Core CC:DA Public Space

Hi all,

 The Task Force has finished our proposal to add familial relationship elements to RDA, and I've attached the final draft. As I mentioned in last week's CC:DA meeting, the Task Force chose not to re-propose the entire list of elements from the 2015 proposal based on the responses received at the time. However if the general consensus of the group is that we should try to propose all of the 2015 elements then we can certainly do that. 

Thanks,

-Tammy Druash, on behalf of the Task Force

------------------------------
Tammy Druash
Resource Description Librarian
University of North Florida
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

If anyone has any suggestions for changes please make them by end of day Friday, February 13th. Otherwise, I will assume that everyone is ok voting on the proposal as it is submitted by the taskforce.

Thanks,

Karl

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------

I generally approve of this proposal. 

However, I have a few technical comments about the addressing and numbering of this document. It should be directed to CC:DA, not the RSC. Once approved, the CC:DA Chair has the responsibility to finalize and submit it to NARDAC. That group will use it as the basis for their proposal to the RSC, if they determine it should go forward. The appropriate document number is CC:DA/TF/Familial Relationship Elements/4. 

Comment on background statement. As the ALA Rep who presented 6JSC/ALA/43, I believe it would be more correct to characterize the concerns as about moving forward with establishing these relationships before LRM was finalized. Of course, the publication of LRM also led to the 3R Project.

A word of caution: There has always been a tension between what can and what should be recorded in an entity record for a person. That record should not be the equivalent of an encyclopedia entry. Instead, the data recorded should have bibliographic significance. This may be an implementation concern, rather than something that would prevent the proposal from being approved. However, we shouldn't be surprised if this concept comes up in the responses to this proposal.

Typo: please correct "steparent" to "stepparent".

Kathy

------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 12, 2026 10:56 AM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: CC:DA Task Force to Propose Familial Relationships--Final Proposal

If anyone has any suggestions for changes please make them by end of day Friday, February 13th. Otherwise, I will assume that everyone is ok voting on the proposal as it is submitted by the taskforce.

Thanks,

Karl

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------

Thanks Kathy for the feedback, I have made a few updates and reattached the document:

1. updated the "To" line and the document number
2. updated the background statement to read that the 2015 proposed familial relationships were not approved due to concerns about adding these relationships when LRM had yet to be finalized.
3.  fixed the typo

------------------------------
Tammy Druash
Resource Description Librarian
University of North Florida
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 13, 2026 08:58 AM
From: Kathryn Glennan
Subject: CC:DA Task Force to Propose Familial Relationships--Final Proposal

I generally approve of this proposal. 

However, I have a few technical comments about the addressing and numbering of this document. It should be directed to CC:DA, not the RSC. Once approved, the CC:DA Chair has the responsibility to finalize and submit it to NARDAC. That group will use it as the basis for their proposal to the RSC, if they determine it should go forward. The appropriate document number is CC:DA/TF/Familial Relationship Elements/4. 

Comment on background statement. As the ALA Rep who presented 6JSC/ALA/43, I believe it would be more correct to characterize the concerns as about moving forward with establishing these relationships before LRM was finalized. Of course, the publication of LRM also led to the 3R Project.

A word of caution: There has always been a tension between what can and what should be recorded in an entity record for a person. That record should not be the equivalent of an encyclopedia entry. Instead, the data recorded should have bibliographic significance. This may be an implementation concern, rather than something that would prevent the proposal from being approved. However, we shouldn't be surprised if this concept comes up in the responses to this proposal.

Typo: please correct "steparent" to "stepparent".

Kathy

------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: Feb 12, 2026 10:56 AM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: CC:DA Task Force to Propose Familial Relationships--Final Proposal

If anyone has any suggestions for changes please make them by end of day Friday, February 13th. Otherwise, I will assume that everyone is ok voting on the proposal as it is submitted by the taskforce.

Thanks,

Karl

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries