BCC2008/Minutes

a) Library of Congress (Susan Vita)

i)    LC is leasing metadata from All Media Guide to produce encoding level 3 bibliographic records for popular music titles. The contract allows them to retain any records created. Records have formatted contents notes and provenance of the record is given in a note. Records are contributed to
OCLC and member libraries are encouraged to enhance them as appropriate.
ii)    Digitized treasures project will highlight monographic scores.
iii)    The Special Materials Cataloging Division (SMCD) will become part of the Music Division sometime this year.
iv)    The Gershwin prize for popular song fosters connection with current popular artists and creates an awareness of the library as potential archive for their output.
v)    Ca. 105 radio stations are broadcasting the LC concert series.
vi)    Work proceeds on the Performing Arts Encyclopedia; a session at MLA was devoted to this resource.
vii)    Positions have been approved for 7 new hires: 3 in Reader Services; 3 in Acquisitions and Processing; 1 for house concerts.
8)    The Music Division will do retrospective conversion on 34,000 bib records from the traditional music and spoken word catalog of the American Folklife Center.
9)    The National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC) will be delivering digitized sound recordings and eventually moving images from the newly opened facility in Culpeper, built with funding from the Packard Foundation.

c) Music Cataloging Bulletin (sent via e-mail by Mickey Koth)

i) All of v. 38 (2007) and the index is accessible at the MCB website: https://www.areditions.com//mcb/MCB_List.html. MCB’s contact at LC, Lenore Holm, retired in late 2007 and was replaced by Laura Yust. Matt Grzybowski, the A-R Editions contact, left in late 2007 and has been replaced by Kirk Stantis.

d) OCLC (Jay Weitz)

i) Jay referred all to the report he handed out for details on OCLC activities.

e) MLA/RBMS Joint Committee on Early Printed Music (Nancy Lorimer)

i)    Music Joint Committee (now officially the Music Joint Task Group) met with DCRM’s editorial board at ALA Midwinter. Discussions centered on incorporating music manuscript rules and the use of copyright dates in Area 4 (MARC21 260 field). MLA’s position on the use of actual vs. inferred dates will be sent in a response to the board.
ii)    Laura Yust heads a group that’s compiling examples.
iii)    Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Music) (DCRM(M)) slated for publication in 2009.

a)    Joe Bartl, Rob Freeborn and Jay Weitz represented the music perspective on the group.
b)    Draft report posted with calls for comments to MLA-L, OLAC-L and AUTOCAT.
c)    Comments chiefly dealt with use of sound recording vs. electronic resource as GMD. BCC supports the latter, which is the committee’s recommendation.
d)    Use of z as coding for fixed field speed questioned; with the proviso that this issue is clarified by the Playaway Task Force, BCC voted to approve the document as it stands.

a) Final report has been submitted, with a mapping list for music attributes in Dublin Core, MODS, EAD and MARC.
b) Charge to create a new schema for music was reinterpreted in light of changing metadata landscape:

i)    Single standard could not meet all the needs of music materials.
ii)    Few ILS packages provide a good way to deal with metadata at present.
iii)    Large database of descriptive metadata for music already exists.

c) Next steps:

i) Advance a recommendation to MLA Board for organizational support for further work in this area.
ii) BCC voted to approve the report if that recommendation were included as an addendum.

a) OLAC-CAPC considering a schema for work records for film and video.

i) Users want to search on work level attributes.
ii) Moving pictures released in many manifestations and formats, so economic benefits would result from the reuse of work-level data.

b) Potential benefits for music and BCC’s role in defining attributes for work records were discussed.
c) BCC proposed an internal working group to produce a preliminary report and elicit comments from outside groups.

a) Several recommendations impact BCC:

i) Disband the Administration Committee.
ii) Rename the Integrated Systems Subcommittee and move it under the purview of the BCC with a new charge.

1)    General BCC agreement with both the rationale for this move and the need for the charge to be clarified.
2)    Creation of the best practices document, currently in ILS Subcommittee’s charge, could be a task force activity.
3)    An emerging technologies group might provide an appropriate scope for the Subcommittee.
4)    Proposal to remove “integrated” from the name, expanding the focus beyond the library catalog.
5)    BCC subcommittees likely to evolve as RDA is implemented; a provisional relationship could be revisited as that process unfolds.

iii) Possibility of folding Authorities and Descriptive together after publication of RDA.
iv) Need for a metadata group of some type, broached in discussion of the Metadata Working Group report, was reiterated.

a) Form/genre terms for moving images have been implemented; implementation for radio terms now underway. MLA willing to help with music headings.
b) “Syndetic structure creep” occurs when headings wander into other disciplines:

i) Project is not perceived as a music issue per se.
ii) Not solely a Subject Access issue, but a BCC issue.

c) Two components:

i) Retrospective conversion of all 150 and 650 headings.
ii) New cataloging using 155 field instead of 150.

d) Proposals for a possible framework for the project have been sent in a letter to BCC.

i) Decisions need to be made for the following:

1)    Deciding what belongs in a cloned 155 authority record.
2)    Deciding what can be done outside LC and what must be handled inside by CPSO.
3)    Planning and implementing an instructional component.
4)    Effect on libraries that opt out of x55 adoption.
5)    Identifying costs to libraries.
6)    Possible timeframe for implementation.

ii) Agreement between LC and MLA on workflow issues and permissions from institutions would be needed.
iii) BCC should draft a document specifying goals for the project, decide on convening of appropriate group.

a) MLA response to CC:DA on LC/12 due by Feb. 29.
b) BCC response might focus on two broad areas:

i) Large departures from AACR2.
ii) The effect on legacy records and interoperability of newer records.

c) BCC in agreement that some proposals are not supported by FRBR:

i) LC/12 provides two versions of “Chorus score,” with one denoted as an expression and the other a new work.
ii) The cadenza proposal gives the composer of the work, not the cadenza, as the preferred access point.

d) Other issues of concern:

i)    Instructions to use terminology assigned by the composer as the initial title element and to use the language of cataloging agency will result in conflicts.
ii)    Compared to Types of Composition document with hundreds of terms, LC/12 give a closed list of only five types to be used in English, plus anything denoting
number of performers (duet, trio, etc.).
iii)    Abandonment of the concept of score order is lacking a strong rationale. Consistency with AACR2 to cope with legacy data is at issue here.

e) BCC discussion will continue post-meeting, with responses due to Mark Scharff by Feb. 28.