Reports were given about FRBR (came up at many meetings). Liz O’Keefe gave report on MARBI - cf http://www.artcataloging.net/ala/mw03/mw03eok.html One discussion paper would move slides, transparencies and filmstrips to a new Leader and 007 category. MARBI will poll OLAC, VRA and other potentially interested parties. Another issue that digital matters aggravate: currently don’t have moving/still coding but do have projected/nonprojected which is not so important to electronic resources. Another paper talked about expanding Field 024 to cover international numbers beyond ISBN and ISSN. Mark Bresnan asked about the possibility of a standard number composed for art works, one that could be used in conjunction or in place of uniform titles. [The VRA Data Standards Committee has discussed this and David Austin wrote a paper in 1999 about it. If you want a copy of the paper, ask Sherman.]
ISBNs will be going to 13 digits - cf http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/iso/tc46sc9/docs/sc9n285.pdf (p. 5+)
CC:DA - someone raised issue of building your catalog vs building catalog records in order to FRBRize your opac.
RLG is giving forum on technical services client on 3/31/2003 at NYPL. The client will replace WinRLIN at end of 2003. cf http://www.rlg.org/newtsclient.html
A question was asked about why one has to do NAF/SAF work through RLIN or OCLC. Reminder: NAF and SAF are LC’s only authority files; the utilities provide a funneling function.
Bibliothèque nationale de France authority records are available on web and may be helpful in NACO records. Do not cite by URL. Sherman has added some 670s for electronic resources to the Art NACO page at http://www.artcataloging.net/naco/670ex.html
Danny Fermon suggested the need for “Art, North American” as a subject heading (we have Art, South American; Art, American; Art, Canadian; Art, Mexican; etc.). LCSH proposal form on SACO page at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/saco.html
Eric Wolf proposed “Art, Netherlandish” and it now appears as a proposed heading at http://authorities.loc.gov
SAC discussed liaisons with ARLIS and other subject cataloging constituencies. Claudia Hill is an at-large member of the committee and speaks out for art concerns as warranted.
NYU is looking at integrated systems with III and Voyager in the running. A discussion of Voyager issues ensued with concerns expressed such as indexing of fields should be available for any field; title phrase indexing should really be left-anchored; and Elsevier has deal on scientific journals in conjunction with Voyager and that should be extended to art, etc.
Lori Thorrat (ARLIS/NA Cataloging Section moderator) had asked for a discussion of CPDG at big ARLIS, the section, and CAC. The following summary was written by Sherman who has coordinated CPDG since the 1970s:
In addition to the desire for round-the-room discussion of the nitty gritty of cataloging at the ARLIS/NA conference, there is a need for discussion of bigger issues like FRBR, how the catalog is used, theoretical bases of cataloging, electronic resources, and the repercussions of cataloging. Panels and other programs can address some of these bigger issues, but the informal character of CPDG is also advantageous for both nitty gritty and bigger topics. The need for discussion of big issues is particularly felt by those that do not regularly attend ALA. The consensus was that catalogers should not volunteer to conflate the Cataloging Section meeting with CPDG. From the discussion, I resolved to try harder to be sure there are significant discussions of issues like FRBR or electronic resources cataloging from a broad and theoretical perspective. The CPDG slot could more rigorously include focused discussion with two or three people setting the stage for a discussion of a particular topic, i.e. a sort of Cataloging Section and Forum.
Notes by Zimra Panitz with emendations by Sherman Clarke
then email@example.com, now firstname.lastname@example.org