Revision Proposal to CC:DA

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:

  1. Certain minor issues may be subject to a Fast Track procedure. This is designed to deal with issues that do not require extensive discussion or consultation by the JSC members. Examples include the addition of terms to the RDA vocabularies (including the relationship designators), the addition, deletion, or modification of examples, the correction of errors in the text (including typographical errors). Suggestions for Fast Track proposals should be directed to the ALA representative to the JSC, who will carry them forward to the JSC. (Correction of errors in the text can optionally be submitted using the “feedback” button in the RDA Toolkit.)
  2. Other proposals follow the more formal process described in this document.

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.

  • The need for the revision: Is the current text confusing? Does the current text and/or examples lead to incorrect or inconsistent results, or does it cause access or identification problems for catalog users? Is there an inconsistency among similar or analogous instructions? Is an instruction in the wrong place? Does the proposal address a situation not covered? Is it appropriate to a general code?
  • The context: What are the underlying principles or issues? Are there analogous situations?
  • The correctness of the proposal: Does the proposal solve a problem without creating others? Is it in accordance with underlying principles? Is it clear and unambiguous? Is it consistent with other similar instructions?
  • The possible impact on other instructions: Would the proposed change necessitate other changes? Would examples need to be corrected? Would captions, indexes, tables of contents, etc., need to be changed?
  • The potential impact of the proposal: Would old cataloging need to be altered? Would the change simplify decisions? How often does the matter arise? Is access affected?

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:

  1. Discuss the concern with other catalogers in order to test the merits of your case and to establish the validity of the potential proposal in light of the evaluative criteria given above.
  2. Contact the Chair of CC:DA, one of the voting members of the Committee or one of the liaisons from a group (e.g., Music Library Association’s CC:DA representative) whose sphere of cataloging interest and activity might be closely allied with your concern. Discussion of the potential proposal with this expert might uncover other issues that need to be addressed, open up an avenue for discussion with other members of a particular cataloging community, or lead to taking an altogether different approach to the problem. Additionally, the Chair, the voting members, and the liaisons can be particularly helpful in guiding the process outlined below and in navigating the waters of CC:DA procedures.
  3. Consider consulting with the ALA representative to the JSC. It can be helpful to discuss preliminary ideas with someone familiar with the overall editorial and revision process.

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:

  • RDA 6.29.1.21, Reports of One CourtRDA 7.24, Artistic and/or Technical Credit
  • RDA 9.13, Affiliation
  • RDA 11.2.2.21.1 & 11.2.2.21.2, Heads of State and Government
  • RDA 16.2.2.9, Places in Certain Federations
  • Change to GLOSSARY entry for Artistic and/or Technical Credit

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:

  • Revision proposals should be made available to the Chair of CC:DA one month prior to the next CC:DA meeting, which is scheduled during the ALA Annual Conference or Midwinter Meeting. The proposals will be made available to the CC:DA membership and posted on the CC:DA Web site one month prior to the next CC:DA meeting.
  • If the revision proposal is accepted by CC:DA, it is forwarded to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC). JSC requires that revision proposals be transmitted to JSC at least three months prior to the next scheduled JSC meeting in order to be considered. This is to allow sufficient time for the other JSC members to consult their respective advisory bodies, for those advisory bodies to review the proposal and formulate their responses, and for the JSC member to transmit those responses to the other JSC members in a time frame that allows them to read the responses and be prepared to discuss both the original proposal and the responses at the next JSC meeting. [The date of the next JSC meeting is available on the JSC Web site, usually as the final item on the latest report of Outcomes of the … JSC Meeting. The JSC procedures for receiving and considering revision proposals are documented in JSC’s “Statement of Policy & Procedures.”]
  • Unless the revision proposal is either accepted or rejected by all the JSC constituents, there will likely be further revision and subsequent review by JSC. This process may take a year or more, depending on the complexity of the proposal and the number of revisions requested.

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

Task Force on Sources of Information

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

Task Force on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K

CC:DA/TF/Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K/1 and 2

March 1, 2012

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 (Annual2015)

Continue reading

Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition

CC:DA/TF/ Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition

March 1, 2012

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

Continue reading

CC:DA Procedures

CC:DA/Pro/14/2012 June 1
June 1, 2012

Association for Library Collections and Technical Services
(A division of the American Library Association)
Cataloging and Metadata Management Section

COMMITTEE ON CATALOGING: DESCRIPTION AND ACCESS
PROCEDURES


  1. Membership

    1. Nine members appointed by the CaMMS Vice-Chair: voting.
    2. One or more interns appointed by the CaMMS Vice-Chair: non-voting. The intern(s) shall serve as recording secretary/secretaries for the Committee.
    3. One webmaster appointed by the CC:DA chair for a three year term (may be reappointed): non-voting.
    4. Representatives of ALA units and non-ALA organizations who have been approved for membership by CaMMS: non-voting.
    5. The ALA representative on the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC): ex-officio, non-voting.
    6. A representative from the Library of Congress (LC), Policy and Standards Division (PSD): ex-officio, non-voting.
    7. ALCTS Executive Director: staff liaison, non-voting.
    8. A representative from OCLC: ex-officio, non-voting.
    9. A liaison from the CaMMS Subject Analysis Committee (SAC), appointed by the CaMMS Vice-Chair: non-voting.

  2. Officers

    1. Chair:

      1. Appointed by the CaMMS Vice-Chair. The chair is one of the nine voting members.
      2. The Chair may designate another voting member to act as temporary Chair.
      3. If the Chair is unexpectedly absent, the voting members shall designate one of their members to serve as temporary Chair.


  3. Meetings
    The Chair shall schedule meetings to occur at Midwinter and Annual ALA conferences and shall notify members of times and places.
  4. Quorum
    Five voting members shall constitute a quorum.
  5. Agenda

    1. The agenda for each Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference shall at a minimum include:

      1. Introduction of members.
      2. Correction and approval of minutes of previous meeting.
      3. Adoption of agenda.
      4. Confirmation of actions taken since the previous meeting.
      5. Report of the ALA JSC representative.
      6. Report of the LC representative.

    2. Parties wishing to place an item on the agenda should submit a written or e-mail request to the Chair at least one month before a meeting. Documentation pertinent to the proposed item should be presented with the request.
    3. A preliminary agenda with accompanying documentation shall be distributed or made available to members two weeks in advance of the meetings. Whenever possible, online agendas should provide links to pertinent documentation.
    4. During meetings of the Committee, items should be presented, if possible, by the person(s) making the proposal or by a designee. If a representative cannot attend, presentation of the item may be made in writing, to be read at the meeting by the Chair. If a representative is not present and no written statement has been received, the item may be postponed until a future meeting or may be discussed and decided upon between meetings via the Committee’s electronic discussion list, at the discretion of the Chair.
    5. An agenda item may be withdrawn at any time by the person suggesting it until such time as the agenda has been officially adopted at the meeting. Thereafter, an item may be withdrawn only upon a two-thirds affirmative vote of the voting members present.
    6. New agenda items may be proposed at the beginning of the meeting, before the adoption of the agenda. Thereafter, the agenda may be amended only with the concurrence of the Committee. No new agenda item may be proposed unless the person offering it is present to speak to it.
    7. Items newly incorporated in the agenda should be accompanied by supporting documentation as necessary.

  6. Task Forces of CC:DA

    1. The Chair may appoint a task force to work on an issue for a specific period of time. The task force shall then report back to the full Committee. In consultation with the full Committee, the Chair shall write a charge for each task force and shall set the time period and deadlines for each task force to conduct its work.
    2. Task force membership may consist of both voting and non-voting CC:DA members. Task force members may also be appointed from outside of CC:DA, provided they are current members of ALCTS. All members on a task force shall have equal voting rights.
    3. The Chair of CC:DA or the chair of a task force may, at her/his discretion, invite participation by consultants from outside the Committee/task force membership. Such consultants shall be non-voting members of the task force.
    4. The chair of a CC:DA task force must be a CC:DA member (voting or non-voting) at the time of her/his appointment as chair. Should her/his term on CC:DA expire before the work of the task force is complete, s/he may continue as chair until the task force is discharged.

  7. Discussions

    1. Both voting and non-voting members shall be accorded the same privilege of the floor, upon recognition of the Chair.
    2. Guests attending meetings may be accorded this same privilege, upon recognition of the Chair.
    3. Discussion on any agenda item may be limited only by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the voting members present.
    4. Discussion may be closed by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the voting members present.
    5. Discussions may be held electronically between meetings. Any documents to be discussed electronically shall be disseminated to the Committee by the Chair via mail, fax, the CC:DA Web site, or the CC:DA electronic discussion list. Between meetings, the CC:DA electronic discussion list shall be the venue for any motions, discussion, and votes. The Chair shall ensure that sufficient time is allowed to consider any motion made electronically before calling for a vote. Online discussion may be limited or closed by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the voting members (i.e., six affirmative votes from voting members).

  8. Voting

    1. Issues shall be decided by a majority vote of the voting members present. For electronic ballots to be valid, a minimum of five voting members must vote. Votes that are not taken in person must be confirmed at the next meeting (cf. ALCTS Bylaws, Article IX, Section 7).
    2. The Chair is not required to vote on any pending motion, and shall not vote until all voting members have voted. In the event of a tie, the Chair shall cast the deciding vote.
    3. Straw ballots of non-voting members may be taken on any issue. All non-voting members present may take part.

  9. Documentation

    1. The intern(s) shall take the minutes, and these shall be distributed to all members a minimum of one month prior to the next meeting.
    2. Documentation pertinent to the deliberations of the Committee shall be sent to the Chair early enough so that it can be distributed or made available before meetings. Documents received less than one month before a meeting shall not be guaranteed to be discussed at the next meeting. All distributed documents shall be dated and the source clearly indicated. Electronic versions of documents shall be preferred greatly over print copies.
    3. The ALCTS office will provide clerical services for the duplication and distribution of material, when required.
    4. CC:DA documents that have been distributed, including Committee and task force reports and minutes shall be made available electronically on the CC:DA Web site. Posted documents shall first have the approval of the Committee Chair. Documents originating with CC:DA and its task forces shall be eligible for mounting on the CC:DA Web site. Links to outside documents and sites may be included on the CC:DA Web site with approval of the Committee Chair and permission of the creator(s) of the documents/sites.

  10. Communication of Decisions, Etc.

    1. The Chair shall report to the CaMMS Executive Committee the decisions, recommendations, and other work of the Committee.
    2. The minutes shall include the substance of Committee discussions (both pro and con) on descriptive cataloging rule proposals and other decisions as well as the results of voting, including any straw ballots that may have been taken.
    3. The JSC representative, working with the Chair of CC:DA, shall communicate decisions and recommendations on RDA to the JSC. Decisions and recommendations on subject entities and relationships in RDA are informed by SAC and communicated to CC:DA and the JSC representative by the SAC liaison.
    4. Other decisions shall be communicated in writing to the appropriate body or person(s) by the Chair.
    5. At each meeting of the Committee, the Chair shall report on all decisions, recommendations, actions, etc. taken by the Committee and by the Chair in the period since the last meeting.

  11. Parliamentary Authority
    The rules contained in the current edition of Sturgis’ The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure shall govern in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these procedures and the bylaws of the Cataloging and Metadata Management Section, the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, and the American Library Association.
  12. Amendments

    1. These procedures may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the voting members present at any meeting or via electronic ballot. Text of any proposed amendment shall accompany either the notice of the meeting or the electronic ballot.
    2. Amendments shall become part of the operating procedures of the Committee following approval of the amendments by the Executive Committee of CaMMS.

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

Addendum
Procedures for Handling Committee Correspondence


  1. The Chair of CC:DA dates correspondence and notifies the correspondent that the material has been received. Correspondence may be done via electronic mail.
  2. The correspondence is reviewed by the Chair, who makes a decision as to whether the issue warrants CC:DA discussion.

    1. If the matter can be resolved without CC:DA discussion, a reply is sent directly to the correspondent, together with a notation that the matter may be discussed by CC:DA if the reply is not fully satisfactory.
      If the question relates to a specialized type of material or area of concern, CC:DA members (voting or non-voting) will be consulted as deemed necessary by the Chair.
      A copy of the correspondence may be distributed with Committee documentation for informational purposes.
    2. If the matter is placed on the agenda for a succeeding CC:DA meeting, the correspondent is notified of this.

  3. Questions referred to non-voting members of CC:DA are placed on the agenda if the specialized organization determines that the issue warrants CC:DA discussion.
  4. Questions referred to LC but not to CC:DA are placed on the CC:DA agenda at the request of the Library of Congress representative.
  5. The Chair shall communicate decisions of the Committee to interested parties (cf. Section X, Communication of Decisions, Etc., subsections C and D).

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]

RDA Worldwide at ALA Annual in Anaheim

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.

  1. Christine Frodl, Head of Cataloguing Standards, German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek), will give an overview of German cataloguing traditions, the pre-RDA situation in Germany and preparations for RDA. The German National Library plans to implement RDA in 2013, following the timelines of the Library of Congress and other national libraries represented on the Joint Steering Committee. Her talk will also focus on issues of the translation of RDA into German, and on activities of EURIG, the European RDA Interest Group.
  2. Ageo García, Latin American Librarian, Tulane University, will speak on RDA and Latin America: Transitions, Preparations, and Perspectives. Many countries in Latin America have been using AACR2 and MARC21 to build their catalogs. The region is determined to prepare for and embrace the challenges presented by the conceptual, functional and technological changes of the digital environment. There is an array of preparations in the area to implement RDA, including the translation of RDA into Spanish.
  3. Chris (Christine) Todd, Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 1, National Library of New Zealand, will describe the New Zealand cataloguing context, then discuss the National Library’s preparations for RDA to date, as well as the Library’s plans now that implementation decisions have been made. She will also identify some aspects of RDA that National Library cataloguers have raised concerns about.
  4. Lee Kai, Cataloger, Capital Library of China, Beijing, and MLIS student, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. This presentation will provide a basic understanding about the Chinese cataloging community in which RDA will be implemented, focusing on the two of the most influential library consortia in China, the National Library of China and China Academic Library and Information System (CALIS). The current development of RDA in China will be presented, especially in terms of research, staff training, and catalogers’ and system librarians’ responses to the new code.

 

Task Force on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-governmental Corporate Bodies

CC:DA/TF/Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies

August 9, 2010

Charge

The CC:DA Task Force on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-governmental Corporate Bodies is charged with reviewing the current RDA instructions in Chapter 11 on names of government bodies and other corporate bodies — with particular attention to the instructions on the names of bodies entered subordinately in 11.2.2.13–11.2.2.20 — to address previously identified concerns of ALA that “having separate instructions for government bodies and other corporate bodies introduces both redundancy and complexity” (6JSC/Sec/1, p. 23). The task force should look broadly at issues relating to the recording of corporate hierarchies in preferred names and access points, and should recommend a solution that is consistent, rational, and principle-based, generating appropriate rules revisions.

The task force will submit an interim report at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting and a final report at least a month prior to the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. Proposals for consideration by the Joint Steering Committee should be submitted to CC:DA at least three months prior to the date of the JSC meeting. Continue reading