Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access (CC:DA) » Archives

Category Archives: CC:DA Documents

A Record of CC:DA Activities (Agendas, Minutes, Reports, etc.)

How to Submit a Revision Proposal to CC:DA

By | | Archives, CC:DA Documents, Proposals
2 Comments
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

CC:DA Procedures

By | | About CC:DA, CC:DA Documents
Leave a comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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]

2012 Annual Conference Agenda, Anaheim, CA

By | | Archives, CC:DA Documents, Presentations, Reports, etc.
Leave a comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

CC:DA/A/66
June 23 & 25, 2012

2012 Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA

Agenda

Note: Links are provided to the documents listed on the agenda. These are working documents and are to be used as part of the rule revision process. They are not to be copied or distributed without permission from the Chair of CC:DA.

Saturday, June 23 1:30 pm – 5:30 pm
Hyatt Regency, Grand Ballroom A
  1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (1:30, 5 min.)
  2. Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives: Group (1:35, 5 min.) [CC:DA/Roster/2012]
  3. Adoption of agenda: Chair (1:40, 5 min.)[CC:DA/A/66]
  4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2011 Annual Conference, June 25 and 27, 2011: Chair (1:45, 5 min.) [CC:DA/M/1158-1179]
  5. Report from the Chair (1:50, 10 min.) CC:DA/Chair/2011-2012/3]
  6. Report from the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett (2:00, 15 min.) [LC Report, June 2012]
  7. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Attig (2:15, 20 min.)
  8. Report from the TF on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3: Rolla (2:35, 40 min.)[C:DA/TF/Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3/3]
  9. Break (3:15, 25 min.)
  10. Report from the TF to Revise Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards: Rendall (3:40, 10 min.) [Task Force to Revise Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards: Report]
  11. Report from the TF on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies: Randall (3:50, 40 min.) [Task Force on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-governmental Corporate Bodies Final Report]
  12. Report from the TF on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K: Winzer (4:30, 25 min.) [Task Force on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K: Interim report]
  13. Report from the TF to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition: Dragon (4:55, 15 min.) [Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition: Report]
  14. Report from the ALCTS CaMMS RDA Conference Forums and Programs Task Force: Abbas (5:10, 10 min.)
  15. Report from the RDA Planning and Training Task Force: Chair (5:20, 10 min.) [RDA Planning and Training Task Force Report for Annual 2012]
Monday, June 25 8:00 am – 12:00 pm
Hyatt Regency, Grand Ballroom A
  1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (8:00, 5 min.)
  2. Report from the MARBI Representative: Myers (8:05, 20 min.) [Report of the MARBI Liaison June 19, 2012 (Preliminary)]
  3. Revision proposals from AALL and CEAL: Chair (8:25, 35 min.) [Revision of RDA 16.2.2.9: Places in certain federations] | [Recording Chinese Place Names in RDA 16.2.2]
  4. Revision proposal from OLAC on video encoding formats: McGrath (9:00, 15 min.) [Revision of RDA 3.19.3 for video encoding formats and introduction of new instruction for optical disc characteristics]
  5. Report from the PCC liaison: Glennan (9:15, 10 min.) [PCC Report ALA Anaheim June 23, 2012]
  6. Report from ALA Publishing Services: Linker (9:25, 15 min.)
  7. Break (9:40, 20 min.)
  8. Report from the TF on Sources of Information: Scharff (10:00, 45 min.) [Task Force on Sources of Information: Progress Report]
  9. Revision proposal regarding Hearings: Schiff (10:45, 30 min.) [Hearings in 19.2.1.1.1]
  10. Report of the CC:DA webmaster: Polutta (11:15, 15 min.)
  11. Report from the Chair on CCS Executive Committee meetings; other new business; reports from the floor; announcement of next meeting, and adjournment: Chair (11:30, 30 min.)

2012 Midwinter Meeting Agenda, Dallas, TX

By | | Archives, CC:DA Documents, Presentations, Reports, etc.
Leave a comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

CC:DA/A/65
January 21 & 23, 2012

2012 Midwinter Meeting, Dallas, TX

Agenda

Note: Links are provided to the documents listed on the agenda. These are working documents and are to be used as part of the rule revision process. They are not to be copied or distributed without permission from the Chair of CC:DA.

Saturday, January 21 1:30 pm – 5:30 pm
Hyatt Regency Dallas at Reunion, Ballroom E/F
  1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (1:30, 5 min.)
  2. Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives: Group (1:35, 5 min.) [CC:DA/Roster/2011 July]
  3. Adoption of agenda: Chair (1:40, 5 min.) [Agenda]
  4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2011 Annual Conference, June 25 and 27, 2011: Chair (1:45, 5 min.) [Minutes of 2011 ALA Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana]
  5. Report from the Chair (1:50, 10 min.) [Chair’s Report on CC:DA Motions and Other Actions June 17, 2011–December 19, 2011]
  6. Report from the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett (2:00, 25 min.) [Library of Congress Report January 2012]
  7. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Attig (2:25, 45 min.)
    1. [CC:DA/JSC Rep/JCA/2011/3 Report from the JSC Representative November 2011]
    2. [CC:DA/JSC Rep/JCA/2011/4 Descriptions of relationships (a)]
    3. [CC:DA/JSC Rep/JCA/2011/5 Descriptions of relationships (b)]
  8. Break (3:05, 30 min.)
  9. Revision Proposal from AALL: Hostage (3:35, 25 min.) [CC:DA/AALL/2010/1 Revision of RDA 16.2.2.9: Places in certain federations]
  10. Report of TF on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies: Randall (4:00, 35 min.) [Task Force on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-governmental Corporate Bodies Discussion Paper]
  11. Revision proposal from ATLA: Myers (4:35, 25 min.) [CC:DA/ATLA/2011/1 RDA rules revision proposal for Sacred Scriptures, particularly with respect to the Bible, its parts, and apocryphal books]
  12. Report from the ALCTS CaMMS RDA Conference Forums and Programs Task Force: Abbas (5:00, 15 min.)
  13. Revisions to CC:DA Procedures: Chair (5:15, 15 min.) [CC:DA/Chair/2011-2012/2: Revisions to CC:DA Procedures]
Monday, January 23 8:00 am – 12:00 pm
Hyatt Regency Dallas at Reunion, Ballroom E/F
  1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (8:00, 5 min.)
    Report from the MARBI Representative: Myers (8:05, 20 min.) [CC:DA/Marbi Rep/2011/1/Prelim Preliminary MARBI report for ALA Midwinter 2012]
  2. Report from the TF to Update “How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA” (8:25, 20 min.) [CC:DA/TF/Update “How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA”/3 Task Force to Update “How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal”: Final Report]
  3. Report from the TF on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3: Rolla (8:45, 25 min.)
  4. Report from the PCC liaison: Glennan (9:10, 15 min.) [CC:DA/PCC/2012/1 PCC Report for CC:DA Jan. 2012]
  5. Report of the CC:DA webmaster: Polutta (9:25, 20 min.) [CC:DA/Webmaster/2012/Presentation: Website redesign proposals]
  6. Break (9:45, 30 min.)
  7. Report from the TF on Sources of Information: Scharff (10:15, 25 min.)
  8. Report from ALA Publishing Services: Linker (10:40, 30 min.)
  9. Report from the ALCTS CCS RDA Planning and Training Task Force: Harcourt (11:10, 10 min.) [CC:DA/RDATrainingTF/2012/1 ALCTS CCS RDA Planning and Training Task Force Midwinter 2012 Report]
  10. Report from the Chair on CCS Executive Committee meetings; other new business; reports from the floor; announcement of next meeting, and adjournment: Chair (11:20, 40 min.)

2011 Annual Conference Agenda, New Orleans, LA

By | | Archives, CC:DA Documents, Presentations, Reports, etc.
1 Comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

CC:DA/A/64
June 25 & 27, 2011

2011 Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA

Agenda

Saturday, June 25 1:30 pm – 5:30 pm
Hilton New Orleans Riverside, Grand Salon C
  1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (1:30, 5 min.)
  2. Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives: Group (1:35, 5 min.) [CC:DA/Roster/2010 July]
  3. Adoption of agenda: Chair (1:40, 5 min.) [CC:DA/A/64]
  4. Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2011 Midwinter Meeting, January 8, 2011: Chair (1:45, 5 min.) [Minutes of the meeting held at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego, California January 8, 2011]
  5. Report from the Chair (1:50, 10 min.) [Chair’s Report on CC:DA Motions and Other Actions December 21, 2010–June 16, 2011]
  6. Report from the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett (2:00, 25 min.) [Library of Congress Report, 2011 Annual] [RDA Transition FAQ from the Library of Congress]
  7. Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Attig (2:25, 50 min.) [Revision of RDA 9.13, Affiliation] | [RDA Appendix A: Library of Congress proposal to the JSC] | [Date of manufacture (RDA 2.10.6): Library of Congress proposal to the JSC] | [“Selections” as used in RDA Chapter 6: Library of Congress reply to the JSC]
  8. Break (3:15, 30 min.)
  9. Revision Proposals from AALL: Hostage (3:45, 25 min.) [Revision of RDA 16.2.2.9: Places in certain federations (Revised)]
  10. Report of the TF on RDA Instructions for Heads of State and Heads of Government: Winzer (4:10, 25 min.) [TF on RDA Instructions for Heads of State and Heads of Government: Final Report]
  11. Report of TF on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies: Randall (4:35, 25 min.)
  12. Report of TF on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3: Rolla (5:00, 10 min.)
  13. Report from the ALCTS CaMMS RDA Conference and Programs Task Force: Abbas (5:10, 10 min.)
  14. Report from the ALCTS CCS RDA Planning and Training Task Force: Woodley (5:20, 5 min.) [ALCTS CCS RDA Planning and Training Task Force Report]
Monday, June 27 8:00 am – 12:00 pm
Hilton New Orleans Riverside, Grand Salon C
  1. Welcome and opening remarks (8:00, 5 min.)
  2. Report from the MARBI Representative: Myers (8:05, 20 min.)
    1. [Report of the MARBI Liaison, 2011 Annual]
  3. Revision proposals from MLA: Scharff (8:25, 40 min.)
    1. [Changes to RDA Chapter 2 related to status of container as a source for description and to preference for collective title] | [Change to RDA 7.24 and Glossary, Artistic and/or Technical Credit]
  4. Report of the CC:DA webmaster: Polutta (9:05 15 min.)
    1. [CC:DA/Webmaster/2011/2: Webmaster report, June 27, 2011]
  5. Report from ALA Publishing Services: Linker (9:20, 20 min.)
  6. Report from the Chair on CCS Executive Committee meetings; other new business; reports from the floor; announcement of next meeting, and adjournment: Chair (9:40, 20 min.)
  7. Break (10:00, 30 min.)
  8. Joint meeting with SAC on the treatment of “subject” in the Functional Requirements models and on subject entities in RDA (10:30, 90 min.)
      1. John Attig: Introduction [Subject” entities and relationships in RDA]
      2. Gordon Dunsire: Treatment of subject in each model, reconciliation in the Registry, and considerations for future consolidation of the FR models [Subjects in the FR family]
      3. General discussion: LC Discussion paper on Group 3 entity chapters in RDA [6JSC/LC Rep/3: Chapters 12-16, 23, 33-37 (Group 3 entities and “subject”]