Music Library Association
Cataloging and Metadata Committee (CMC)
Content Standards Subcommittee (CSS)
Business Meeting
Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 12:00-1:25 pm (eastern)
Via Zoom – Meeting Slides

Members present: Linda Bagley, Ben Barba, Janice Bunker, Reed David, Sarah Holmes, Chris Holden, Ivan Kaproth-Joslin, Casey Mullin, Chuck Peters, Hannah Spence, Amanda Scott, Jay Weitz

Members not present: Sarah Holmes

1. Welcome & introductions

• The Chair welcomed members and audience observers and reminded everyone of the “Conduct during meetings” statement from the CMC Handbook and the MLA Code of Conduct.

2. Minutes

• Minutes of the previous meeting were approved, with one correction to the attendance record and one addition to the members who joined in 2020.

3. Chair’s Report (Knop)

• Membership
  • Two members joined the committee in 2021
    • Amanda Scott
    • Sarah Holmes
  • Two members completed terms in 2022
    • Ben Barba
    • Janice Bunker
  • The chair reminded attendees that applications for the committee were still being accepted.
• Liaison reports
  • Since most meetings normally covered by the Chair did not occur or took place online and open to the general public, the Chair attended only CC:DA in an official capacity. Full reports are available here and also in the Music Cataloging Bulletin:
    • Annual 2021: https://bit.ly/3s7gqKI
    • Midwinter 2022: This meeting did not occur due to scheduling difficulties.
  • News from the RDA Policy Writers Group
    • Testing of LC-PCC Policy Statements and Metadata Guidance was originally scheduled for January-February but was delayed due to the RDA Toolkit server migration.
    • RBMS has resumed work on policy statements for DCRM, which was temporarily halted while the “minimum viable product” of DCRM-RDA was in development.
    • The chair participated in a panel discussion on policy statements in the Toolkit with LC and British Library reps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysNWllXeeB0

4. LC Liaison Report (Holden)

• LC is slowly returning to normal with catalogers returning to the office a few days a week.
• The number of catalogers working on the BIBFRAME pilot project has increased and a more user-friendly BIBFRAME editor, MARVA, was introduced.
• BIBFRAME has introduced the concept of “hubs,” which collocate related BIBFRAME works; this is still experimental.
• Date of adoption for new RDA is yet to be decided.
• Full report: https://bit.ly/3kE0sUt

5. RDA Best Practices

• Current status
  • Updates to the Toolkit were delayed twice due to server migration issues. The March 23, 2022 update will include all remaining Best Practices content from the original Toolkit except for what has been moved to outside documentation.
  • A public feedback form will be distributed alongside the release.
  • A draft RDA application profile will also be distributed at the same time, as a spreadsheet.
• Guidance documentation
  • Version 0.9 will also be released with the March 23 update, to be issued as a PDF with web-native formats hopefully to follow.
  • Current contents:
    • Introductory material from the original Toolkit incarnation
    • Interpreting the MLA Best Practices
    • New LRM and RDA concepts
    • Preferred titles and access points for musical works and expressions
    • Element overview in MARC/ISBD order
    • MARC examples arranged by element
  • Mark Scharff asked how the documentation was intended to be used.
    • One use is as a place to document complex situations or provide additional information without cluttering the Toolkit, ideally with direct links from the Toolkit.
    • Can also be used to provide high level structure lacking in the Toolkit.
    • Mark also asked if the document could be used for training.
      • Response: hopefully yes. Another possibility raised earlier is application profiles for specialized purposes (e.g., film music).
• Supplements
  • A new version of Supplement 2 was released in July, which added support for the PCC guidelines for minimally punctuated MARC.
    • Thanks go to Amanda Scott, who drafted much of the new text for this update.
  • Supplement 3 will need updates to accommodate MARC changes.
  • Proposed Supplement 4, covering authority fields covered by DCM Z1, perhaps ready to go.
• Discussion: concerns, uncertainties, wants or needs for the future
  • Janice Bunker remarked on the need for training; the documents are good but we need demonstrations.
    • ALA/MLA is planning another round of e-courses.
    • We also have opportunities for smaller-scale things; perhaps circle back to doing smaller-scale videos for specific topics as was done in the past?
  • Preconference for MLA 2023?
  • Ethan D’Ver asked about the customization options in the Toolkit and whether MLA might issue recommendations about how to configure display.
    • Kathy Glennan noted customization options are still under development, but are still on the radar.
  • Jean Hardin stressed the need for free training options, with wide agreement.
  • Karen Peters asked about Best Practice changes or updates in periods where we can’t update the Toolkit, e.g. the 348 changes to MARC.
    • Since the guidance documents are outside the Toolkit the can theoretically be updated outside the release schedule.
    • Damien Iseminger remarked that the site migration was an unexpected need and that updates should return to a regular quarterly schedule.

6. Electronic Score Cataloging

• The CSS task group on electronic score cataloging was basically absorbed into the cataloging subgroup of the new MLA Electronic Scores Working Group
• Discussion paper produced in 2021
  • Covers mostly non-cataloging issues that affect cataloging decisions
  • Includes some examples of practice, but we need more: look for feedback requests coming soon
• Best Practices to come
• Rebecca Belford asked about open access scores without “cataloging the internet.”
  • No one in the group had much experience with this (other than dissertations)

7. Access points for aggregating works/expressions

• CMC and CSS chairs met with the PCC Policy Committee in October 2021 to discuss the CMC response to the Aggregates Working Group Final Report, which suggested there may be cases where we might wish to qualify the AAP for an aggregating work by a creator of all the expressions rather than a creator of all the works aggregated
  • CMC was generally in favor, with general reservations that it not be as loose and freewheeling as the AACR2 “principal performer” exception
  • PoCo agreed with MLA
• Follow-up response on authority records for aggregating works: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17RGHNFieo08Ye8r4hhU7NV7fCr_2F4SP/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100179608195862381508&rtpof=true&sd=true
• Draft recommendations are in the guidance documentation
• Mark Scharff asked about printed compilations of works, similar to the AACR2 LCRIs.
  • The drafts are mostly focused on recordings, with allowances for scores that attempt to scrupulously transcribe specific performances.
• Casey Mullin raised the point that the name in a name/title access point is now considered a qualifier in RDA, so does that mean we should start a name-only access point in addition to a name-title?
  • This was partly deferred to new business.

7. New business and announcements (Knop)

• There were no announcements.
• Possible topics for 2023
  • Is it time to for the 240 to quietly die? That is, always provide work access in a 7xx field in bib records?
    • Chat noted a lot of issues with field 100+240
    • Chris Holden and Chuck Peters were cautious about unintended side effects due to the wide variety of ways ILS’s handle access points.
  • RDA vocabulary encoding scheme issues
    • There is no file type appropriate for a file that consists primary of non-text, non-numeric notation (music, dance, other?)
    • There is no term for the instrumental equivalent of a vocal score
      • Not really a dedicated term in English but the issue has been raised multiple times
      • Casey Mullin noted that “Reductions” was rejected in LCGFT.
  • Other issues
    • Kathy Glennan expressed a need to hold vendors to our standards rather than changing our standards to match vendors (though how?)

9. Adjournment