Dear all,
I have attached feedback from the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee and rare materials cataloging community on the 2025 draft of the ICP. I also pasted the content of the document below for your convenience.
The RBMS BSC thanks the CC:DA for taking into consideration the feedback of the BSC and rare materials cataloging community as part of CC:DA's official response to the 2025 draft of IFLA's International Cataloguing Principles (ICP).
We appreciate the continued commitment on the part of IFLA to maintain and promote international cataloging principles that support interoperability between metadata standards. The ICP acknowledges that cataloging communities differ but provides a common framework to assist with decisions relating to bibliographic description. Some of these differing characteristics among communities of practice include the language and/or script used, geographic location, and subject domain or specialty.
We are pleased that the draft ICP accommodates both "traditional" bibliographic and authority data practices and linked data approaches. While the adoption of linked data is increasing for rare materials cataloging, traditional description using MARC 21 is currently more common. We also support the continued focus on ISBD as a content standard. While it is aligned with the LRM, Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (RDA Edition) (DCRMR) is informed by the organization of ISBD, namely the areas of description. While new models such as ISBD for Manifestation (ISBDM) focus on entity-based cataloging that favors linked data approaches, the broader ISBD better accommodates traditional cataloging.
We offer the following suggestions to improve the clarity and utility of the draft ICP:
-
We urge the editors to reinstate paragraph numbering to enable users to cite and bookmark specific passages of the ICP. The ability to cite unambiguously is useful for editors of metadata standards that comply with and are built on the framework of the ICP, library policy makers, and educators in library and information science programs.
-
The draft ICP omits the principle of common usage (2.2 in the 2016 edition). Using vocabulary in descriptions and access points that is familiar to the majority of our users is directly related to the principle of user convenience (2.1), the most important principle in the ICP. We make every effort to predict what terms our users will search for in databases, which informs the choice of preferred forms of names that we use to build access points, for example. Common usage need not be universal. Linked data, in particular, makes it easier to customize the display of access points and terminology for specific linguistic, cultural, and specialist communities while retaining a common understanding of the entity represented by the data.
-
In the draft ICP, the principles of representation and accuracy have been combined into one principle (2.3), while the 2016 edition lists them separately (2.3 and 2.4). For rare materials cataloging in particular, these principles are related but distinct enough to warrant separate treatment. DCRMR principle i.01.322 notes that "precise representation is of particular relevance in those elements that require transcription." Precise representation means recording pseudonyms, false attributions, fictitious or false places of publication or publishers, and typographical errors exactly as they appear (to the extent made possible by existing technologies and tools and within the parameters of standardization in support of user convenience). The principles of representation and accuracy are sometimes in tension with each other. Providing an accurate portrayal of an entity in rare materials cataloging often means supplementing elements containing transcribed information with additional notes that correct or clarify those elements or necessitates adjustments to access points to support the convenience of the user.
-
We recommend a brief addition to section 4.2 that acknowledges variants of manifestations, including impressions, states, and issues. Users of rare materials often need to differentiate between such variants.
-
The omission of sections 4 (Bibliographic Description) and 5 (Access Points), which are included in the 2016 edition, muddies the relationship between description and access points. Incorporating information about access points under the section on identifiers (4.3.2) adds further confusion. Access points are not necessarily identifiers. RDA, for example, classifies an access point as a form of structured description rather than an identifier.
We offer the following editorial corrections and suggestions:
-
Footnote 1: italicize journal title Library Resources & Technical Services
-
1.2, par. 2: reconsider the choice of the word "appreciated"
-
1.2, par. 2: change "doesn't" to "does not"
-
1.3, par. 2: omit "supposedly"
-
1.3, par. 2: change "in" to "into" in "significant changes brought in other standards"
-
3, numbered list: last item should be numbered 5 instead of 1
-
4.3.2, par. 5: consider changing "to" to "in" in "access points to authority data"
------------------------------
Jessica Grzegorski
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Northwestern University Libraries
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Apr 08, 2025 08:18 AM
From: Jessica Grzegorski
Subject: CC:DA Task Force to Review the 2025 Draft of IFLA's International Cataloguing Principles - Established
Excellent, thank you!
------------------------------
Jessica Grzegorski
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Northwestern University Libraries
She/Her/Hers
Original Message:
Sent: Apr 08, 2025 08:13 AM
From: Kathryn Glennan
Subject: CC:DA Task Force to Review the 2025 Draft of IFLA's International Cataloguing Principles - Established
Hi Jessica-
It would be great to have BSC's comments to incorporate into the CC:DA response to the ICP draft. CC:DA voting members will have to approve the Committee's response, so I think that posting the BSC comments to this space would be good, as well as sending them directly to Richard.
Please work with Richard directly to determine the deadline the TF would need to incorporate BSC's comments into the CC:DA response.
Thanks!
Kathy
------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers
Original Message:
Sent: Apr 07, 2025 08:59 AM
From: Jessica Grzegorski
Subject: CC:DA Task Force to Review the 2025 Draft of IFLA's International Cataloguing Principles - Established
Dear Colleagues,
The RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee is planning to compile feedback from our members and the wider rare materials cataloging community on the new ICP draft. We would like to share it with this task force so that it can be incorporated in some way into the CC:DA's response. Would CC:DA and the task force have an interest in receiving our collective feedback? If so, what would be a sensible deadline? In my capacity as RBMS Liaison to CC:DA, I could post our response directly to this public space (in a comment or as an attachment) or email separately to Richard as chair of the task force.
Thanks for your consideration,
Jessica
------------------------------
Jessica Grzegorski
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Northwestern University Libraries
She/Her/Hers
Original Message:
Sent: Apr 01, 2025 10:24 AM
From: Kathryn Glennan
Subject: CC:DA Task Force to Review the 2025 Draft of IFLA's International Cataloguing Principles - Established
Colleagues-
The CC:DA Task Force to Review the 2025 Draft of IFLA's International Cataloguing Principles now has a formal charge and roster. My thanks go to Richard Guajardo for agreeing to chair this group and to everyone who volunteered to serve! The relevant documents are in ALAIR:
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Kathy
------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
CC:DA Chair
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers
------------------------------