2011 Midwinter Business meeting minutes
Minutes of the Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Meeting at the Continuing Resources Section All Committees Meeting
American Library Association Midwinter Meeting in San Diego, CA
Saturday, January 8, 2011 8:00-10:00am
San Diego Convention Center Room 1A
Members present: Anna Ashikhmina, Cecilia Genereux, Kelley Lasher, Heather McIntosh (Intern), Robert Rendall, Steve Shadle, Eva Sorrell, Jennifer Young (Chair)
Guests: Eugene Dickerson (Liaison from CRS Executive Committee), Regina Romano Reynolds
We began by reviewing the Results of the CRCC Informal RDA Testing Task Force document. 25 continuing resources catalogers participated and the final consensus was ambivalent.
Consensus among the CRCC members was also ambivalent. RDA felt like switching out one thing for another, and there were no large enough changes to make it worthwhile. Most found the RDA Toolkit to be difficult to understand and navigate.
A main issue was that RDA followed in FRBR’s footsteps by failing to specifically address continuing resources. RDA lacks even a definition of continuing resources in the documentation. There were not any significant changes for serials like there were in previous AACR updates. Linking fields could be an issue since catalogers could continue doing what they did with AACR2 and adding URLs to records. Uniform title versus work title might also be an issue for continuing resources. Catalogers new to continuing resources would probably have great difficulty figuring out how to apply RDA.
Only one integrating resource was cataloged in the test, and it was for maintenance. There was also one family name and a personal name record. Authority records are more interesting than bibliographic records in RDA because of all the additional fields. Concerns were raised about if the changes are important enough to push vendors to adjust displays for the new fields, especially since they are optional.
We discussed the proposed scenarios for changes in ALCTS structure. The blue scenario was the most popular, and in that CRCC would turn into an interest group.
On one hand, an interest group cannot do the same things as a working group/committee like testing and endorsing RDA changes. CRCC has a business meeting, coordinates with a representative on CC:DA, and puts out official statements in regard to serials issues and drafts.
On the other hand, one of the most essential things CRCC does is the update forum, and putting on a forum is what interest groups do.
At the annual conference, there was a lot of argument for CRS continuing as a separate area. If CRS dissolves, CRCC should be a committee within CCS. As it is, CRS currently defers to CRCC on cataloging standards. For catalogers who focus solely on serials, they might leave ALA and put all their efforts into NASIG if CRCC was to dissolve. Expecting CC:DA to focus on serials issues is not very realistic, considering the breadth of their responsibilities.
It was suggested that we should publish a list of things we have voted on during the year, following CC:DA’s example. We need to ensure that not just CONSER libraries have input on continuing resources issues. Since CRCC represents the entire CR cataloging community, CRCC should provide input to CONSER. In that case, changes could take longer to implement, but we could run e-forums and meetings throughout the year to decrease the time period. We have an important role in disseminating information from CONSER activities to non-CONSER libraries, should we have a liaison to CONSER? Does such a mechanism already exist in PCC? We should have a role recommending things to CONSER and to voting representatives like the NISO representative.
We need to become more visible in the community, reminding people to come to us with questions. In the future not only will we be able to provide additional RDA feedback, but we can also give opinions on CSR, give input into digital reproduction policies re: ISSN, participate in rewriting the ISO-8. We can start with e-forums by putting out a call to the larger community saying that we are looking for feedback and link to something like a discussion board or survey monkey (perhaps twice a year).
Future of Midwinter
The committee agrees that face-to-face time is valuable, but the meeting twice is tiring, and there are a lot of things we could do virtually, including holding a semi-annual meeting.
Topics for Annual Update Forum
RDA – potential decision to implement RDA
What happens when there’s a mix between RDA and AACR2… “living in a mixed cataloging world” with a continuing resources slant (the mixed environment will affect CR more than monographers)
Heather McIntosh (Intern)