Task groups and … · Web viewFinal Report of the PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group ....

PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group Final Report

Final Report of the PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group

Submitted to the PCC Policy Committee: April 2, 2012.Revised: April 27, 2012.

The Task Group's final report consists of the following sections:

Task Group Charge Preliminary Comments Responses to the Charge General Recommendations Rejected General Recommendations RDA Instructions That Need Policy Statements Appendix A: RDA Implementation Calendar/Dependencies Appendix B: Revision of PCC RDA Frequently Asked Questions Appendix C: Summary of Current Maintenance Procedures for the LCPS Appendix D: Recommendations on Individual Policy Statements

Task Group Charge

The joint PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group is charged to:

Review the latest set of RDA Policy Statements developed by the Policy & Standards Division at the Library of Congress;

Determine if it is possible for the PCC and LC PSD to agree on a common set of RDA Policy Statements that can be used during and after RDA implementation, keeping in mind the benefits of cataloging community cohesiveness, the efficiency of shared training and documentation, etc.;

Consider, where possible, the national application decisions of the British Library, Library and Archives Canada, and the National Library of Australia, in light of the agreement on the coordinated implementation of RDA. To ensure a smooth transition to RDA, the four national libraries will work together on implementation matters such as training, documentation, and any national application decisions (http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdaimpl.html);

Consult the PCC operations community as needed; Make recommendations indicating the extent to which use of a single set of RDA

Policy Statements is agreeable. For areas of disagreement, provide reasons, so that others can understand and LC staff can weigh possible reconsideration.

As a joint task group, the report will first be shared with LC PSD and the PCC Steering Committee. Following further review by broader LC staff and the PCC Policy Committee, the report will be announced to PCCLIST and posted to the PCC web site.

RDA-related task groups are required to provide two appendices to their final report to indicate whether RDA related actions are required by the Secretariat.

Appendix A: RDA implementation calendar/dependencies appendix:

1


RDA-related task groups are asked to prepare an appendix to the final report with a timeline/calendar that:

Outlines the steps that need to be taken for completing RDA-related tasks Identifies who will be responsible for those tasks States the time frame and order in which tasks should be accomplished prior to

implementation Lists any other dependencies that might need to be considered.

This appendix is required of all PCC RDA task groups, and all timelines/calendars will be compiled by the Secretariat to develop a comprehensive RDA implementation calendar. A template for this appendix will be provided. If no RDA-related actions are identified please add a statement to the report indicating that no action is needed.

Appendix B: Revision of PCC RDA Frequently Asked Questions:

Task group members are asked to be aware of the PCC RDA FAQ as they do their work and to list suggested revisions in this appendix. The Secretariat will update the PCC RDA FAQ based on this appendix. If no RDA-related actions are identified please add a statement to the report indicating that no action is needed.

Time Frame:

Formation of Task Group: January 2012 Final report, including a calendar/timetable of proposed actions by March 15, 2012 Review by LC PSD and PCC Steering Committee by April 1, 2012 Review by other LC staff and PCC Policy Committee by April 15, 2012 Announcement and posting of report and subsequent comments by April 20, 2012 Community review and comment by early May, in time for further discussion at

OpCo in May.

Chain of Reporting: PCC Policy Committee and PSD (joint committee)

Task Group Members:

Manon Théroux (PoCo liaison) (Chair) David Reser (PSD) Paul Frank (Secretariat) Linda Gabel (OCLC) Ed Jones (Serials perspective) Robert Maxwell (RDA test institution) Hugh Taylor (Cambridge)

[Note: The PCC Policy Committee subsequently revised the deadline for the final report from March 15, 2012, to April 2, 2012].

2


Preliminary Comments

Documents Consulted

During the current period of preparation for RDA implementation, most of the documents consulted by the Task Group can essentially be considered “moving targets.” Thus it seems worthwhile to specify which versions of documents were taken into account during our discussions.

The versions of RDA and the Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPS) consulted were the ones available in RDA Toolkit from mid-January to late-March in 2012. Although we had advance access to a draft summary of LCPS revisions slated for release in April 2012, and we noted these forthcoming changes where appropriate, we did not have access to the full text of the LCPS revisions. We did not attempt to take into consideration the revisions to RDA that were slated for release in April 2012, given that we had only last-minute access to the text of these changes. We did draw attention to a few LCPS that we knew would be affected by the RDA changes, but no comprehensive review could be undertaken. As evidence of current PCC practice, we were necessarily working with AACR2-based versions of the CONSER Standard Record and the various BIBCO Standard Record Metadata Application Profiles. Although we were aware of the work of numerous other PCC RDA task groups, and occasionally had advance access to their reports, we generally arrived at our recommendations independently, given that the recommendations of the other groups had either not yet been released for comment or not yet been approved. Because of the potential for overlap between our charge and those of other PCC task groups, it is inevitable that some of our recommendations may conflict with the recommendations made by these other groups (e.g., PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues; RDA and the BIBCO Standard Record for Textual Monographs; CONSER Standard Record RDA Core Elements Task Group; RDA Post-Implementation Guidelines Task Group, etc.).

Interpretation of Our Charge

The Task Group’s charge provided little guidance as to the criteria we should apply during our review of the policy statements. Without a clear objective (other than a vague directive to “do what’s in the best interest of the PCC”), it was often difficult to know what to recommend. We operated with a great deal of uncertainty in our minds regarding such questions as: Does PCC want to continue as much AACR2 practice as possible in its implementation of RDA? Or adapt AACR2 practices according to certain specific guidelines? Or make a more radical break with the past and embrace new ways of thinking? Does PCC want a gradual transition with incremental change or a quick one? As individuals, we did not always agree on the desirability of certain changes, or the pace at which they should be pursued, and we wrestled with the inevitable tensions that arose between principled and pragmatic approaches to change.

Relationship Between LC and PCC

Task Group members were unsure of the exact nature of the relationship between PCC policy and LC policy. Does PCC policy represent a floor for all members, including LC? To what extent does LC see itself as "just another member" of the PCC? To what extent does PCC take that view? In particular, the extent to which LC regards itself as "bound" by PCC

3


decisions was not clearly understood. If PCC recommends a more restrictive policy than what LC has identified as its preferred local practice, would LC abandon that practice or simply decide not to code those records as PCC records? For example: The Task Group is recommending that PCC not apply RDA 1.7.1, First Alternative, and therefore not adopt the existing LCPS allowing catalogers to use the capitalization found on the resource. If this recommendation is approved, it would seem that any LC records reflecting the capitalization found in the resource, rather than the Appendix A instructions, could not be coded as PCC. Would this be an acceptable outcome (from both the LC and PCC perspectives)? The situation has ramifications for bibliographic utilities as well. According to current OCLC algorithms, if two records describing the same resource are contributed to Worldcat (one being a non-LC PCC record and one being a non-PCC LC record), the LC record is the one that will be retained as the master record. Would this be an acceptable outcome? It should be noted that OCLC is in the process of discussing possible adjustments to these record retention algorithms.

Internationalization of the PCC

Given the geographic location of the Library of Congress and its de facto status as the national library of the United States, it is not surprising that many LC policy statements are U.S.-centric. The Task Group tried to keep the international scope of the PCC in mind when making its recommendations. Although the majority of PCC institutions are also located in the United States, there are a fair number of PCC institutions based in other countries, not all of which use English as their primary language or Latin as their primary script. It is in our best interest to encourage international participation in PCC programs by minimizing Anglo-American bias to the extent possible.

To this end, we have recommended that PCC:

not adopt LC's language-based restrictions on the representation of ordinal numbers remain neutral on the spelling of "color" vs. "colour" not specify U.S.-style conventions for constructing variant access points for spelled-out

versions of titles containing numbers follow LC's decision to use leading and ending hyphens (rather than words) in

authorized access points for persons whose birth or death dates are not known not include policy statements on publications issued by the U.S. Government Printing

Office (unless the policies can be generalized to other government printers) re-examine practices that limit the specificity of language additions to authorized access

points for expressions re-examine and clarify policies regarding the language of cataloging for bibliographic

and authority records (i.e. address whether the creation of parallel records is, or should be, acceptable practice for PCC participants)

Given the shared nature of the LC/NACO authority file, and the limitations of our current implementation scenario, we generally accepted LCPS that specified the use of English-language terms in authority records when we could think of no acceptable alternative.

Although we hope to someday be in a position to eliminate restrictions relating to character set issues, we also recommended accepting policy statements that limit characters in records distributed by LC to those in the MARC-8 repertoire of Unicode. The need for consistency in this matter results from a complicated set of factors involving LC (with its

4


inherent system limitations), CDS (with its inherent customer limitations), and data exchange partners (each with their own limitations). PCC records distributed by LC include those contributed to CONSER, NACO, and SACO. However, for those PCC records not distributed by LC (i.e. BIBCO records created outside of LC), we have recommended that character set limitations be determined by the bibliographic utility to which the records are being contributed. For example, OCLC is able to accept bibliographic records with non-roman scripts outside the standard MARC-8 repertoire that LC allows.

5


Responses to the Charge

Part 1. Review the latest set of RDA Policy Statements developed by the Policy & Standards Division at the Library of Congress.

Although the Task Group intended to review the entire set of LCPS, we soon discovered that the task would require far more time than we had at our disposal. Instead, with permission from the PCC Steering Committee, we reviewed a subset of the existing LCPS: those corresponding to chapters 0-7 and the Appendices. By special request, we also reviewed policy statements in chapter 9 relating to recording birth and death dates for persons (9.3.2.3, 9.3.3.3, 9.19.1.1). Although a small number of chapters, this subset actually represents approximately three quarters of the policy statements in terms of text (288 of 408 pages in PDF equivalents), due to the uneven distribution of policy statements across RDA chapters. Although it is disappointing that we were unable to complete a review of the entire LCPS, our efforts reviewing the subset provided us with sufficient experience to reach conclusions regarding the primary task before us: determining the extent to which a single set of PCC/LC policy statements would be possible and agreeable.

The LCPS chapters that we did not review fall into two general categories: 1) recording attributes of persons, corporate bodies, events, and places, and 2) relationships. Presumably, the chapters in the former category are being looked at by the PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues. In regards to the latter category, it should be noted that we did address relationship issues to some extent in our review of the appendices.

Factors that contributed to the time-consuming nature of the review process included: disagreement on whether certain new practices should be extended to PCC; disagreement on the extent to which we need to maintain continuity with AACR2 and current PCC practices; disagreement on the need for policy statements that simply provide explanation or guidance (as opposed to true policy decisions); disagreement on the extent to which policies need to be repeated in multiple places (as opposed to providing links to a single policy statement); disagreement on the role of cataloger judgment and whether explicit statements indicating that judgment is to be applied are necessary; uneven degrees of expertise (not all members are from institutions that participate in BIBCO or CONSER and not all members have experience cataloging certain types of resources); uneven degrees of familiarity with RDA and the LCPS (not all members participated in RDA testing; not all RDA testers followed the LCPS; and members have had varying degrees of RDA training); need to take into account knowledge of upcoming (or proposed) changes to RDA/LCPS; need to take into account knowledge of recent (or upcoming) recommendations made by other task groups; and the constant temptation to engage in wordsmithing.

Part 2. Determine if it is possible for the PCC and LC PSD to agree on a common set of RDA Policy Statements that can be used during and after RDA implementation, keeping in mind the benefits of cataloging community cohesiveness, the efficiency of shared training and documentation, etc.

The phrase "common set of RDA policy statements" could be interpreted in two ways: 1) one set of RDA policy statements in which all statements apply equally to both LC and PCC, or 2) one set of RDA policy statements in which some statements apply only to LC, some only to PCC, and some to both.

6


Regarding the first interpretation of the phrase, the Task Group found, not surprisingly, that it would be impossible for LC and PCC to reach full agreement on every policy statement. On the PCC side, a common stumbling block to agreement was the need to formulate policy that would be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of a wide range of institutions and reflect the international scope of its membership. On the LC side, common hindrances to alignment included the need to make policy that takes into account all cataloging operations (both PCC and non-PCC), the need to record local decisions on PCC options, and the need to address policy matters relating to its role as a national library. One example of the need for separate policies is provided by the fact that LC does not provide authorized access points for monographic series. This is a local decision on a PCC option and is applicable only to LC catalogers. Another example: To help fulfill its mission to support public libraries, LC has a policy to provide authorized access points for illustrators when cataloging resources intended for children (and to include the relationship designator "illustrator" in the access points). Providing access points for illustrators is not a requirement for PCC records.

Regarding the second interpretation of the phrase "common set of RDA policy statements", the Task Group found that it would certainly be possible to continue to have a single set of policy statements, as we have long done with AACR2 and the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI). However, it might not be desirable. (see recommendation 1 in the "General Recommendations" section below for more discussion on this topic).

Part 3. Consider, where possible, the national application decisions of the British Library, Library and Archives Canada, and the National Library of Australia, in light of the agreement on the coordinated implementation of RDA. To ensure a smooth transition to RDA, the four national libraries will work together on implementation matters such as training, documentation, and any national application decisions (http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdaimpl.html).

The Task Group consulted with the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) regarding the application decisions of the four other national libraries that have agreed to coordinate their RDA implementation with the Library of Congress (i.e., the British Library, Library and Archives Canada, the National Library of Australia, and the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek). We learned that coordination of the national libraries' application decisions will extend only to RDA options, RDA alternatives, and which RDA elements are to be considered "core." The national libraries are still in the process of developing and recording these application decisions, but once they have completed the task (most likely in mid-2012), the JSC will be making the application decisions public. One ramification for LC/PCC of this coordinated implementation: any proposals for new policy statements, or proposals for changes to existing ones, that relate to RDA options, RDA alternatives, or RDA "core-ness" will need to be communicated to the other national libraries. We also learned that at least some of the national libraries intend to issue policy statements in the same manner as the LCPS (i.e., with links provided from the RDA Toolkit).

The Task Group notes that the URL in our charge refers to a JSC announcement from October 2007. Now labeled a "Historic Document," this announcement no longer provides current information (e.g. the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek is not present in the list of JSC national libraries and "the end of 2009" is given as the projected date for RDA implementation!). The Task Group suggests the need for an updated announcement on the

7

http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdaimpl.html


JSC website summarizing the national libraries' efforts to coordinate their implementation of RDA.

Part 4. Consult the PCC operations community as needed.

The Task Group did not have sufficient time to consult the PCC operations community during the course of its review. Although we began the process of framing questions on some of the thornier issues that cropped up in our deliberations and discussed how we might present them to the PCC community for feedback, we reluctantly came to the conclusion that compiling and evaluating responses would have been an impossible additional task given our short timeline. We did not want to raise expectations by asking for comments and then have to cut off discussion almost as soon as it had started (in order to wrap up and prepare our report). Although we would have appreciated hearing others' views on a variety of issues relating to the policy statements, it just wasn't a practical proposition. The release of this report to the PCC community for comment will have to suffice as a form of consultation.

Part 5. Make recommendations indicating the extent to which use of a single set of RDA Policy Statements is agreeable. For areas of disagreement, provide reasons, so that others can understand and LC staff can weigh possible reconsideration.

Task Group recommendations that affect the policy statements as a whole are presented in the "General Recommendations" section below.

Specific recommendations relating to RDA instructions that do not currently have policy statements are presented in the "RDA Instructions That Need Policy Statements" section below.

Specific recommendations relating to the individual LCPS that the Task Group reviewed are presented in the “Recommendations on Individual Policy Statements” spreadsheet in Appendix D. The rows in this spreadsheet correspond to the links in the left-hand navigation bar of the LCPS in the RDA Toolkit. The columns in the spreadsheet contain the LCPS number, the LCPS caption(s), the LCPS "practice label" (indicating whether the current policy statement was preceded by a label such as "LC practice", "PCC practice", etc.), and the Task Group's recommendation. It should be noted that the recommendations have all been presented in terms of edits needed in the existing LCPS text. This method of presentation should not be interpreted recommending a single set of combined policy statements; it was done in this way simply as a matter of convenience.

8


General Recommendations

1. Create Separate Sets of Policy Statements for LC and PCC

Recommendation: Create separate sets of policy statements, one for LC and another for PCC. If possible, make both sets of policy statements available in RDA Toolkit and Cataloger's Desktop, with links to RDA instructions. If this cannot be accomplished before implementation of RDA, make it a long-term goal.

Rationale: Coming to a recommendation on the issue of separate vs. combined policy statements was not an easy task. The Task Group identified possible benefits and drawbacks to the two different options, reviewed current procedures for maintaining the LCPS, and discussed various aspects of the relationship between LC and the PCC. Although we did not reach complete consensus, majority opinion clearly supported separate policy statements as the more desirable option.

For historical and administrative reasons, AACR2 rule interpretations for PCC cataloging have long been relegated to the LCRI where they function more or less as an appendage to LC policies. Although this placement may have made sense at the program's inception, the PCC has grown and matured in the intervening decades, attracting an international membership and developing the capacity for assuming a more independent status. The implementation of RDA presents an opportune time for breaking with the current approach to recording PCC policy as a part of LC policy.

Moving to separate policy statements would allow both LC and PCC greater freedom to tailor their policy statements to address their separate needs. Communication would still be required, and agreement would still be necessary on many issues (requiring negotiation and compromise), but perfect alignment would not be the goal. The complicated, and sometimes awkward, labeling conventions that have long been used to distinguish LC practice from PCC practice would no longer be necessary. Both sides would benefit from being able to consult documentation that was free of policy statements that do not apply to them.

PCC policy is generally flexible enough to encompass a range of acceptable practices by PCC institutions, including those of LC. It would be up to LC whether to duplicate applicable PCC policy statements in the LCPS, simply refer or link to them, reword them for an LC audience, or ignore them. Just as individual PCC institutions maintain local documentation to record their own policy decisions, so would LC continue to use the LCPS to record its local policy decisions (e.g. decisions on RDA options and alternatives that the PCC has left to cataloger judgment), provide guidance of an instructional nature for its catalogers, and provide information relating to its non-PCC and non-RDA cataloging.

The main objections expressed within the Task Group to this recommendation concern the logistics of creating, and subsequently maintaining, separate sets of policy statements. In Appendix C, the Task Group has summarized the current procedures used to maintain the LCPS in the RDA Toolkit. If PCC were to pursue a similar approach for the PCC policy statements, it would first have to determine whether ALA Publishing was willing to support the idea, given new costs that would be incurred, and then how much lead time would be required, given its existing commitments (e.g. ongoing publishing of RDA and LCPS updates, the RDA re-wording exercise, and at least three RDA translation projects). PCC would also

9


have to make decisions regarding such issues as copyright, distribution, fee/free access, and who would do the work of maintaining the PCC policy statements. The Task Group notes that the maintenance burden need not fall entirely on LC's shoulders; it would be entirely appropriate to appoint a PCC representative outside of LC to perform editorial tasks for the PCC policy statements.

Although incorporating the PCC policy statements into the RDA Toolkit (and Cataloger's Desktop), with links to/from RDA instructions, would be the ideal outcome, the Task Group notes that other scenarios are also possible. A stand-alone document could instead (or temporarily) be posted on the PCC website, the ALA website, and/or Cataloger's Desktop and each policy statement linked to its associated RDA instruction in the Toolkit. Linking instructions are provided on the RDA Toolkit site: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/userguides. The downside would be the lack of reciprocal links back from the RDA instructions to the stand-alone document and the loss of searching and other functionality currently provided in the Toolkit.

The Task Group understands that ALA Publishing has given other JSC national libraries the option to contribute their own policy statements to the RDA Toolkit. If additional sets of policy statements will be incorporated into the Toolkit, and especially if a set of PCC policy statements were to be incorporated, the Task Group recommends developing functionality that would allow specifying one's preferred set(s) in the user profile and provide for easy navigation to/from policy statements in different sets (e.g. linking from an RDA instruction to associated policy statements in different sets, as well as linking from one policy statement to other policy statements for the same RDA instruction in other sets).

Note: Recommendations 7 and 8 below address sustainability and process issues for PCC policy statements.

2. Improve and Normalize the Labeling Conventions for Policy Statements

Recommendation: If creating separate sets of policy statements cannot be accomplished before RDA implementation, or if the decision is made not to pursue the creation of separate sets of policy statements, improve and normalize the labeling conventions used in the existing LCPS. Each policy statement (or each section within a long statement), should be preceded by a label showing clearly and unambiguously the catalogers to whom it applies (LC, PCC, or both). Ideally, the sections that pertain only to one should be grouped together as much as possible

Rationale: Improved labeling of the LCPS would facilitate their use by PCC catalogers. It would also assist in long-term efforts to disentangle the policy statements, making it easier to eventually separate them into independent sets should that route be pursued. However, even if we retain a single set, consistent labeling conventions would allow PCC catalogers to retrieve all PCC policy statements using a "PCC practice" search in RDA Toolkit and might provide a way for ALA to build "program-specific" views of the LCPS into the Toolkit.

The current LCPS have extremely confusing and inconsistent labeling conventions, largely inherited from the LCRI. Some statements lack labels, some statements have ambiguous placements of labels, and some statements have labels buried within them that are easy to miss. Even if a label is presented at the very beginning of a statement, a cataloger may miss it if the statement is long, especially when jumping straight to the middle of the statement as

10


the result of a search. For example: The LCPS for 0.0 (which is 15 pages long) has an introductory sentence stating it "represents LC practice/PCC practice except where a statement is noted only as LC practice". But 11 pages later, under "Loose-Leaf Services", there are several sections marked "LC practice/PCC practice" (which seems a redundant label given the initial sentence). More importantly, because the LCPS is so long, a cataloger linking directly from the RDA Toolkit table of contents to one of the middle sections of LCPS 0.0 might not see the first sentence's explanation.

3. Include an Introduction to the Policy Statements

Recommendation: Include an "Introduction" to the policy statements that explains what they are, how they were created, how they are maintained, and which labeling conventions have been used. An introduction could also be used to confirm that catalogers should use judgment in the absence of a policy statement, to specify whether or not a policy statement has been issued for each option/alternative, and to emphasize that inclusion of any non-core element is optional, unless a policy statements declares otherwise. Logical groups to draft such an introduction would be LC's Policy and Standards Division, the PCC Standing Committee on Standards, or some combination of the two.

Rationale: Such a document would provide useful context for catalogers and increase their understanding of the policy statements.

4. Use Consistent Language for Policy Statements on RDA Options/Alternatives

Recommendation: For policy statements corresponding to RDA options and RDA alternatives, use consistent language whenever possible. Suggested phrases: "Apply the optional addition"; "Apply the optional omission"; and "Apply the alternative."

Rationale: This approach will help to minimize the time spent writing policy statements and, more importantly, minimize the potential for misinterpretation. For example, LCPS for 2.6.3.3 ("LC practice for Optional addition: Add the corresponding date in the Gregorian or Julian calendar") repeats some words from the first sentence of the optional addition but not the second sentence, leading some to think LC was only applying the first sentence in the option. That turned out not to be LC's intent. A simple "LC practice for Optional addition: Apply the optional addition" would have removed the ambiguity.

5. Avoid Duplication of Policy Statements

Recommendation: Rather than repeating the same policy statement in more than one place, give the text of the statement one time and link to it as needed from subsequent places.

Rationale: This approach will make the policy statements easier to maintain and will minimize the potential for error. One example of the types of errors that might be avoided: The text of "Determining Mode of Issuance, Situations Requiring Further Consideration" appears in both the LCPS for 0.0 and the LCPS for 2.1, but the 0.0 text has a typo in section C2 ("Catalog as monographs as monographs ...") and the 2.1 text does not.

6. Normalize Conventions for Annotating the Examples in Policy Statements

11


Recommendation: Normalize the conventions used to annotate the examples in the existing policy statements.

Rationale: A normalized approach will prevent catalogers from attributing significance to the absence of an "optional" annotation and wrongly assuming that an element is required or encouraged in a particular situation. Example: In the LCPS for 2.8.6.6, the A2 example has the annotation "Example shows optional inclusion of copyright date" but the examples in C and E1-E2 do not carry the annotation "Example shows optional inclusion of manufacture date." The inconsistent approach might cause some catalogers to think that recording the manufacture date in these situations is required or recommended practice.

7. Identify Sustainability Approach for Ongoing Review of PCC Policy Statements

Recommendation: Identify which group(s) within PCC will be responsible for ongoing monitoring of both new and changed RDA instructions and LCPS, to determine whether they represent "acceptable" PCC practice. The responsible party might be an existing group or one created expressly for this purpose.

Rationale: Because RDA and the LCPS are dynamic documents, the need for review will be ongoing.

8. Establish Procedure for Submitting PCC Policy Statement Proposals

Recommendation: Put in place a formal mechanism for PCC members to propose new policy statements and changes to existing policy statements, as well as a procedure for acting on those proposals. As part of the procedure, ensure that the ALA representative to the JSC (or at least the PCC representative to CC:DA) is kept informed of requests for PCC policy statements to help determine whether it might be more appropriate to propose changes to the underlying RDA instructions.

Rationale: No instructions currently exist for PCC members wanting to propose new policy statements or changes to existing policy statements. Providing a formal mechanism for submitting such proposals would communicate that such proposals are welcome and help to ensure that any proposals received include all the information required, are formatted in a way that can be easily acted upon, and are directed to the appropriate person(s). CC:DA has a clear mechanism in place for making recommendations for revisions to RDA itself; the PCC needs something comparable to “How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA.”

The Task Group did discover a BIBCO FAQ (one of hundreds of documents linked from a BIBCO "Archived Documents" page) that provides guidance on proposing changes to Library of Congress Rule Interpretations for AACR2: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/faqgen.html#4

4. Is it possible to propose additions to the LCRIs to clarify what is PCC practice vs what is LC practice?

Yes. When it is not clear what the PCC practice to be followed is or if there is a perceived need to harmonize PCC and LC practice,suggested changes to an LCRI may be sent to the BIBCO Coordinator or to either the chairs of the SCS or the SCT. These will be forwarded to LC's Policy and Standards Division for consideration.

12

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/faqgen.html#4


The Task Group suggests that the placement of the new procedure for proposing PCC policy statements for RDA not be limited to a BIBCO FAQ, given that proposals might originate in any PCC program, and notes that it seems more appropriate for proposals to be submitted to a PCC group for review rather than forwarded directly to LC's Policy and Standards Division for consideration.

13


Rejected General Recommendations

1. Provide a Policy Statement for Each RDA Option/Alternative

Proposal: We considered but rejected the idea that a policy statement needs to be provided for each option/alternative in RDA.

Rationale: In the absence of a policy statement, cataloger's judgment is the implicit default. Having to add "Cataloger's judgment" policy statements unnecessarily would create a lot of extra work for those who maintain the file. It also wastes the cataloger's time to click on an icon for a policy statement only to discover the statement adds nothing useful to the RDA text. A policy statement is necessary if the policy decision is "apply" or "don't apply" or "apply in this particular way if you're applying" but not if it is simply "Cataloger's judgment; apply if you wish."

2. Provide a "PCC Practice" Policy Statement for Each "LC Practice" Policy Statement

Proposal: We considered but rejected the idea that a "PCC practice" policy statement needs to be provided whenever an "LC practice" policy statement is present.

Rationale: The absence of a "PCC practice" policy statement should be sufficient to signal to a PCC cataloger that judgment can be used in applying the RDA instruction and there is no obligation to follow the "LC practice" policy statement.

14


RDA Instructions That Need Policy Statements

The following list contains recommendations relating to RDA instructions that the Task Group thought should have policy statements, but currently do not. It should be emphasized that the Task Group made no attempt to systematically review all RDA instructions without policy statements in order to identify possible gaps. This list simply contains the handful of omissions that we happened to notice during our review of the existing policy statements.

RDA Core Elements Lists

Recommendation: Add multiple policy statements (labeled appropriately) that will supplement the existing lists of core elements in RDA with lists of the additional elements designated as core for LC, PCC, and LC/PCC. For example, create a policy statement for 0.6.2 that provides a list of the additional elements designated as core for "Recording Attributes of Manifestation and Item." At 1.3, create a policy statement that links back to the list in LCPS for 0.6.2, rather repeating the list a second time. Follow this same pattern for the lists of core elements at 0.6.3 (Recording Attributes of Work and Expression), 0.6.4 (Recording Attributes of Person, Family, and Corporate Body), etc.

RDA 0.11.2 Language and Script

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled appropriately) that states the preferred language and script of the agency (i.e. the agency in this case being LC and/or PCC). Ideally, the statement would only need to be made once at 0.11.2 and would cover all places where agency preferences for language and script apply. For LC, the preferred language is English and the preferred script is the Latin script. For the PCC, the situation is less clear. For NACO and SACO participants, the preferred language and script would also seem to be English and the Latin script. For BIBCO and CONSER participants, the Task Group could find no policies on the PCC website that address the question. It was noted that Library and Archives Canada contributes French-language catalog records to CONSER. When a Canadian imprint is issued only in French, it is the only record. When a Canadian imprint is bilingual, separate English- and French-language catalog records are created. OCLC policy allows for parallel records within WorldCat by language of cataloging.

RDA 0.11.4 Dates

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled "LC practice/PCC practice") that states the preferred calendar of the agency is Gregorian (i.e. the agency in this case being LC/PCC). Ideally, the statement would only need to be made once at 0.11.4 and would cover all places where agency preferences for calendar apply.

RDA 2.3.1.4 Recording Titles

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled "LC practice/PCC practice") that discourages abridgement of the title proper, but provides enough leeway to permit abridgement of an exceedingly long title proper (the word "generally" should provide the desired flexibility):

LC practice/PCC practice for Optional omission: Generally do not abridge a title proper."

15


RDA 2.3.1.6 Introductory Words, Etc.

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled "LC practice/PCC practice") to avoid the appearance of a contradiction with LCPS for 6.2.2.8; it should give a variation on the first sentence of that LCPS:

LC practice/PCC practice: Do not routinely omit an introductory phrase ("Here beginneth ...") or a statement of responsibility at the beginning of the title proper when deciding whether words that serve as an introduction are intended to be part of the title.

RDA 2.8.1.5 Recording Changes in Publication Statements

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled "LC practice/PCC practice") that repeats the gist of LCPS for 2.8.2; there's nothing in 2.8.1.5.1 or 2.8.1.5.2 that allows for anything other than notes to be given (which LCPS for 2.8.2 is clearly contradicting).

RDA 2.20 Note on Manifestation or Item

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled “CORE ELEMENT FOR LC”) at the element level that indicates coreness for two element sub-types: 2.20.2 (Note on Title) and 2.20.13 (Note on Issue, Part, or Iteration Used as the Basis for Identification of the Resource). Note: Each of these sub-types already has an LCPS indicating it is core for LC.

RDA 3.4.5 Extent of Text

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled "PCC practice") for the "Exceptions" for early printed resources in 3.4.5. The policy statement would specify use of Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM) conventions when recording extent for early printed resources, thereby allowing the use of square brackets for unnumbered sequences. The conventions for cataloging rare materials have long called for recording all sequences of unnumbered pages, which means 3.4.5.3 (unnumbered pages) might be invoked numerous times within a single extent statement, producing extremely unwieldy and unreadable statements of extent; the same applies to 3.4.5.5 (misleading numbering). The Task Group recommends adding a PCC policy statement at each of the 3.4.5 exceptions for early printed resources (or perhaps just once at the beginning of 3.4.5). Suggested wording:

PCC practice: Apply Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM) conventions when recording the extent of an early printed resource.

RDA 4.0 Purpose and Scope

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled appropriately) that makes it clear that PCC records should only include data that applies to the community as a whole. This is a chapter where the temptation to supply copy-specific data could be quite strong.

RDA 6.27.4.1 Variant Access Point Representing a Work or Expression

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled "LC practice/PCC practice"), based on LCPS for 6.28.4, that explicitly addresses misattributions. Although the Aristotle example

16


shows a variant access point for a misattributed work, it appears under the general instruction to "Construct additional variant access points if considered important for access." A new policy statement, covering variant access points for all types of misattributed works, would perhaps allow us to delete the music-specific policy statement at 6.28.4. In addition, although RDA 6.27.1.8 (Works of Uncertain or Unknown Origin) already covers the construction of authorized access points for misattributed works, there is no example to illustrate the situation in the second paragraph. We recommend proposing one to the JSC via the "Fast Track" process, for example:

100 1# $a Caravaggio, Michelangelo Merisi da, $d 1573-1610. $t Taking of Christ400 1# $a Honthorst, Gerrit van, $d 1590-1656. $t Taking of Christ

RDA 7.4 Coordinates of Cartographic Content

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled “CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC”) at the element level that indicates coreness for element sub-type 7.4.2 (Longitude and Latitude). Note: The sub-type already has an LCPS indicating it is core for LC (and we have recommended it be core for LC/PCC).

RDA 7.13.2 Script

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled “CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC”) at the element sub-type level that reflects the text of LCPS for 7.13.2.3. Note: The core statement currently appears only at the element level (7.13 Form of Notation); it needs to also appear at the sub-type level. The PCC Task Group on RDA and the BIBCO Standard Record for Textual Monographs is also recommending that 7.13.2 (Script) be considered core.

RDA 7.13.3 Form of Musical Notation

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled “CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC”) at the element sub-type level. Note: The core statement currently appears only given at the element level (7.13 Form of Notation); it needs to also appear at the sub-type level.

RDA I.1 General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators

Recommendation: Add a policy statement (labeled "PCC practice") that addresses the use of relationship designators. Suggested wording:

PCC practice: Apply cataloger judgment. Identify the relationship of persons, families, and corporate bodies to resources through the addition of relationship designators. Prefer terms from this appendix or other standard controlled vocabulary lists, such as MARC relator terms. Propose new terms as needed to RDA or standard lists. Codes taken from standard lists (such as MARC relator codes) may be used instead of terms.

The Task Group felt strongly that the use of relationship designators should be allowed, even encouraged, in both BIBCO and CONSER records, given their importance in a linked data environment. Currently, CONSER documentation allows relator codes, but not relator terms (except for rare serials). There is no mention of relator codes/terms in the BIBCO Manual or the BIBCO Standard Record Metadata Application Profiles, but they are being used by both LC and PCC in the cataloging of certain types of resources. Some in the group were uncertain about the use of relator codes, given that many systems do not display them

17


properly. There are no codes in the RDA appendices, only terms. Unfortunately, there are no MARC subfields to indicate which term/code list is being used in the MARC field. As we move closer to a linked data environment, a vocabulary-specific URI for a term is the most likely way a relationship designator will be represented.

18


Appendix A: RDA Implementation Calendar/Dependencies

The Task Group has identified the following five major tasks for the PCC RDA implementation calendar:

Decide whether to create separate set of PCC policy statements. If the decision is made to create a separate set, decide where to publish it and who will create/maintain it.

Finalize policy decisions and complete revision of the LC/PCC policy statements. Implement policy decisions that will affect conversion of the LC/NACO Authority

File. Implement procedures for ongoing maintenance and development of PCC policy

statements. Update RDA training materials to reflect changes in policy.

We have entered the tasks, and their associated dependencies, into the template provided by the PCC Secretariat, giving each task a separate template. We confirmed with the Secretariat that “Day One” in the template means "PCC Day One for RDA Authority Records" (March 31, 2013). Conveniently, this date also happens to represent "LC Day One for RDA Bibliographic Records".

We have recommended that these tasks be started and completed as soon as possible, given their time-consuming nature, but a more specific and realistic timeline will need to be determined once various decisions have been made regarding our recommendations. Some tasks might be given priority over others or might need to be completed in a particular order. We did not find it appropriate to assign responsibility for the tasks to specific persons or groups; we have left such decisions for those within LC and PCC who have the authority to make them.

19


Name of Task: Decide whether to create separate set of PCC policy statements. If the decision is made to create a separate set, decide where to publish it and who will create/maintain it.

Notes: Complete a separate template for each major high level task. Critical show stopping dependencies are defined as any major or minor task that must be

completed before the task named on this form can be completed.Instructions:

Record the following elements in the table rows below: 1. Time period by which task must start and end before day one: Follow start and end task

numerals by months, weeks, or days 2. Who is charged with Task 3. Critical show stopping dependencies 4. Name of individual or group that submitted this template

Time PeriodTask must be started how long before day one? As soon as possible.

Task must be completed how long before day one? As soon as possible.

Responsibility

Task assigned to: ?

Dependencies

Critical show stopping dependencies

1) Discuss with ALA Publishing the feasibility of publishing a separate set of PCC Policy Statements in RDA Toolkit, the lead time needed to accomplish the task, and issues such as copyright, distribution, fee/free access.

2) If the decision is made to create a separate set, decide where it will be published and task the appropriate person(s)/group with creating and maintaining it.

Group or person submitting:PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group

Additional comments:

None.

20


Name of Task: Finalize policy decisions and complete revision of the LC/PCC policy statements.


completed before the task named on this form can be completed.Instructions:





Responsibility

Task assigned to: ?

Dependencies


1) Make decisions on recommendations in RDA Policy Statements Task Group report (both the general recommendations on editorial style and the specific recommendations on individual policy statements).

2) Invite specialist communities to review LCPS sections (e.g. OLAC to review LCPS for 6.27.1.9, Appendix 1, and the Dance Heritage Coalition to review LCPS for 6.27.1.9, Choreographic Works and Expressions). Make decisions on those recommendations.

3) Task an appropriate group to review those LCPS not addressed in RDA Policy Statements Task Group report. Complete the review. Make decisions on those recommendations.

4) Task an appropriate group to review those RDA instructions that don't currently have policy statements (and were not addressed in RDA Policy Statements Task Group report) to see if additional PCC policy statements are needed. Complete the review. Make decisions on those recommendations.

5) Perform all the necessary editorial work.

6) Write the Introduction(s) to the policy statements.

Group or person submitting:

PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group


None.

21


Name of Task: Implement policy decisions that will affect conversion of the LC/NACO Authority File.


completed before the task named on this form can be completed.

Instructions:





Responsibility

Task assigned to: ?

Dependencies


1) Determine which policy decisions have ramifications for the authority file conversion.

2) Determine whether any changes are needed to the NACO normalization rules (e.g. whether hyphens in 100 $d need to be retained during normalization).

Group or person submitting:

PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group


None.

22


Name of Task: Implement procedures for ongoing maintenance and development of PCC policy statements.



Instructions:





Responsibility

Task assigned to: ?

Dependencies


1) Task appropriate persons/groups to monitor ongoing new/changed RDA instructions and new/changed LCPS and recommend PCC policy decisions (beginning with April 2012 update).

2) Put in place formal mechanism for PCC members to propose new policy statements and changes to existing policy statements, as well as a procedure for acting on those proposals.



None.

23


Name of Task: Update RDA training materials to reflect changes in policy.



Instructions:





Responsibility

Task assigned to: ?

Dependencies


1) Policies must first be approved.

2) Editorial work must be completed (if will be citing actual number and/or text)



None.

24


Appendix B: Revision of PCC RDA Frequently Asked Questions

Questions 5.1 and 5.2, in the "PCC Policy Decisions" section of the PCC RDA FAQ will need revision: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-RDA-FAQ.html. The nature of the revisions will depend on how the PCC responds to the Task Group's recommendations and when the revisions are made. Certainly the final paragraph in 5.1 will need to be updated to show that the Task Group has submitted its final report. The existing text of 5.1 and 5.2 (accessed March 4, 2012) is included below:

5.1 Can my PCC member institution use the Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPSs) for RDA cataloging?

Yes.

LC maintains current information about the availability of LCPS at: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/lcps_access.html. PCC institutions are free to follow these policy statements if they wish.

The RDA Policy Statements Task Group formed in 2012 includes representation from LC and other PCC members. The group is charged to review the latest set of RDA Policy Statements developed by the Policy & Standards Division at the Library of Congress. The group will make recommendations indicating the extent to which use of a single set of RDA Policy Statements is agreeable.

5.2 Are there PCC policy decisions on applying RDA options and choosing or recommending among those options?

PCC policy decisions are being developed.

The PCC RDA Decisions Needed Task Group prioritized the decisions needed for implementation of RDA by the PCC and assigned appropriate groups to make recommendations for decisions and options.

Although not required information for this Appendix, the Task Group notes that LC's RDA Transition FAQ also needs updating: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/pdf/rdaprep_faq_june21.pdf. Questions 7 and 14-16 are especially relevant to the work of this Task Group. The text of these four questions (last revised June 21, 2011) is included below:

7. When will the British Library, Library and Archives Canada, and the National Library of Australia implement RDA? We sometimes use their records for copy cataloging and would like to know what to expect.

In 2007, the British Library, Library and Archives Canada, the Library of Congress, and the National Library of Australia agreed on a coordinated implementation of RDA: Resource Description and Access. To ensure a smooth transition to RDA, the four national libraries will work together where possible on implementation matters such as training, documentation and any national application decisions.

The best source for information will be the announcements from the institutions involved as they consider the implications of the U.S. recommendations. Here is what is available now, but more information will be added in the future:

Library and Archives Canada: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cataloguing-standards/040006-1107-e.html

National Library of Australia and the Australian Committee on Cataloguing: http://www.nla.gov.au/lis/stndrds/grps/acoc/rda.html

25

http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/pdf/rdaprep_faq_june21.pdf

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-RDA-FAQ.html


14. What documentation on using RDA will be available beyond RDA itself?

LC will work with the PCC to update documentation on a priority basis, including the Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPSs) and other program documentation such as provider neutral guidelines, LC/PCC practice documentation for name authorities (i.e., the Descriptive Cataloging Manual Z1 and the LC Guidelines Supplement to the MARC 21 formats), and the standard record metadata application profiles.

15. What are the Library of Congress Policy Statements, and where can I see them?

The LCPSs are policy and practice decisions for RDA, much like the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs) were for AACR2. The LCPSs were designed to record LC’s cataloging decisions for use during the U.S. RDA test by LC catalogers, although catalogers at some other test institutions followed them as well. They were used to express policies on such things as:

• additional RDA elements to be considered as “core” for LC;• LC decisions on some optional additions, optional omissions, and alternatives;• LC practice for instructions referring to “agency …” decisions;• LC practice for some instructions in RDA with “or” clauses;• Some additional guidelines that provided more detail or examples, especially as related to MARC 21 coding.

The lack of an LCPS indicates that catalogers should use their own judgment in applying the RDA instructions. LC will be reviewing and revising the LCPSs as necessary, informed by the experiences of RDA testers and their comments made during the test and in collaboration with the Program for Cooperative Cataloging.

The LCPSs are available free in the RDA Toolkit (see the “References” tab in the toolkit)—the LCPSs can be accessed even if you don’t have a subscription to the Toolkit (http://access.rdatoolkit.org), although Toolkit subscribers will also be able to link back and forth between the LCPSs and the RDA text. The LCPSs are also available as part of Cataloger’s Desktop, where they are fully linked to other useful resources, including RDA if you have a subscription to RDA.

The documentation site for the U.S. RDA Test also has PDF versions of the LCPSs, but note that the embedded links are not active: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rda_lcps.html .

16. Will other cataloging agencies issue their own policy decisions on RDA core elements, options, alternatives, etc.?

The LCPSs were designed for use by LC catalogers during the U.S. RDA Test, but anyone else may choose to follow them if they like; by extension, other libraries are not required to follow them.

LC hopes to coordinate with the PCC so that joint decisions are made whenever possible, and the policies will be reviewed and rewritten as necessary based on input from the PCC, as well as the analysis of the comments made by RDA testers during the U.S. RDA test.

The national libraries represented on the Joint Steering Committee (British Library, Library and Archives Canada, Library of Congress, and National Library of Australia) are planning to align their policy statements whenever possible, to minimize the differences in practice. The libraries have already begun analyzing the decisions made by LC during the test, and will have further discussions at the next JSC meeting in November 2011 about any differences in policies and how to reflect them in the RDA Toolkit or other documentation.

26


Appendix C: Summary of Current Maintenance Procedures for the LCPS

The "master" version of the LCPS resides in the RDA Toolkit. All revisions to the LCPS are made by authorized LC staff using the RDA Toolkit's content authoring system.

An ALA Publishing contractor first had to convert the original Word documents to XML, a major task that required significant proofreading. The contractor now manages the maintenance process using "Smart Sheet" software, which provides a user-friendly interface to the underlying XML data. The authorized editor must "check out" the chapters to be worked on, make the desired changes in a parallel editing space, then "check in" the revised chapters. The changes are made in Microsoft Word, but in a special context that preserves the underlying XML. The content is presented in table format and a single policy statement might have dozens of rows in the table. Making the revisions involves copying a column of existing text into a new column and editing it there. The ALA Publishing contractor harvests the LCPS revisions according to a set schedule, ensures that the underlying XML is valid, and then publishes the update.

The current schedule calls for content updates to take place eight months out of the year. The turnaround time will normally be one month but can be two months if the release will also involve RDA content changes. Any of the releases can incorporate minor changes to RDA, such as typo fixes and revisions submitted through the "Fast Track" process. Two months out of the year (April and October) are reserved for RDA revisions generated by the constituency proposal process.

LC's Cataloging and Distribution Service is a licensee of the RDA Toolkit content. They receive the updated data directly from ALA Publishing and incorporate the XML feed for indexing and display in Cataloger's Desktop. ALA Publishing has established a "staging site" for content licensees where they can pick up the updated content slightly ahead of the Toolkit release update, thus allowing each to "go live" with the same content on the same day.

27


Appendix D: Recommendations on Individual Policy Statements

LCPS LCPS Section LCPS Subsection LCPS Practice Label Task Group Recommendation0. IntroductionLCPS for 0.0 Purpose and Scope

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit)

-Move the entire LCPS for 0.0 to more appropriate places (1.6 and 2.13); this LCPS has nothing to do with the RDA instruction (Purpose and Scope of RDA) and much of it exactly duplicates the LCPS for 2.1 (which could be deleted). -Move to the "Determining Mode of Issuance" sections to create an additional policy statement at 2.13 (Mode of Issuance) and delete the duplicate text in LCPS for 2.1.-Move the "Determining Number of Records" sections to create a new policy statement at 1.6 (Changes Requiring a New Description) and delete the duplicate text in LCPS for 2.1.-Delete introductory sentence in favor of labeling each section explicitly-Group "LC practice" sections together as much as possible.-PCC should evaluate whether there is a continued need for this level of consistency, given that much of this LCPS derives from past requests by PCC programs. Many task group members find the entire LCPS for 0.0 unnecessarily prescriptive and would prefer to leave more of these types of decisions to cataloger judgment. Giving PCC institutions a choice in deciding whether or not to analyze a serial could be especially useful in cases where each component part of a serial bears its own ISBN.

LCPS for 0.0 Purpose and Scope

Determining Mode of Issuance

Mode of Issuance: Integrating Resource?

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 0.0)

-Move; see above.-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"



Mode of Issuance: Monograph vs. Serial



28




Situations Requiring Further Consideration

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 0.0); LC practice: sections C, F, G

-Move; see above.-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep existing "LC practice" labels in sections C, F, and G)-Group C, F, and G at the end of the list, so that all LC practice is presented together.-Fix typo in C2: "Catalog as monographs as monographs ..."



Change in Cataloging Decision: Monograph/Serial

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 0.0); LC practice: final par.

-Move; see above.-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep existing "LC practice" label on final par.)


Determining Number of Records

Edition or Copy of Book





Supplementary Materials

LC practice -Move; see above.-Keep existing label giving LC practice



Serial Supplements to Other Serials





Indexes to Serials LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 0.0)




Serial Cumulations LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 0.0)




Serials Issued in Parts





Reprinted Issues of Non-Newspaper Serials

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 0.0); LC practice: penultimate par.

-Move; see above.-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep existing "LC practice" label on penultimate par.)



Newspapers LC practice -Move; see above.-Keep existing label giving LC practice

LCPS for 0.0 Purpose and

Determining Number of

Loose-Leaf Services LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see

-Move; see above.-Make all labels explicit.

29


Scope Records start of LCPS 0.0); some sections also have explicit labels (LC practice/PCC practice; PCC practice)

-Add a definition of ""transfer volume"" as a new LCPS for the Glossary

LCPS for 0.2 Relationship to Other Standards for Resource Description and Access

LC practice no change

LCPS for 0.6.3 Section 2: Recording Attributes of Work and Expression

LC practice -1st part: -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" after rewording to avoid suggesting that all identifying elements that have been recorded must be added to the authorized access point. In our current implementation scenario, elements being recorded to break a conflict must be recorded as additions to the authorized access point. They may also be recorded as separate elements within the authority record (as may identifying elements not needed in the authorized access point).

-2nd part: -Leave as LC practice; do not adopt for PCC-Note: TG members felt strongly that PCC catalogers should be allowed to differentiate among expressions. The LCPS appears to contradict RDA 6.27.3 which explicitly says to add terms “as applicable” from a list; the list refers back to 6.9-6.12, which designate these elements as core if needed to distinguish one expression from another. -Note: Might accept optionally allowing PCC catalogers to apply the LC policy (which is AACR2 uniform title practice), but if PCC policy actually stops catalogers from applying RDA that is going too far.

LCPS for 0.6.4 Section 3: Recording Attributes of Person, Family,

LC practice Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" after rewording to avoid suggesting that all identifying elements that have been recorded must be added to the authorized access point. In our current implementation scenario, elements being recorded to break a conflict must be recorded as additions

30


and Corporate Body

to the authorized access point. They may also be recorded as separate elements within the authority record (as may identifying elements not needed in the authorized access point).

LCPS for 0.8 Alternatives and Options

none Label as "LC practice"-Note: This change is already scheduled for the April 2012 release.

LCPS for 0.9 Exceptions

none Label as "LC practice"-Note: This change is already scheduled for the April 2012 release.

LCPS for 0.12 Encoding RDA Data

LC practice -Keep as "LC practice" but create a "PCC practice" equivalent for the substantive points (omitting the LC administrative details)-Recommend that PCC submit new term proposals for the RDA vocabulary lists to the PCC representative to CC:DA for possible proposal to the JSC to be considered for inclusion in RDA.

1. General Guidelines on Recording Attributes of Manifestations and ItemsLCPS for 1.4 Language and Script

Font Features none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for 1.4 Language and Script

Pre-Modern Forms of Letters

none; PCC practice: 1 sentence in i/j instructions.

-Resolution needed (access points affected)-Both here and in LCPS for 6.2.2.8, there appears to be no rationale for the differences in practice between the u/v/w group (normalize for post-1800 transcription and for all access points) and the i/j group (don't normalize for post-1800 transcription or for series uniform titles; do normalize for other access points). The TG also notes that PCC should be able to set policies for series uniform titles, as LC does not create them, and LCPS for 6.2.2.8 has an inexplicable 1800 date cutoff for series uniform titles that is not (clearly?) expressed in LCPS for 1.4.-Recommend simplifying policy by always normalizing i/j/u/v/w in access points and in transcription of post-1800 materials. Transcription of pre-1801 materials would follow DCRM(B), as the policy currently states.-If keep existing text: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep "PCC practice" label for series tracings); for

31


clarity, insert new text: "Also regularize u/v, uu, or vv/w for publications of any date when recording elements [that are not transcribed]"; delete "the" in this sentence: "Follow this stipulation also for authorized access points for the series titles."; insert new text: "For anything else, such as [other] authorized access points, citations from reference sources, etc."


Characters That Cannot Be Reproduced by the Facilities Available

none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"



Super/Subscript Characters




Greek and Other Non-Latin Script Letters, Ideographs, Etc.

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Because the LCPS conflicts so markedly with RDA instructions, re-examine wording to see if improvements can be made to minimize the potential for confusion.-Note: Reported to ALA Publishing contractor: HTML displays an extraneous space before the hyphens in the 880 $6 examples that is not present in the underlying XML.



Special Marks of Contraction in the Manuscript Tradition




Special Letters, Diacritical Marks, and Punctuation Marks


LCPS for 1.4 Option

LC practice for Optional addition

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition"-Re-examine wording to see if improvements can be made (e.g. the words "also romanize" are confusing given that the main LCPS for 1.4 has already told us to romanize).-Note: Reported to ALA Publishing contractor: In RDA, the Option comes after the First Alternative; in the LCPS, they

32


are reversed.LCPS for 1.4 First Alternative

LC practice for Alternative (1st)

-no change to existing text giving LC practice-Add a new policy statement labeled "PCC Practice for Alternative (1st)" that restricts CONSER records to these scripts (but does not require them) and permits (but does not require) BIBCO records to contain any scripts that can be entered in OCLC, SkyRiver, etc.-Because the LCPS conflicts so markedly with RDA instructions, re-examine wording to see if improvements can be made to minimize the potential for confusion.-Note: "PCC Guidelines for Creating Bibliographic Records in Multiple Character sets" says: "The guidelines apply to the scripts/languages which are represented by the current MARC-8 repertoire of UTF-8 ... Although PCC-BIBCO records can currently also include text in other scripts that can be entered in OCLC but are outside of the MARC-8 repertoire, NACO, SACO and CONSER records cannot."-Note: Reported to ALA Publishing contractor: In RDA, the First Alternative comes before the Option; in the LCPS, they are reversed.

LCPS for 1.5.1 Different Ways of Describing a Resource


LCPS for 1.5.2 Comprehensive Description

Supplementary Materials


LCPS for 1.5.3 Analytical Description



Analytical Descriptions for "Bound Together" Resources


LCPS for 1.5.4 Hierarchical Description

LC practice for general cataloging

Label as "LC practice for general cataloging/PCC practice"

33


LCPS for 1.6.1.2 Change in Media Type of a Multipart Monograph


LCPS for 1.6.2 Serials

LC practice/PCC practice

no change

LCPS for 1.6.2.2 Change in Media Type of a Serial

Variation in Media Type


LCPS for 1.6.2.2 Change in Media Type of a Serial

Change in Carrier Type


LCPS for 1.6.3.2 Change in Media Type of an Integrating Resource


LCPS for 1.6.3.3 Re-basing of an Integrating Resource


no change

LCPS for 1.7.1 General Guidelines on Transcription

Introduction none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"


Access Points in Name Authority and Bibliographic Records (General)

none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" after changing "American-style double quotation marks" to "double quotation marks" in 1e)


Access Points for Persons in Name Authority and Bibliographic Records


34



Access Points for Corporate Names, Including Meetings, in Name Authority and Bibliographic Records

none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" after changing "American-style double quotation marks" to "double quotation marks" in 1.


Bibliographic Linking Entries

noneLC practice: last par.

Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep final par. as "LC practice")


Punctuation at the End of MARC Fields 245, 246-247, 250, 260, 300, 310/321, 362, 490

noneLC practice/CONSER practice: some sections

Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"


Punctuation in Subfields $3 in MARC Fields 260, 490

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" after adding text to specify that the $3 should come at the beginning of the subfield.-Note: Subfield order has been specified elsewhere in LCPS 1.7.1 for other subfields. Example: "When subfield $i for relationship designator is used, it is the first subfield, the first word is capitalized, and the subfield ends with acolon."


Punctuation in Subfield $x in MARC 8XX Fields



Punctuation in Notes

noneLC practice/CONSER practice: embedded in #2 text.


LCPS for 1.7.1 General Guidelines on

LC Practice/CONSER Practice for

none (label incorporated into section name itself)

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: Currently, the "label" is incorporated into the name of the section; rename the section "Temporary/Uncertain

35


Transcription Temporary/Uncertain Data

Data," move the label to within the body of the LCPS (as with other LCPS), and change label to "LC Practice/PCC Practice" (not "LC Practice/CONSER Practice") because we recommend for BIBCO as well.

LCPS for 1.7.1 First Alternative


-no change to existing text giving LC practice-Add new text: "PCC practice for Alternative (1st): Do not apply the alternative."-Note: The LCPS constitutes "in house guidelines" for LC catalogers. For capitalization, it says to either follow Appendix A or to take what is on the resource. To ensure readability and ease of use, the TG prefers that PCC records follow Appendix A for capitalization. The designers of a resource make choices about capitalization in conjunction with choices about other design elements (such as color, type size, and font choice); without the context of these other design elements, the capitalization will not necessarily be user-friendly (e.g. some words will be in all caps). The TG is willing to accept capitalization found in data derived from digital sources as a necessary compromise (see 1.7.1, 2nd alternative).-Note: If this recommendation is accepted, it would seem to mean that LC records that use the capitalization found in the resource could not be coded as PCC (unless the data was derived from a digital source).

LCPS for 1.7.1 Second Alternative

LC practice for Alternative (2nd)

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (2nd)"-Insert "Generally" and "any" and replace "nearly" with "closely" so sentence reads: "Generally accept data derived from digital sources (e.g., ONIX data for CIP resources); make any adjustments to the supplied information judged appropriate (e.g., to reflect more closely the data provided in a CIP galley)."-Note: These changes are already scheduled for April 2012 release; some additional changes are also scheduled that will make the language of the LCPS more LC-centric, so it will need to be re-examined.-Note: The above text represents a compromise. Ideally, the TG would like PCC policy to be less restrictive than this statement implies. If a cataloger ingesting data from a digital source would like to make the capitalization conform to Appendix A, it should be permitted (though not required).

36


Also, the TG disagrees with the guidelines in the PCC Hybrid Record Task Group's final report to "accept capitalization found in the record, unless egregiously wrong". If a cataloger finds an RDA record that somebody else has cataloged under the Second Alternative (ingesting a title in all caps, for example) and the cataloger would like to edit the record to make the capitalization conform to Appendix A, that should be permitted (though not required).

LCPS for 1.7.5 Symbols

none -"Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Delete space after the dash in the transcribed version of “Yell- O pages” and before the double underscored “c” in the 50¢ example. [note: This change is already scheduled for April 2012 release].

LCPS for 1.8.1 Alternative

LC practice for Alternative

Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative"



-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (1st)"-Note: RDA 24.6.1.3 says to look to 1.8 for guidance on how to record series numbering in the access point. So, accepting this Alternative means that we would be allowing roman numerals, etc., in the series access point if that is what appears on the source. This would be a change from current practice. -Recommend adding a "PCC practice" policy statement at LCPS for 24.6 that says: "For already established series, do not retrospectively change the numbering in the series authority record (642 field) from arabic to roman numerals and do not use roman numerals in the authorized access point (8xx $v). Only apply the general guidelines on numbers expressed as numerals or as words given under 1.8 when establishing new series."



-no change to label-Do not make this PCC practice. Reason: Prefer catalogers use judgment on whether to add equivalents in square brackets in PCC records.

37


LCPS for 1.8.5 Ordinal Numerals

LC practice -Resolution needed (affects access points)-Do not make this PCC practice. Reason: PCC should follow RDA and respect the ordinal numbering convention of the language used in the resource. -Note: Because this policy also affects access points (e.g. 24.6.1.3 refers back to 1.8.1, which itself refers to 1.8.5.), additional discussion between LC and PCC is needed.



-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (1st)"-For consistency (see LCPS for 1.8.2, Second alternative), change to "Do not apply the alternative."



-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (2nd)"-Insert "Generally" and "any" and replace "nearly" with "closely" so sentence reads: "Generally accept data derived from digital sources (e.g., ONIX data for CIP resources); make any adjustments to the supplied information judged appropriate (e.g., to reflect more closely the data provided in a CIP galley)."-Note: The above text represents a compromise. Ideally, the TG would like PCC policy to be less restrictive than this statement implies. If a cataloger ingesting data from a digital source would like to make the capitalization conform to Appendix A, it should be permitted (though not required). Also, the TG disagrees with the guidelines in the PCC Hybrid Record Task Group's final report to "accept capitalization found in the record, unless egregiously wrong". If a cataloger finds an RDA record that somebody else has cataloged under the Second Alternative (ingesting a title in all caps, for example) and the cataloger would like to edit the record to make the capitalization conform to Appendix A, that should be permitted (though not required).

2. Identifying Manifestations and ItemsLCPS for 2.1 Basis for Identification of the Resource

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit)

Delete; see comments under LCPS for 0.0

LCPS for 2.1 Basis for Identification of the Resource

Mode of Issuance: Integrating Resource?



38



Mode of Issuance: Monograph vs. Serial




Situations Requiring Further Consideration

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 2.1; LC practice: sections C, F, G)



Edition or Copy of Book




Change in Cataloging Decision: Monograph/Serial

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 2.1; LC practice: final par.)


LCPS for 2.1.2.3 Resource Issued in More Than One Part

First Issue none; LC practice: final par.

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep final par. as "LC practice)

LCPS for 2.1.2.3 Resource Issued in More Than One Part

Electronic Serials That Don't Retain Earlier Titles/Creators





Monographic Series/Multipart Monograph: Title Lacking or Dependent Title


LCPS for 2.2.2 Preferred Source of Information

Serials: Retrospective Cataloging


no change

39


LCPS for 2.2.2.2 Resources Consisting of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards (or Images of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards)


LCPS for 2.2.2.2 Alternative


no change; the LCPS reflects a local LC situation (easy access to microform readers, but restrictions regarding installing, mounting, etc., software on computers).

LCPS for 2.2.4 Other Sources of Information

LC practice Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for 2.2.4 Other Sources of Information

CIP Cataloging none -Label as "LC practice"

LCPS for 2.3.1.7 Titles of Parts, Sections, and Supplements



LCPS for 2.3.2.3 Facsimiles and Reproductions


LCPS for 2.3.2.6 Second Option

LC practice for Optional addition (2nd)

no change

LCPS for 2.3.2.7 Recording the Title Proper

Nonfiling Characters

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The policy statement is somewhat out of place here (it does not concern *recording* titles). It could be moved (e.g. under 0.12 “Encoding RDA Data”), but that placement might effectively hide it. The 2.3.2.7 placement is at least associated with a title proper instruction; unlike chapters 6,

40


9, and 11, this chapter has no specific instructions related to initial articles.

LCPS for 2.3.2.7 Recording the Title Proper









LCPS for 2.3.2.13 Major and Minor Changes in the Title Proper of Serials

Application LC practice/PCC practice

no change


General Guidelines

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 2.3.2.13; PCC only: 2nd par.)

Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep 2nd par. as "PCC practice")


Minor Change Categories in RDA 2.3.2.13.2

LC practice/PCC practice (implicit; see start of LCPS 2.3.2.13)



Additional Minor Change Categories

LC practice/PCC practice: #1; LC practice: #2


41


LCPS for 2.3.2.13.1 Major Changes

Additional Conditions for New Authorized Access Point: Omission/Addition of Main Series

PCC practice -Make it clearer that this policy statement concerns situations involving main series and *subseries* (the current wording only mentions "main series"; "subseries" is merely implied).-"Main series" appears in the RDA glossary entry for "subseries" but doesn't have its own glossary definition. Recommend adding "Main series" to the RDA glossary; if proposal is rejected, add as LC/PCC policy statement for Glossary.

LCPS for 2.3.3 Parallel Title Proper

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Note: the "RDA and the BIBCO Standard Record for Textual Monographs TG" is recommending this element be core.-Note: leave final decision for CONSER records to the "CONSER Standard Record RDA Core Elements TG"; CONSER currently records the element, but in the 246 field rather than 245$b.

LCPS for 2.3.4 Other Title Information

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Note: leave final decision for CONSER records to the "CONSER Standard Record RDA Core Elements TG"

LCPS for 2.3.4.3 Recording Other Title Information

Section Title none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for 2.3.6.3 Recording Variant Titles

Recording Variant Titles in the MARC Record

none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (except for final sentence)-Label final sentence as "LC practice" because it refers to the remaining sections in LCPS for 2.3.6.3 (assuming recommendation to label these sections as "LC practice is accepted)


Best Practices for Making Variant Titles for Permutations Related to Titles Proper

none -Label as "LC practice"-Note: For PCC records, catalogers should use judgment. The TG particularly found the instructions to follow The Chicago Manual of Style when spelling out numerals in English to be overly prescriptive and unnecessarily biased, as there will be local variations on the forms catalog users are likely to search (e.g. British vs. American style).


Best Practices for Making Variant Titles for Other Titles

none; LC practice: D final par.

-Label as "LC practice"-Note: For PCC records, catalogers should use judgment.

42


Borne by an Item

LCPS for 2.3.7 Earlier Title Proper

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC unless applying the alternative when the changes are numerous

no change

LCPS for 2.3.7.3 Recording Earlier Titles Proper

Earlier Titles Proper for Electronic Serials That Don't Retain Earlier Titles


LCPS for 2.3.8 Later Title Proper

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC (unless applying the alternative when the changes are numerous)

Label as “CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC”

LCPS for 2.3.9 Key Title

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 2.3.10 Abbreviated Title

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 2.4.1.4 Option

LC practice for Optional omission

Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional omission"




LCPS for 2.5.1.4 Recording Edition Statements

none -Label as "LC practice"-Add a new policy statement labeled "PCC practice" that is less prescriptive: “If a resource lacks an edition statement but it is known to contain significant changes from other editions, supply a brief statement in the language and script of the title proper and enclose it in square brackets if considered necessary for identification.” -Note: As currently worded, supplying an edition statement is mandatory whenever you think you have identified significant changes in the content, even if other elements of the description make it perfectly clear that a new edition is involved.

43


LCPS for 2.5.1.6.1 Multipart Monographs







Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition" [note: Wording will be adjusted in April 2012 release to include "date or dates" for consistency with RDA].















Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition"







LCPS for 2.8.1.1 Scope

Government Printers

none Label as ""LC practice/PCC practice"


Privately Printed Works

none Label as ""LC practice/PCC practice"

44





LCPS for 2.8.2 Place of Publication

LC practice for Core element

Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Core element"

LCPS for 2.8.2.2 Sources of Information

CIP Cataloging none Label as "LC practice"

LCPS for 2.8.2.6 Place of Publication Not Identified in the Resource

LC practice Delete this LCPS, as it adds nothing not already in the RDA instruction. Otherwise, no harm in labeling it as "LC practice/PCC practice"




none -Label as "LC Practice" (for now) because the TG was not able to agree on PCC practice for this policy statement. In cases when the resource does not carry an explicit date of publication, some thought that a release date ought not be transcribed as a date of publication (though it could serve as the basis for a supplied date) and cited bib records that have a date of release that differs from the date of publication. Others thought a release date should be transcribed as a date of publication and pointed out that the LCPS appears to contradict the RDA glossary definition of "Date of publication": “A date associated with the publication, release, or issuing of a resource”.





Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition" to reflect current PCC practice.




45





LCPS for 2.8.6.6 Date of Publication Not Identified in the Resource

Items Lacking a Publication Date

LC practice -1st sentence: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-A1: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-A2: Label as "LC practice" (prefer PCC base the supplied date of publication on the copyright date, not the date of receipt, as the receipt date will be random and the user will not understand where it is coming from); could possibly accept for PCC if the policy were to always record the copyright date as well.-B: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-C: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" but label final sentence as "LC practice" (prefer PCC not record the date of manufacture; this is a recipe for proliferation of records based on printing date rather than publication date, which is not desirable for general cataloging; we should be cataloging at the manifestation level, not the item level; the manufacture date would only apply to a particular printing)-D: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (and this would be a great place to show how to "record the distribution date" using the 264 field in the examples)-E: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" but label final sentence as "LC practice" (prefer PCC not record the date of manufacture; this is a recipe for proliferation of records based on printing date rather than publication date, which is not desirable for general cataloging). The record shown in E1 can only be used for the first printing of whatever it is. If a second printing comes along the cataloger will have to create a new record. Similarly the record shown in E2 can only be used for other copies from the 15th impression, or at least only for impressions created in 1980. E2 would be a good candidate for a DBO note: “Description based on 15th impression 1980”, which would help later catalogers revise the record if they get a copy of, say, the 10th impression from 1975.-Note: This section will be renamed “Date of Publication Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource” in April 2012 release.

46


LCPS for 2.8.6.6 Date of Publication Not Identified in the Resource

Serials, Multipart Monographs, and Integrating Resources

none [This section slated for deletion in April 2012 release].

LCPS for 2.9 Distribution Statement



Government Printers


LCPS for 2.9.1.4 Recording Distribution Statements

United States Government Printing Office

none -Label as "LC practice"-[Note: Seems preferable to avoid policy statements that apply to only a single publisher; also seems preferable to avoid U.S.-centric policy statements, given that the PCC is an international program; might be acceptable PCC practice if the policy statement were one that could be generalized to apply to all government printers.]












-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition"






-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative"

47


LCPS for 2.10 Manufacture Statement









LCPS for 2.10.6 Date of Manufacture

Items Lacking a Publication Date but Having a Date of Manufacture

none -See comments under 2.8.6.6 B,C, and E



LCPS for 2.10.6.3 Recording Date of Manufacture

Date of Manufacture in GPO Publications

none -Label as "LC practice"-[Note: Seems preferable to avoid policy statements that apply to only a single publisher; also seems preferable to avoid U.S.-centric policy statements, given that the PCC is an international program; might be acceptable PCC practice if the policy statement were one that could be generalized to apply to all government printers.]-If keep, soften the wording to make it clearer that recording the date of manufacture is not required (e.g., use wording such as in LCPS for 2.10.6 "Also record the manufacture date as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger")







48




-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative"

LCPS for 2.11 Copyright Date

LC practice for Core Element

no change

LCPS for 2.12 Series Statement

Introduction none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"


Series or Phrases

none; PCC practice: 2nd par.

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" but keep 2nd par. as "PCC practice"


Republications none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"


Selected Issues of Periodicals Published Separately

none; LC practice/PCC practice: 2nd par.



Supplements and Special Numbers to Serials



Series Title Grammatically Connected to Title of Resource


no change


Motion Pictures, Television Programs, and Videorecordings

none; PCC practice: 2nd par.

-Label 1st par. as "LC practice"-Move final sentence (in square brackets) to the Introduction, as it is not specific to Motion Pictures, etc.


Sources LC practice/PCC practice

no change


Series Statement Present Only in Cataloging Data


no change


Series Statement Not Present in


49


Resource During the CIP Process

LCPS for 2.12.1.5 Resource in More Than One Series

Issues, Parts, or Iterations Not in the Same Series


LCPS for 2.12.1.5 Resource in More Than One Series

Not All Issues, Parts, or Iterations in a Series

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" and move to a new LCPS for 2.12.1.6 (given that it is not a "more than one series" situation but rather a series that isn't present on all issues).-Move final sentence to an introductory section at the beginning of the LCPS for 2.12.1.5 and make language consistent with similar sentence in LCPS for 2.12; do the same for what will become the new LCPS for 2.12.1.6.

LCPS for 2.12.2.3 Recording Title Proper of Series

Issues, Part, or Iterations Not in the Same Series

none -Delete because exactly duplicates LCPS for 2.12.1.5.

LCPS for 2.12.2.3 Recording Title Proper of Series

Not All Issues or Parts in a Series

none -Delete because exactly duplicates LCPS for 2.12.1.5 [or what will become LCPS for 2.12.1.6]

LCPS for 2.12.8 ISSN of Series

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC




no change

LCPS for 2.12.9 Numbering within Series

General PCC practice: 1st par.; LC practice: 2nd par.

-1st par.: no change-2nd par.: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"


Parallel Titles for Series/Subseries and Numbers


no change


Inferred Numbering


50



Numbering Present Only in Cataloging Data



Numbering of and within a Specific Activity, Event


-Move final sentence to beginning of the LCPS and make language consistent with similar sentence in LCPS for 2.12

LCPS for 2.12.10 Title Proper of Subseries

Situations Not Representing Subseries



Sources LC practice/PCC practice

no change


Series Statement Present Only in Cataloging Data


no change


Series Statement Not Present in Resource During the CIP Process


LCPS for 2.12.16 ISSN of Subseries

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC




no change

LCPS for 2.12.17 Numbering within Subseries


LCPS for 2.13 Mode of Issuance

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Indicate that catalogers need to use value “m” in Leader/07 for both “single unit” and “multipart monograph” when recording RDA Mode of issuance.

51


LCPS for 2.14 Frequency

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Note: The current CSR MAP has the 310 as "Mandatory if applicable" ("if known").



-Revise current LCPS to add text along the lines of LCRI 12.8B1 ("Do not give an ISBN for an issue or part of a serial"). PSD confirms that this omission was unintentional. -Add a new policy statement labeled "PCC practice for Optional addition": "When adding a part to a multipart monograph description, always give the identifier for the part. Optionally, add identifiers for any parts of a multipart monograph or serial." -Note: The group recognizes the value that these additional identifiers can provide in a linked data environment, but requiring PCC to always add identifiers for parts (as the LCPS implies) could entail significant extra work in records for large multiparts and serials. The above text is a compromise, requiring that identifiers only be added when adding a new part to a multipart monograph record and allowing (but not requiring) them in other situations.-Note: This might represent a change in CONSER practice, if CONSER follows LCRI 12.8B1; the LCRI has no practice label.-Recommend proposing changes to MARC21 that would give the 020 field the structure to support this more effectively.




52


LCPS for 2.15.1.7 Qualification

CIP Cataloging none -Label as "LC practice"-The TG does not recommend recording ISBNs for manifestations other than those represented by the catalog record, notes the element is supposed to be about recording identifiers for the manifestation (not related manifestations), and notes the LCPS is not primarily about "Qualification".-Suggest adding a new "PCC practice" policy statement that distinguishes between qualification accommodated under customary practice (ISBNs for multiple bindings and/or paper types on the print record / ISBNs for multiple e-formats on the e-record) and qualification that is not (ISBNs applicable to the e-formats on the print record).-Note: The caption "CIP Cataloging" will be removed in April 2012 release.

LCPS for 2.20.2 Note on Title

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Add "/PCC" in "Note is a core element for LC ..."-Add an exception for archival resourcesNote: The note is currently mandatory for CONSER and mandatory if applicable for BIBCO, except for archival resources.

LCPS for 2.20.2.3 Title Source




-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Optional omission"

LCPS for 2.20.2.4 Title Variations, Inaccuracies, and Deletions

Electronic Serials That Don't Retain Earlier Titles

none Label as ""LC practice/PCC practice

LCPS for 2.20.4.5.1 Multipart Monographs

none Label as "LC practice"

53


LCPS for 2.20.4.5.3 Integrating Resources

Updating Loose-leafs


LCPS for 2.20.7 Note on Publication Statement

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" after revising as follows: "If a date of release or transmittal is found on the resource and it is considered important for identification, record it in a note if it has not been recorded elsewhere in the bibliographic description (e.g. in the edition statement). Include the month and day, if present."-Note: The word "prominent" is a carryover from the LCRI and had a specific meaning in AACR2. In RDA/LCPS, themeaning of the word can be left to cataloger's judgment, but we're not sure it is needed. We find it odd that 1) thefirst sentence of the LCPS talks about recording the date of release/transmittal in the bibliographic description rather than in a note (the LCPS is supposed to be talking about notes) and 2) the instructions about the edition statement are here (rather than in the instructions about recording the edition statement).-Note: The third example has a typo: "l979" instead of "1979"

LCPS for 2.20.13 Note on Issue, Part, or Iteration Used as the Basis for Identification of the Resource

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Add "/PCC" to "Note is a core element for LC ..."-Note: The note is currently core for CONSER but not BIBCO; we recommend extending it to BIBCO as well, and understand that the BSR-RDA Task Group intends to make the same recommendation.

LCPS for 2.20.13.3 Issue or Part Used as the Basis for the Identification of a Multipart Monograph or Serial

Multipart Monographs and Serials


no change

3. Identifying Manifestations and Items

54


LCPS for 3.1.4 Resources Consisting of More Than One Carrier Type

More Than One Carrier Type

none Label as "LC practice"; appears to have been derived from LCRI 1.10, where it's marked "LC practice for general cataloging"; doesn't need to be PCC practice.

LCPS for 3.1.4 Resources Consisting of More Than One Carrier Type

Accompanying Material

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The TG thought the positioning of this policy statement is confusing given that the RDA instruction says 27.1is the place to go for instructions on recording information relating to the carrier for accompanying material. The RDA>MARC mapping for 300$e also leads to 27.1. The TG also found odd the part about applying the LCPS even if the accompanying material is of the same carrier type as the main part (given that 3.1.4 is supposed to be about resources consisting of more than one carrier type).




LCPS for 3.2 Media Type

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"




LCPS for 3.4.1.5 Other Terms Used to Designate the Type of Unit

LC practice -Label first part of first sentence as "LC practice/PCC practice; label remaining text as "LC practice'-Revise to make clear that c) in the instruction is permissible




LCPS for 3.4.1.10 Incomplete Resource

Updating Loose-leafs

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Add a definition of "transfer volume" as a new LCPS for the Glossary (currently the definition is buried in 0.0)

55




-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative"-Note: This recommendation is in synch with current BSR practice (300$a is mandatory)-Create a new LCPS for 3.4: "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC. LC/PCC practice: Extent is a core element for LC/PCC, with the exception of incomplete serials."-Note: The TG realizes this recommendation conflicts with that of the RDA BSR for Textual Monographs TG, which follows RDA in not making extent "core" for incomplete resources.

LCPS for 3.4.1.11.2 Alternative


no change

LCPS for 3.4.5 Extent of Text


LCPS for 3.4.5.3 Unnumbered Leaves, Pages, Columns

Resources Consisting Entirely of Unnumbered Pages, etc.

LC practice -no change-Note: Name of instruction will change to “Single Volume With Unnumbered Pages, Leaves, or Columns” (RDA change) in April 2012.

LCPS for 3.4.5.3 Unnumbered Leaves, Pages, Columns

Resources Consisting of Both Numbered and Unnumbered Sequences

LC practice -no change-Note: Name of instruction will change to “Single Volume With Unnumbered Pages, Leaves, or Columns” (RDA change) in April 2012.

LCPS for 3.4.5.8 Complicated or Irregular Paging, Etc.


LCPS for 3.4.5.16 More Than One Volume

LC practice -no change to existing policy statement-add new PCC policy statement: "PCC practice: Do not give local holdings for multipart monographs in MARC field 300" -Note: LC's additional instruction about item records will not necessarily apply in systems that do not have item records.






no change

56


LCPS for 3.4.5.19 Updating Loose-Leafs

Transfer Volumes

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Add a definition of "transfer volume" as a new LCPS for the Glossary (currently the definition is buried in 0.0)

LCPS for 3.5.1.3 CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

Move the LCPS with label “CORE ELEMENT FOR LC” to 3.5 Dimensions instead (i.e. place it at the beginning of the element). Note: This will follow the pattern used elsewhere in the LCPS and match the LC RDA Core Elements table.



no change

LCPS for 3.5.1.4.4 Discs




no change



no change

LCPS for 3.11 Layout

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Add PCC to "Layout is a core element ..."-Note: 300$b is required for BSR Cartographic; interpreted that to mean Layout should be core for cartographic resources.

LCPS for 3.11.2 Layout of Cartographic Images

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Note: 300$b is required for BSR Cartographic; interpreted that to mean Layout should be core.



no change

LCPS for 3.19 Digital File Characteristic

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 3.21.1.3 Recording Item-Specific Carrier Characteristics


57


LCPS for 3.22.4.3 Details of Dimensions of Manifestation


LCPS for 3.22.6 Note on Changes in Carrier Characteristics

none (but instruction says "Note is a core element for LC for resources if carrier characteristics vary and a new description isn’t made.")

Label as "LC practice"; also, label as “CORE ELEMENT FOR LC”. Note: This will follow the pattern used elsewhere in the LCPS and match the LC RDA Core Elements table.

LCPS for 3.22.6.3.1 Multipart Monographs and Serials

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-reword to relate more directly to notes: "Do not make a note if ..."

4. Providing Acquisition and Access InformationLCPS for 4.2.1.3 Recording Terms of Availability


LCPS for 4.5 Restrictions on Use

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 4.6 Uniform Resource Locator

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 4.6.1.3 Recording Uniform Resource Locators


58


LCPS for 4.6.1.4 Changes Requiring the Addition, Revision, or Deletion of a Uniform Resource Locator

Original URI no Longer Active


LCPS for 4.6.1.4 Changes Requiring the Addition, Revision, or Deletion of a Uniform Resource Locator

Original URI Still Active, but Original Resource no Longer Available


5. General Guidelines on Recording Attributes of Works and ExpressionsLCPS for 5.3 Core Elements

LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" after rewording to avoid suggesting that all identifying elements that have been recorded must be added to the authorized access point. In our current implementation scenario, elements being recorded to break a conflict must be recorded as additions to the authorized access point. They may also be recorded as separate elements within the authority record (as may identifying elements not needed in the authorized access point).-Note: See LCPS for 0.6.3, first part, which has the same text-Note: Rather than reword here, could simply point to LCPS for 0.6.3


LC practice -no change to existing text giving LC practice-Add a new policy statement labeled "PCC Practice" that restricts to these scripts for CONSER but permits BIBCO records to contain any scripts that can be entered in OCLC, SkyRiver, etc.

59


LCPS for 5.4 Alternative


-1st par.: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative"-2nd par: no change to existing text giving LC practice-Add a new policy statement labeled "PCC Practice for Alternative" that restricts to these scripts for authority records and CONSER but permits BIBCO records to contain any scripts that can be entered in OCLC, SkyRiver, etc.

LCPS for 5.7 Status of Identification

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC


LCPS for 5.8 Source Consulted

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Currently NACO participants are required to add a 670 for the work cataloged, whether the name appears in the source or not; insert a statement to this effect? Not sure if the recommendation from the Authority Source Citation TG will have any effect on this.

LCPS for 5.9 Cataloguer’s Note

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Revise text to insert "PCC": "Cataloguer’s note is a core element for LC/PCC for certain situations explained in Descriptive Cataloging Manual Z1 667."-Note: For PCC, this applies to those sections which are binding on NACO participants. Not sure if everything is covered in DCM Z1; the policy statement might need further revision to refer to other NACO documentation.

6. Identifying Works and ExpressionsLCPS for 6.1.3.2 Works Issued As Serials

Expressions When Preferred Title of Work Changes


no change

LCPS for 6.1.3.2 Works Issued As Serials

Omission/Addition of Main Series

PCC practice -no change to label-Make it clearer that this policy statement concerns situations involving main series and *subseries* (the current wording only mentions "main series"; "subseries" is merely implied). -"Main series" appears in the RDA glossary entry for "subseries" but doesn't have its own glossary definition. Recommend adding "Main series" to the RDA glossary; if proposal is rejected, add as LC/PCC policy statement for Glossary.

60


LCPS for 6.2.1.8 Spacing of Initials and Acronyms


LCPS for 6.2.1.9 Abbreviations

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Reword to "For additional guidelines on the punctuation and spacing of abbreviations in preferred titles, see LCPS 1.7.1"

LCPS for 6.2.2.4 Works Created After 1500

Language Editions with Different Titles

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-The LCPS says "English-language reference sources (books and articles written about a work of art)” which makes it sound like you're restricted to books and articles about the work. The original LCRI 25.3A version has "English-language reference sources. Reference sources *include* books and articles written about a work of art" which is much less restrictive. Recommend restoring the original wording or removing the parenthetical phrase altogether.-Note: The LCPS will have these changes in the April 2012 version: "Expanded guidance for determining the choice of the preferred title for multi-lingual compilations issued together when the original language expression cannot be determined. Corrected a caption."

LCPS for 6.2.2.5 Works Created Before 1500

Named Individual Works of Art

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Remove "(books and articles written about a work of art)” or restore the original LCRI wording. See above.

LCPS for 6.2.2.5 Exception


LCPS for 6.2.2.6 Cycles and Stories with Many Versions


LCPS for 6.2.2.7 Manuscripts and Manuscript Groups

Scope none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The RDA instructions should be re-examined. AACR2 25.13A1 covers two things: (a) a uniform title for a work contained in a manuscript if the other rules don’t work; and (b) a uniform title for the manuscript itself. The physical manuscript can be and often is considered a work in itself (like a painting or other work of art) and as such can be named as a work independently from the work contained in the manuscript. This is what AACR2 25.13A1 was most often

61


used for. There are hardly any cases where the work contained in the manuscript can’t be named using the other rules for uniform titles. Unfortunately, RDA 6.2.2.7 completely dumped 25.13A1b and kept the least useful part of AACR2, 25.13A1a. So although 6.2.2.7 purports to be instructions for identifying “Manuscripts and Manuscript Groups,” the guideline itself says “choose as the preferred title for the work contained in the manuscript…” There remains no guideline at all for naming the manuscript. But then the subrules go on and in fact talk about naming the manuscript. For example, “Codex Amiatinus” is NOT the name of the work contained in the manuscript (which is the Bible in a Latin expression), but the name of the manuscript itself.


Authorized Access Point for a Physical Manuscript

Name of Physical Manuscript




Repository Designation

none; LC practice: final 2 sentences

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (including final 2 sentences)-Note: Subfield coding in example (410 2# $a British Museum. $k Manuscript. Additional 43487) will be corrected in April 2012 release.



Parts of Physical Manuscripts in Different Repositories




Works that Are Parts of Manuscripts



Authority Records

General none; LC practice: 2nd sentence

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep 2nd sentence as "LC practice"-Note: PCC catalogers should be free to create an authority record for the work contained in the manuscript in addition to the authority record for the physical manuscript if they want to.

LCPS for 6.2.2.7 Authority Variant Access none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"62


Manuscripts and Manuscript Groups

Records Points When Authorized Access Point Is the Name of the Physical Manuscript


Authority Records

Variant Access Points When Authorized Access Point Is the Repository Designation

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: Change for April 2012 release: Will delete this sentence: "With the exception of Bible, Catholic Church Liturgy, etc., Manuscripts (see below), do not connect the authorized access points for physical manuscripts and the works they contain with MARC 5XX fields."


Bible, Catholic Church Liturgy, etc., Manuscripts

none; LC practice: penultimate paragraph

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (including final paragraph, as the "does not need to be established" wording allows leeway (i.e. although the PCC cataloger doesn't have to establish the authorized access point for the work contained within the manuscript, the cataloger could still do so if desired).

LCPS for 6.2.2.8 Recording the Preferred Title for a Work

Omissions none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-To avoid the appearance of a contradiction, create a new LCPS for 2.3.1.6 that gives a variation on the first sentence of this LCPS.


Inaccuracy in Title Proper of Series

PCC practice no change


Pre-Modern Forms of Letters

none; PCC practice: final sentence

-Resolution needed (access points affected)-Both here and in LCPS for 1.4, there appears to be no rationale for the difference in practice between series access points (don't normalize i/j) and other access points (normalize i/j). The TG also notes that PCC should be able to set policies for series uniform titles, as LC does not create them. -Recommend simplifying policy by always normalizing i/ju/v/w in access points. Also, delete reference to DCRM(B) for transcription of pre-1801 publications (chapter 6 is not concerned with transcription) and delete the 1800 date cut-off for series uniform titles, which has no rationale and appears to conflict with LCPS for 1.4. Some kind of reference to LCPS for 1.4 might be appropriate, as that

63


policy statement better explains the situation when regularization of i/j/u/v/w is "involved".-If keep existing text: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but keep "PCC practice" label for series tracings); delete reference to DCRM(B) for transcription of pre-1801 publications; in last sentence, change "transcribe" to "record" and delete 1800 date cut-off (to be consistent with LCPS for 1.4)

LCPS for 6.2.2.9.1 One Part


LCPS for 6.2.2.9.2 Two or More Parts

Ordinal Numerals

none -Resolution needed (affects access points)-This policy should not be PCC practice. Reason: PCC should follow RDA. We should respect the ordinal numbering convention of the language used in the resource. See 1.8.5. -Because this policy affects access points (6.27.2.3 refers back to 6.2.2.9.2), additional discussion between LC and PCC is needed.



-no change-PCC catalogers should not be required to use “Works. Selections” in situations like these if they’d like to establish and use the names of each of the parts of a particular work.



-no change-PCC catalogers should not be required to use “Selections” in situations like these if they’d like to establish and use the names of each of the works in a compilation.

LCPS for 6.4.1.3 Recording Date of Work


LCPS for 6.10.1.3 Recording Date of Expression


LCPS for 6.11.1.3 Recording Language of Expression

Original and Translation(s) in Compilation

none -Resolution needed (access points affected). -TG members had strong objections to the LCPS because it results in more than one authorized access point for the original expression, depending on the arbitrary fact of whether the expression was published alone or with another expression in another language (the policy only adds

64


language of the original expression in cases where the original and a translation are published as a compilation). This goes against basic principles of authority control. It also results in a situation where sometimes the original language is added to an access point for an expression and sometimes it is not, for reasons that are probably not evident to catalog users, particularly when they approach the catalog through an index. -Possible solutions: 1) Don't record the language of the original expression in the analytical authorized access point; omit it, as we do when cataloging an original expression published without a translation; 2) Do record the language of the original expression in the analytical authorized access point, but from then on any time an access point for the original expression is needed it should conform to the form created under LCPS 6.11.1.3 (i.e. even when the cataloger isn’t dealing with a bilingual resource). The latter solution would resolve the problem of multiple authorized access points for the original expression, but not the possible confusion for users wondering why sometimes the language of the original access point gets added and sometimes not.-Note: Other topics raised during our discussions (on which we are not making recommendations at this time): whether authorized access points for expressions in the original language should always have the language added (to differentiate them from authorized access points for the work); whether we should someday abandon the practice of identifying translations under the title of the original.


Form of Language Names


65



Greek LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The TG suggests this policy should be re-evaluated in the future, but sees no urgent need to change it before RDA Day 1 (given the implications for retrospective cleanup of existing authorized access points). Greater precision in recording the language of expression would facilitate the identification task for catalog users (ancient and modern Greek are very different languages!) and reinforce the use of correct MARC language codes in manifestation records - currently, “gre” (Modern Greek) is often used incorrectly for “grc” (Ancient Greek).


Norwegian LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The TG suggests this policy should be re-evaluated in the future, but sees no urgent need to change it before RDA Day 1 (see comments above).

LCPS for 6.14.2.5 Preferred Title Consisting Solely of the Name of One Type of Composition



One Work of One Type



Mélodie/Mélodies; Melody/Melodies


66



Liturgical Words or Phrases


LCPS for 6.14.2.8.4 Works of Various Types for One Specific Medium

none -Label as "LC practice"-Although useful guidance for cases of uncertainty, the whole thing is a matter of judgment and/or research. It is also not clear why one's told to use "Songs. Selections" rather than just "Songs" (we don't know whether the compilation is complete or selective).



-no change-PCC catalogers should be allowed to record the preferred title (as part of an authorized access point) for each of the works in the compilation if he/she thinks it would be useful and helpful to the user of the database.

LCPS for 6.15.1.5 Standard Combinations of Instruments

none -Label as "LC practice" or delete-Note: This is not really a policy statement at all but a list of additional examples. Adding extra examples could be done for almost any RDA instruction. It might be more appropriate to use these examples in training materials or propose them for addition to RDA.

LCPS for 6.15.1.6 Individual Instruments

LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: Does the choice of "timpani" in the 2nd sentence contradict the instruction to prefer English terms in 1st sentence (given the word is Italian in origin and the English term "kettle drum" exists)? Or is "timpani" an accepted term in English by now? Recommend bringing this to the attention of the JSC music advisory group.-Note: OED and Grove have "kettledrum" (as a single word); one TG member consulted with the BL rep to the JSC on this and we understand the BL will pursued an RDA change proposal via the JSC's "fast track" process.

67


LCPS for 6.15.1.9 One or More Solo Instruments and Accompanying Ensemble

none -1st sentence: Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" or delete (it adds nothing to the RDA instruction)-2nd sentence: Delete? The RDA instruction is dealing with one or more solo instruments, so anything to do with the human voice must be in the wrong place.

LCPS for 6.15.1.12 Accompaniment for Songs, Lieder, Etc.

Works with French title "Mélodie" or "Mélodies"

none -Note: This section to be deleted in April 2012 release.

LCPS for 6.15.1.12 Accompaniment for Songs, Lieder, Etc.

Standard Combination of Instruments


LCPS for 6.16.1.3.1 Serial Number

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" except for final paragraph on ordinal numbers. -This policy on ordinal numbers should not be PCC practice. Reason: PCC should follow RDA and respect the ordinal numbering convention of the language used in the resource. See 1.8.5. Because this policy affects access points, additional discussion between LC and PCC is needed.-Note: Terminology will be revised to use "preferred title" instead of "initial title element" in April 2012 release

LCPS for 6.18.1.4 Arrangements, Transcriptions, Etc.

Revisions by the Original Composer


68



Alternative Instruments

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: In the 2nd part, it seems the addition (e.g. of "Viola" in the example) is being done to indicate a different expression. One TG member was pleased to see this, but thought the addition should be coded $s (so it doesn't look like an addition to distinguish two works with the same preferred title) and thought the policy was inconsistent because it calls for distinguishing between expressions if the preferred title is non-distinctive, but not distinguishing between them if the preferred title is distinctive. -Note: At the end of the Alternative instruments section, it's unclear to what the "Do not modify..." sentence relates. Since the only modification is in the 2nd part of this policy statement, does this belong specifically to that section? If so, it needs to be indented another level.


Added Accompaniments, Etc.

none -Resolution needed (affects access points)-Note: The 2 TG members with music expertise think these are clearly arrangements (i.e. different expressions) and would like to see that reflected in the access point. One also thinks that different arrangements of the same work also need to be distinguished from each other.


Song Transpositions

none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: One person in the TG thought that a transposed version of a song is a different expression of the song and prefer an addition be made to indicate this (e.g. Songs $s (Version for low voice))

LCPS for 6.19.2 Preferred Title for a Legal Work

Constitutions none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for 6.19.2.5.1 Compilations

Applicability none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for 6.19.2.5.1 Compilations

Subject Compilations without a Collective Title


69


LCPS for 6.20.1.3 Recording Date of a Legal Work


LCPS for 6.23.2.5 Sacred Scriptures


LCPS for 6.23.2.6 Apocryphal Books


LCPS for 6.23.2.7 Theological Creeds, Confessions of Faith, Etc.


LCPS for 6.23.2.9.2 Books


LCPS for 6.23.2.12.3 Separately Published Components


LCPS for 6.23.2.17 Parts of the Avesta


LCPS for 6.23.2.20.1 General Guidelines




-Resolution needed (affects access points)-Recommend PCC not apply the Alternative and instead create a new policy statement for 6.24.1.4 that says: "Record the year of expression rather than the year of publication if they differ."-Even better: Pursue changing the RDA instruction to this effect; ALA already has a group working on an RDA proposal

70


for "things Biblical" (not exactly sure of the scope); PCC could ask them to consider this as part of the package.

LCPS for 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions

Authority Records in the LC/NACO Authority File

LCC/PCC practice (LC practice: #4 and #5)

-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (including #4 and #5)-Note: This LCPS will become obsolete once the authority file has been converted to RDA.


Authorized Access Points for Series (Monographs, Serials, and Integrating Resources)

A. Scope of LCPS LC practice: 1st par.; PCC practice: 2nd par.; none: 3rd par.

-1st par: Label as "LC practice"-remainder: Label as "PCC practice"



B. Numbering Grammatically Integrated with Series Title

none (PCC practice implied)

Label as "PCC practice"



C. More Than One System of Numbering





D. Numbering Errors none (PCC practice implied)



Authorized Access Points for Series (Monographs, Serials, and Integrating

E. Number Preceded by One or More Letters



71


Resources)LCPS for 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions


F. Numbering for Publications of the U.S. Congress and Other Legislatures





G. Main Series and Subseries





H. One or Several Series Authorized Access Points



LCPS for 6.27.1 Authorized Access Point Representing a Work

PCC practice Label as "PCC practice"

LCPS for 6.27.1.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points Representing Works

Presentation and Punctuation of Access Points


72


LCPS for 6.27.1.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points Representing Works

Inaccuracy in Title Proper of Series








LCPS for 6.27.1.6 Commentary, Annotations, Illustrative Content, Etc., Added to a Previously Existing Work

none -Label as "LC practice"-prefer to leave to cataloger judgment for PCC

LCPS for 6.27.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Works

Introduction LC practice -Label 1st sentence and "Note" as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Label 2nd sentence as "LC practice"


General none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

73



Serials (Including Numbered and Unnumbered Monographic Series)



Monographs none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"


Integrating Resources



Radio and Television Programs



U.S. Census Publications



Comics none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: Re-examine this practice in the future to see if should limit use of the qualifier to conflict situations (as is done with the qualifier for motion pictures); no urgency to change current practice before RDA Day 1.

74



Motion Pictures none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"


Choreographic Works and Expressions

none -Label as "LC practice" for now-Ask the Dance Heritage Coalition to review (originally added to LCRI 25.5B at their request)-Relay TG comments to them: suggestion to delete or revise list of (print-centric) reference sources; suggestion that a choreographic work should be entered under personal name rather than title


Named Individual Works of Art



Appendix 1: Motion Pictures, Television Programs, Radio Programs

none; PCC practice is implied from text and names of sections

Task an OLAC group to review this provisional appendix.

LCPS for 6.27.2 Authorized Access Point Representing a Part or Parts of a Work

Series Authorized Access Points




-no change to label-change text to the simpler "Apply the alternative" given that it simply repeats the RDA text

75


LCPS for 6.27.3 Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression

LC practice -Leave as LC practice; do not adopt for PCC-Note: TG members felt strongly that PCC catalogers should be allowed to differentiate among expressions. The LCPS appears to contradict the RDA instruction, which explicitly says to add terms “as applicable” from a list. The list refers back to 6.9-6.12, which designate these elements as core if needed to distinguish one expression from another. -Note: Might accept optionally allowing PCC catalogers to apply the LC policy (which is AACR2 uniform title practice), but if PCC policy actually stops catalogers from applying RDA that is going too far.


Translations none -Resolution needed (affects access points)-TG members objected to this LCPS because it does not permit differentiating between expressions in the same language (see comments above) and because it results in more than one authorized access point for the original expression, depending on the arbitrary fact of whether the expression was published alone or with another expression in another language (the policy only adds language of the original expression in cases where the original and a translation are published as a compilation). (See comments at 6.11.1.3)-Note: Change for April 2012 release in “Language edition” section: "Corrected captions and typos; added explanation to existing example; added a new example."


Conventional Collective Titles Beginning with "Works"

none -Resolution needed (affects access points)-TG recognizes that this has been the practice for years, but sees no good reason to continue it. Objections: Adding the date anticipates a conflict that may never happen, a practice that LCPS 6.27.1.9 disallows in the case of access points representing works. Date is not a particularly useful way to distinguish collected works; users will often know the edition but not the date, so that seems a more useful addition. In practice the instruction causes catalogers not to add the date of the expression to the authorized access point, but the date of the manifestation. Finally, it is bizarre that same LCPS insists upon adding a differentiating qualifier in all cases, even when in most of those cases there is only one expression (Works) but disallows qualifying in cases where there are more than one conflicting expressions (multiple French translations of

76


Hamlet).LCPS for 6.27.4 Variant Access Point Representing a Work or Expression

Introduction LC practice: 1st par.; PCC practice: 2nd par.; none: 3rd/4th par.

-no change to 1st sentence giving LC practice-label remaining sentences as "PCC practice"-Throughout entire LCPS for 6.27.4, soften the instructions so that none of the variant access points is required (or forbidden) and are instead left to cataloger judgment. Prefer language such as "Generally give ..." or "Consider giving ..." over "Give ..."-Note: We understand that a PCC RDA Series TG will be formed in the future; we recommend that all LCPS relating to series access points be reviewed more thoroughly by that group.

LCPS for 6.27.4 Variant Access Point Representing a Work or Expression

General Guidelines for MARC 4XX Fields

none (PCC practice implied in Introduction)

-Label as "PCC practice"-See comments under LCPS for 6.27.4 (Introduction) above.


Alternative Forms When Series Authorized Access Point Begins with a Preferred Title




Alternative Forms When Series Authorized Access Point is a Name/Title Proper




Alternative Forms When Series Authorized Access Point is a Name/Conventional Collective



77


TitleLCPS for 6.27.4 Variant Access Point Representing a Work or Expression

Variants of Title Proper in Another Source in Same/Another Issue




Partial Titles none (PCC practice implied in Introduction)



Variations in Title Proper That Are Not "Major Changes"




Fluctuating Titles




Other Situations none (PCC practice implied in Introduction)



Earlier/Later Resource Not Represented by SAR



78


LCPS for 6.27.4.5 Variant Access Point Representing an Expression

Date of Expression

LCC practice/PCC practice

Delete; stop the practice of requiring addition of a date to the variant access point simply to make it "match" the authorized access point

LCPS for 6.28.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points Representing Musical Works

Additions to Authorized Access Points

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: One person asked: If the first example isn’t actually the complete Cantata no 74, but only the organ part, should the authorized access point used to relate the resource to the work imply that it’s the complete work? It is also strange that flute solos should be characterized in the access point as “vocal music” or “orchestra music”. This may be another example of expecting our users to be catalogers to find the resource.


Mélodie/Mélodies; Melody/Melodies



Liturgical Words or Phrases


79


LCPS for 6.28.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Musical Works with Titles That Are Not Distinctive

Standard Combinations of Instruments

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Add an example illustrating the last part of the policy statement (e.g. one with "Songs" as the authorized title)

LCPS for 6.28.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Musical Works with Titles That Are Not Distinctive

Serial Number none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" except for final paragraph on ordinal numbers. -This policy on ordinal numbers should not be PCC practice. Reason: PCC should follow RDA and respect the ordinal numbering convention of the language used in the resource. See 1.8.5. Because this policy affects access points, additional discussion between LC and PCC is needed.-Note: Terminology will be revised to use "preferred title" instead of "initial title element" in April 2012 release



no change

LCPS for 6.28.3 Authorized Access Point Representing a Musical Expression

LC practice -Leave as LC practice; do not adopt for PCC-Note: PCC catalogers should be allowed to differentiate among expressions.

LCPS for 6.28.3.3 Added Accompaniments, Etc.

none -Resolution needed (affects access points)-Note: The 2 TG members with music expertise think these are clearly arrangements (i.e. different expressions) and would like to see that reflected in the access point. One also thinks that different arrangements of the same work also need to be distinguished from each other.

LCPS for 6.28.4 Variant Access Point Representing a Musical Work or

Misattributed Musical Works and Expressions

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The TG saw nothing objectionable in this policy statement but noted that misattributed works and expressions are not limited to musical works. It seems preferable to create a more generally-applicable policy

80


Expression statement about misattributed works and expressions under 6.27.4.1 and delete this one.

LCPS for 6.29.1.2 Laws Governing One Jurisdiction

Statutory Customary Laws


LCPS for 6.29.1.2 Laws Governing One Jurisdiction

District of Columbia Laws


LCPS for 6.29.1.6 Ancient Laws, Certain Medieval Laws, Customary Laws, Etc.


LCPS for 6.29.1.7 Administrative Regulations, Etc., Promulgated by Government Agencies, Etc., That Are Not Laws

Scope of RDA 6.29.1.7



Definition of "promulgating agency"


81



Sources of U.S. Administrative Regulations



Constructing the Authorized Access Point



Access Point for the Law




-no change-Note: Prefer to leave to cataloger judgment for PCC records.

LCPS for 6.29.1.30.1 Brief, Plea, Etc.

Records of One Party


82


LCPS for 6.29.1.32 Additions to Access Points Representing Laws, Etc.



Compilations of Laws Other Than Those of U.S. States

none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: Recommend that AALL review all LCPS related to cataloging legal materials, especially those relating to access points.


Session Laws of the U.S. States

none; LC practice: 2nd par.

Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" (but leave "LC practice" par. as is)


Codes of the U.S. States


LCPS for 6.29.1.33 Additions to Access Points Representing Treaties, Etc.


LCPS for 6.29.3.2 Variant Access Points Representing Laws, Etc.

Constitutions, Charters, and Other Fundamental Laws

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Because it seems inappropriate to speak of a preferred title in the context of a variant access point, revise final sentence to: "Add an appropriate distinguishing characteristic (see RDA 6.6) to the variant access point."

83




no change

LCPS for 6.30.3 Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression of a Religious Work

LC practice -no change-PCC catalogers should be allowed to differentiate expressions

7. Describing ContentLCPS for 7.4.2 Longitude and Latitude

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Note: Confirmed that LC is interpreting this to mean “core if the information appears on the resource.”



no change

LCPS for 7.7 Intended Audience

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 7.9 Dissertation or Thesis Information

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC


LCPS for 7.9.1.3 Recording Dissertation or Thesis Information

Recording the Sub-elements of Dissertation or Thesis Information

none -Label as "LC practice"-Note: Prefer that PCC leave method for recording this information to cataloger judgment. Both methods shown are acceptable under RDA.

LCPS for 7.9.1.3 Recording Dissertation or Thesis Information

Sub-elements of Dissertation or Thesis Information Lacking


LCPS for 7.10 Summarization of the Content

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

84


LCPS for 7.10.1.3 Summarizing the Content



Summaries Written by LC Staff: MARC Field 520

none (but LC practice implied in text and name of section)

Label as "LC practice"


Summaries Obtained From External Sources: MARC Field 520



Reviews Obtained From External Sources: MARC Field 520

none (but LC practice implied in text)



Abstracts Obtained from External Sources: MARC Field 520

none (but LC practice implied in text)



Summaries, etc., Provided in Copy Cataloging



Using MARC Field 856 for Links to Enhanced Content

none (but LC practice implied by text)


LCPS for 7.12 Language of the Content

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC


85


LCPS for 7.12.1.3 Recording Language of the Content



Form of Language



Greek LC practice -no change-Note: Unlike the policy in 6.11.1.3 (which affects access points), this policy only affects notes in bib records; PCC members should not be bound by LC practice here and should have leeway to provide more precise language notes if desired.


Norwegian LC practice -no change-Note: Unlike the policy in 6.11.1.3 (which affects access points), this policy only affects notes in bib records; PCC members should not be bound by LC practice here and should have leeway to provide more precise language notes if desired.


Languages That Omit Vowels


LCPS for 7.13 Form of Notation

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC" and add "/PCC" within the text.

LCPS for 7.13.2.3 Recording Scripts

Form of Script Name


LCPS for 7.13.2.3 Recording Scripts

Applicability none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for 7.13.2.4 Details of none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

86


Scripts -Note: Need to tweak "multiple languages and/or scripts" wording. Multiple *scripts* can be accommodated in MARC 546$b and are covered in 7.13.2.3. It is only when you have multiple *languages* that the recording of scripts become problematic in MARC.

LCPS for 7.14 Accessibility Content

Sign Languages none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for 7.15 Illustrative Content

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change



no change

LCPS for 7.16 Supplementary Content

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 7.16.1.3 Recording Supplementary Content

General none -Label as "LC practice"-Note: Not required for BSR


Bibliography Note

none -Label as "LC practice"-Note: Not required for BSR


Indexes none -Label as "LC practice"-Note: Not required for BSR

LCPS for 7.17.1.3 Recording Colour Content


87


LCPS for 7.20 Format of Notated Music

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Note: 008/20 (Music - Format of score) is part of the current BSR, but RDA's list isn't all covered by values in008/20

LCPS for 7.21 Medium of Performance of Musical Content

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

-Label as "CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC"-Add "LC/PCC practice: Medium of performance of musical content is a core element for PCC if not stated or implied elsewhere in the description or subject access points. Record information about the original medium if it is applicable to the entire resource and is considered important for identification or selection.”-Note: Based on existing text in the BSR for Notated Music.

LCPS for 7.22 Duration

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 7.25.1.3 First Alternative


no change

LCPS for 7.25.1.3 Second Alternative


no change



no change

LCPS for 7.25.5 Additional Scale Information

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change

LCPS for 7.26 Projection of Cartographic Content

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

no change



no change

9. Identifying PersonsLCPS for 9.3.2.3 Recording Date of Birth

LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The TG recognizes that our recommendation conflicts with the PCC Acceptable Headings TG recommendation (use the words "born" and "died" when the person is presumed to be dead and the birth and death dates are not known).

88


Ideally, the separate elements birth date and death date would be separately coded and the display constant generated by one's local system. Unfortunately, separate coding of the two elements is not supported in our current MARC environment. Appendix E provides a fallback in these situations and E.1.2.2 unambiguously prescribes the hyphen as the display constant. The RDA instruction also allows us to minimize the unnecessary use of English words in access points and provides a consistent approach to recording all birth and death dates. The method of recording dates should not vary according to whether a person is living or dead at the time the access point is being established and catalog users should not be faced with trying to make sense of a mixture of practices.-Note: If we do adopt this policy, current NACO normalization rules will result in a conflict between a 1XX for someone with only a birth date and a 1XX for someone with only a death date (if the year and the name are the same). This would need to be taken into consideration prior to conversion of the authority file (we have notified the Acceptable Headings Implementation TG). We also might want to revise the NACO normalization rules to retain the hyphens rather than converting them to spaces.

LCPS for 9.3.3.3 Recording Date of Death

LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The TG recognizes that our recommendation conflicts with the PCC Acceptable Headings TG recommendation (use the words "born" and "died" when the person is presumed to be dead and the birth and death dates are not known). Ideally, the separate elements birth date and death date would be separately coded and the display constant generated by one's local system. Unfortunately, separate coding of the two elements is not supported in our current MARC environment. Appendix E provides a fallback in these situations and E.1.2.2 unambiguously prescribes the hyphen as the display constant. The RDA instruction also allows us to minimize the unnecessary use of English words in access points and provides a consistent approach to recording all birth and death dates. The method of recording dates should not vary according to whether a person is living or dead at the time the access point is being established and catalog users should not be faced with trying to make sense

89


of a mixture of practices.-Note: If we do adopt this policy, current NACO normalization rules will result in a conflict between a 1XX for someone with only a birth date and a 1XX for someone with only a death date (if the year and the name are the same). This would need to be taken into consideration prior to conversion of the authority file (we have notified the Acceptable Headings Implementation TG). We also might want to revise the NACO normalization rules to retain the hyphens rather than converting them to spaces.

LCPS for 9.19.1.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points to Represent Persons

Giving Dates for Persons

LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Note: The TG recognizes that our recommendation conflicts with the PCC Acceptable Headings TG recommendation (use the words "born" and "died" when the person is presumed to be dead and the birth and death dates are not known). Ideally, the separate elements birth date and death date would be separately coded and the display constant generated by one's local system. Unfortunately, separate coding of the two elements is not supported in our current MARC environment. Appendix E provides a fallback in these situations and E.1.2.2 unambiguously prescribes the hyphen as the display constant. The RDA instruction also allows us to minimize the unnecessary use of English words in access points and provides a consistent approach to recording all birth and death dates. The method of recording dates should not vary according to whether a person is living or dead at the time the access point is being established and catalog users should not be faced with trying to make sense of a mixture of practices.-Note: If we do adopt this policy, current NACO normalization rules will result in a conflict between a 1XX for someone with only a birth date and a 1XX for someone with only a death date (if the year and the name are the same). This would need to be taken into consideration prior to conversion of the authority file (we have notified the Acceptable Headings Implementation TG). We also might want to revise the NACO normalization rules to retain the hyphens rather than converting them to spaces.

A. CapitalizationLCPS for A.1 Alternative


-no change to existing text giving LC practice-Add new text: "PCC practice for Alternative: Do not apply

90


the alternative."-Note: See comments under LCPS for 1.7.1, 1st Alternative. -Note: For both the LC and PCC policy statements: It isn't clear whether the gist of LCPS for 1.7.1, 2nd Alternative, needs to be included here (i.e. the exception for capitalization of data derived from digital sources).-Note: Per JSC agreement in Glasgow, RDA A.0 is being revised to clarify that Appendix A applies not only to transcribed data.

LCPS for A.31 General Guideline

none -Label as "LC/PCC Practice" (pending incorporation into RDA per JSC agreement in Glasgow); delete LCPS once incorporated into RDA-Future policy decisions regarding instructions for specific languages should be submitted as RDA change proposals via the JSC, rather than put in LCPS, if possible; language experts in the PCC community should be consulted on any future proposals.


Latvian none -Label as "LC/PCC Practice" (pending incorporation into RDA per JSC agreement in Glasgow); delete LCPS once incorporated into RDA-Future policy decisions regarding instructions for specific languages should be submitted as RDA change proposals via the JSC, rather than put in LCPS, if possible; language experts in the PCC community should be consulted on any future proposals.


Lithuanian none -Label as "LC/PCC Practice" (pending incorporation into RDA per JSC agreement in Glasgow); delete LCPS once incorporated into RDA-Future policy decisions regarding instructions for specific languages should be submitted as RDA change proposals via the JSC, rather than put in LCPS, if possible; language experts in the PCC community should be consulted on any future proposals.

B. AbbreviationsLCPS for B.1 General Guideline


LCPS for B.1 Alternative



91


LCPS for B.11 Names of Certain Countries, States, Provinces, Territories, Etc.

Virgin Islands none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

D. Record Syntaxes for Descriptive DataLCPS for D.1 Record Syntaxes for Descriptive Data


LCPS for D.1.3 Multilevel Description

LC practice for general cataloging

Label as "LC practice for general cataloging/PCC practice" (or simply "LC practice/PCC practice")

E. Record Syntaxes for Access Point ControlLCPS for E.1 Presentation


LCPS for E.1.3.2 First Alternative


-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (1st)"-Remove word "same" to avoid implying that the tag for each reference must be the same (e.g. an acronym 4xx could be coded 410 or 411)

LCPS for E.1.3.2 Second Alternative


Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (2nd)"

LCPS for E.1.3.3 First Alternative


-Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (1st)"-Remove word "same" to avoid implying that the tag for each reference must be the same

LCPS for E.1.3.3 Second Alternative


Label as "LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative (2nd)"

F. Additional Instructions on Names of Persons

92


LCPS for F.0 Scope

Congolese, Ethiopian, and Somali Names

none -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice" -Submit RDA change proposal to fine tune "languages" wording in RDA F.0, given that some categories in the appendix ("Roman" and "names in the Arabic alphabet") do not constitute languages, nor do some categories in the LCPS for the appendix (e.g. Congolese, Ethiopian).

LCPS for F.0 Scope

Filipino Names none Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"

LCPS for F.5.1.2 Modern Names

Choosing the First Element for North Indian Names


LCPS for F.5.1.2 Modern Names

Modern Indic Names Written without Separation


LCPS for F.8.1 Additional Instructions on Roman Names


LCPS for F.11 Recording Surnames That Include an Article and/or Preposition

Initial Articles in Personal Names for Languages Not Covered by F.11


I. Relationship Designators: Relationships between a Resource and Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with the ResourceLCPS for I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors

Illustrators for Resources for Children

LC practice -no change-Note: LC has agreed to provide relationship designators for illustrators of children's resources as part of their mission to support public libraries, but the practice need not be a requirement for PCC.-Create LCPS for I.1 (General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators) to provide guidance on use of relationship designators in PCC records [see separate "RDA Instructions That Need Policy Statements" section in Final Report]

93


J. Relationship Designators: Relationships between Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and ItemsLCPS for J.1 General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators

LC practice -Label as "LC practice/PCC practice"-Delete space before colon in example [slated for April 2012 release]-Make explicit that supplying relationship designators is left to cataloger's judgment-Add text to differentiate between relationship designators added to bib records (not limited to terms found in this appendix; model language on Appendix I) and those added to authority records (limited to terms in this appendix, modeled on language in Appendix K "Given the internationally-shared nature of the LC/NACO Authority File")

K. Relationship Designators: Relationships between Persons, Families, and Corporate BodiesLCPS for K.1 General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators

LC/PCC practice -Correct label to "LC practice/PCC practice"-Make explicit that supplying relationship designators in NACO records is left to cataloger judgment.-For clarification, change "only use" to "use only" and insert as the second sentence: "Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix." -Note: CC:DA has formed a task force to look at expanding the relationship designators in this Appendix.

94

Task groups and … · Web viewFinal Report of the PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group ....

Documents

Transcript of Task groups and … · Web viewFinal Report of the PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group ....