JSC Teleconference 11th May, 2011

Teleconference decisions in blue

1  6 JSC/Chair/1 Fast Track Proposals

JSC discussed the draft document circulated by the Chair which outlines the Fast Track Process for JSC Proposals.

1.1 Scope

ACOC commented that the process should allow for fast track changes to become normal changes if they are found to be inappropriate for fast track. An extra bullet should be added under the examples of change inappropriate for fast track : i.e. the substantial editing of existing instructions.

JSC agreed.

1.2 Fast Tack Process

The reporting of fast track changes to the Publishers should be conducted using Bugzilla or any tool which replaces Bugzilla in future.

Chair to contact Troy Linker and make sure that how changes are reported will not be dependent on changes in the technology provided.

ACTION = Chair

LC queried whether it was necessary to discuss typographical errors via email, record them on the fast track log and prepare JSC “rep” documents for them. Currently LC only report these using Bugzilla. The Chair responded by saying that genuine spelling errors could just go through Bugzilla. CCC queried whether other fast track changes recorded in emails, the changes log and in “rep” documents would also have to be reported on Bugzilla. The Chair responded that this was still the case. The task of reporting such changes on Bugzilla would be performed by the JSC Secretary.

Chair to amend the document describing the Fast Track Process for JSC Proposals in line with the comments made above and then recirculate it to JSC.

ACTION = Chair

2 RDA Vocabularies and Registry

JSC discussed outstanding issues following ALA’s review of the RDA Vocabularies.

a) Extent

Two outstanding issues regarding Extent terms needed to be resolved.

i) Plural terms

CILIP, ACOC and ALA commented that it should be possible to include plural terms in the Registry as a means of supporting future machine manipulation. BL and CCC initially commented that plural terms should not be included. However, in view of the argument for machine manipulation, the BL and CCC are now willing to change their approach and accept plural terms in the Registry.

ii) Overlapping vocabularies

LC and ACOC commented that it was worth adding an explicit list of terms for Extent of Notated Music to 3.4.3.2, whereas BL, CCC and CILIP commented that the instruction at 3.4.3.2 to use the list of terms from Format of Notated Music at 7.20.1.3 was sufficient. ALA did not express a preference. LC commented that at present they were receiving feedback from users of the RDA Toolkit that if the terms were added to 3.4.3.2 then this would avoid them having to navigate to and from 7.20.1.3 in order to access the terms. ALA responded that such an addition would represent duplication. LC commented that if the list of terms were not added to 3.4.3.2 then the wording of the instruction should be changed to make it clearer that Extent and Format of Notated music were two different components. ALA commented that the options for amending 3.4.3.2 did not relate to the Registry and should therefore be the subject of a separate proposal.

JSC agreed.

Chair to summarise JSC decisions on extent as a Chair follow up document to 6JSC/ALA Rep/3.

ACTION = Chair.

b) Structural issues

JSC discussed the structural issues which they would like to explore at a teleconference with the DCMI / RDA Task Group to be held prior to ALA.

i) Non terms

LC queried why Diane Hillmann preferred to create subvocabularies of terms on the Registry rather than converting “top concepts” into classes of term not enabled as part of the vocabularies. ALA explained that the creation of subvocabularies would remove the implied hierarchies of terms which currently exist in the Registry. This would make them consistent with the flat lists of terms to be found in the element set. LC commented that it would be useful to see an example of how the proposed changes would look in the Registry.

JSC agreed.

CILIP to contact DCMI / RDA Task Group and ask them to demonstrate what the creation of subvocabularies would look like in the Registry.

ACTION = CILIP Rep

ALA to circulate the spreadsheet of RDA vocabularies to JSC when complete.

ACTION = ALA Rep

LC queried whether it would be possible to create links between the lists of terms in the Registry and between the lists of terms in the Element Set. ALA responded that this was not possible at present.

ii) Duplicate terms

ACOC commented that there were cases in which the same term could be legitimately used in different contexts. However, for purposes of machine manipulation they must be made unambiguous. ALA responded that it was important to establish how significant any contextual differences were before terms were disambiguated. The use of qualifiers to disambiguate terms would be undesirable. LC commented that it was important to make terms distinctive where possible. The issue of contextualizing terms seemed resolvable but it would have to be the subject of a proposal. ALA responded that a full analysis of the vocabularies would have to be undertaken before a proposal could be made. The Chair commented that this seemed to offer a way forward and that there was no need to discuss the issue with the DCMI / RDA Task Group for now.

JSC agreed.

ALA and CILIP Reps to review their analysis of the vocabularies and check what stage they are currently at with this work.

ACTION = ALA Rep and CILIP Rep

iii) Encoding Schemes

LC queried what Dianne Hillmann meant in terms of misunderstanding Erin Stalberg’s report. ALA responded that this required clarification.

iv) Structural complexity

ALA commented that Tom Delsey was reluctant to allow the creation of subelements to element sub types. However, there were cases in which this approach was not sustainable because of the way in which it limited the scope for machine manipulation of elements. Creating a subelement structure for element sub types would make them independent of the generic definitions for these elements and they would also probably be independent of their FRBRized associations. However, it was important to ensure that the creation of these subelements preserved the structure of RDA. ALA thought Tom Delsey had taken the DCMI as his reference point for prescribing limitations on encoding schemes in RDA. LC commented that it would be useful to check this was the case.

The Chair commented that he would seek clarification from Tom Delsey regarding his point of reference for placing limitations on the RDA encoding schemes.

ACTION = Chair

The Chair commented that he would draft an agenda for a meeting between JSC and the DCMI / RDA Task Group based on the discussion which had taken place at the teleconference.

ACTION = Chair

The Chair commented that a doodle poll would be set up to schedule the meeting to take place within the next three weeks. It would be necessary to allow at least two hours for this meeting to take place. Because of the disparate time zones involved, it might prove difficult for all members of JSC and the DCMI / RDA Task Group to participate. ACOC Rep commented that it would be useful for all of JSC to participate in order to make sure that everyone has a common understanding of the issues discussed. However, if time constraints meant that a meeting could not be arranged any other way, she would be willing to not take part. Time constraints may also make it difficult for Karen Coyle to participate. The Chair commented that this may be the case but she would still be included in the invite with Gordon Dunsire and Dianne Hillmann.

JSC Secretary to arrange a doodle poll scheduling a teleconference between JSC and DCMI / RDA Task Group.

ACTION = JSC Secretary

v) FRBR issues in RDA

ALA commented that it would be useful to seek further clarification from Gordon Dunsire regarding his comments on the fate of FRBR elements in RDA at the DCMI / RDA Task Group meeting.

3  Terms of reference for the proposed new examples

group

The Chair requested that JSC review his draft terms of reference for the RDA Examples Group and send back any amendments using track changes. ACOC queried whether the group would have the power to act or only make recommendations. LC and ALA commented that the group should only be able to make recommendations, with the exception of making fast track changes. CCC queried whether the group should be responsible for both complete examples and those in the text of RDA. The Chair commented that it should be responsible for both. LC commented that U.S. RDA Test participants had requested the provision of more complete examples in the MARC format as a matter of priority. The Chair commented that this was useful feedback and that it was an issue requiring urgent attention. Feedback is already being received on one set of additional complete example proposals and the Chair is about to circulate further proposals for complete music examples. ALA queried how the membership of the group should be decided. The Chair commented that once potential group members had been sounded out regarding their willingness to participate, he would be happy to receive proposals regarding membership. Nominations for a group chair were also invited. Details of the group’s membership and chair would not need to be included in the terms of reference.

JSC to submit proposals for Examples Group membership and an Examples Group Chair to the JSC Chair.

ACTION = JSC

4 JSC Meeting and schedule for proposals

The Chair reported that costings for JSC meeting venues were ready to send off to ALA for approval. A venue will have to be paid for because rooms at Strathclyde University cannot be booked far enough in advance. Alternatives to Strathclyde such as the Mitchell Library, various hotels and conference venues have been researched. CCC Rep commented that the chair of the ISBD Review Group and one other representative would want to attend the meeting but they would expect to self fund.

CILIP to send the Chair and Katharine Gryspeerdt a set of options for meeting venues.

ACTION = CILIP Rep

The Chair commented that the deadline for submissions of formal proposals to be discussed at the meeting had been posted on the JSC schedule of work as provisionally 11th August. The deadline for responses to proposals was provisionally 28th September.

JSC to publicize the deadlines for formal proposals and responses so that the constituencies can plan their own deadlines accordingly.

ACTION = JSC

ALA queried whether there was a place to share information on anticipated proposals. The Chair commented that this information could be emailed to the JSC secretary who could then place it on the schedule of work as work in progress.

5 Any other business

5.1 RDA Toolkit responsiveness

ACOC provided further comments on slow RDA Toolkit responsiveness following the paper she forwarded to JSC from NLA. An assumption was made by the Toolkit developers that because RDA chapters contain so many internal links users would want them to load in their entirety. This was considered more desirable than only being able to load chapters in sections. However, chapters cannot be cached and this means that every time a internal link is selected the whole chapter has to be reloaded afresh. The Chair described the BL’s testing of Internet Explorer 8 as an alternative to Internet Explorer 7 when accessing the RDA Toolkit’s content. Initial testing suggests that the speed of chapter loads can be increased by up to four times using IE8 instead of IE7.

5.2

U.S. RDA Test

LC commented that a report on the U.S. RDA test was circulated to all senior managers at LC on 10th May. It is hoped that a decision on implementation will be made by late May or early June.

2