IAML Cataloguing Commission

Officers Meeting

with invited guests: ISBD Sub-Commission and UNIMARC Sub-Commission Chairs

Monday April 11, 2016

09:30 EST

15:30 CET

Attendees: Anders, Daniel, Isabelle, Joseph, Massimo

1. Approval of agenda - APPROVED

2. Cataloguing Commission meetings in Rome - 2016 Meetings and Agendas Rome

• On Wednesday 6. June 1.00-.12.30 there will be a working meeting on UNIMARC Subcommission topics.
  
  
• On Thursday 7 July 9.00-10.30 we will have our ordinary working meeting with the Cataloguing Commission and subcommissions.  No oral reports this year, but reports will be sent in to the secretary beforehand or posted on the wiki. Anders will send out a reminder to those concerned.
  
  
• Other cataloguing programs in Rome will be:

• Monday 4 July 16.00–17.30
  Standards for music description
  Presented by the Forum of Commissions and Professional Branches
  Chair: Joseph Hafner

• Tuesday 5 July 9.00-10.30
  Cataloguing, classification and copyright - aspects of librarians' everyday work
  Presented by the Forum of Commissions and Professional
  Branches Chair: Claire Kidwell
• Tuesday 5 July 9.00-10.30 11.00-12.30, 14.00-15.30
  Tutorial session on DOREMUS project - CAT1-2
  Presented by the Cataloguing Commission Chairs: Joseph Hafner, Rodolphe Bailly
• Friday 8 July 11.00-12.30
  TEI, MEI, FRBR, Linked Data - PROG6
  Presented by the Forum of Commissions and Professional Branches
  Chair: Antony Gordon

3. Work of the Sub-Commissions 

• What needs to be done? - before the conference? during the conference?
  Isabelle and Massimo has gone through the issues and believe they have everything under control. The focus will be on the UNIMARC work

•  Recruiting members to commit to work on the Sub-Commissions? How do we appoint people who can participate?
  

4. DOREMUS tutorial session hosted by the Cataloguing Commission (Isabelle) - To happen on Tuesday 5 July at 11.00-12.30 & 14.00-15.30.
Isabelle has everything under control.

5. UNIMARC: matters for discussion in Rome: (Discussion to happen at the first Commission Business Meeting)

• proposals regarding fictitious characters - Massimo to follow-up with the group who asked about this
• Massimo presented an updated version of the proposal for a new UNIMARC Authority field 223 “Authorized Access Point – Character”, following the instructions received at the preceding meetings of the PUC. The field contains a structured access point for the name and other details relating to a fictitious character of works and expressions. The proposal was accepted, with some modifications, and will now need to be reworked and adapted to all related fields, 423 Variants of the name of character, 523 Character as related access point, 723 Character in another alphabet/script, and 623, Character as subject access points. Then UNIMARC/Bibliographic format proposal for new field 623 will need reworking.
  
• UNIMARC vocabularies in RDF (medium of performance, musical forms): the PUC discussed on some issues raised by Gordon Dunsire, concerning the transposition of the terms in the Open Metadata Registry. It was agreed that preferred terms for each language should be written in the alphabet of that alphabet. All terms in a language should be disambiguated. In the OMR, a list of "macro categories" responding to the first character of the code will be established. It is desirable that the IAML vocabulary be aligned with the LC Medium of Performance Thesaurus for Music at http://id.loc.gov/authorities/performanceMediums.html, through common work.
• connections with Doremus project 

6. Planning our next Officers and Chairs meeting
The meeting agreed that there was probably no need for a new meeting before Rome. If a situation should turn up where one is needed we can quickly call on a meeting one or two weeks before Rome. 

8. Other business

• Review of FRBR-LRM 
  Massimo expressed his discontent with the model. One of the things that he believes is lacking is more attributes for the work entity.
  The time to write back is too scarce and there is therefore no chance for IAML to write an official reply. Individuals and institutions can however write replies if they so wish.