# /programs/ourwork/past/indomat/followup.htm

originally: http://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/past/indomat/followup.htm

# InDoMat Followup Report At the 1999 annual meeting of the RLG Art & Architecture Group, Roger Lawson reported what happened after RLG received the "Inaccessible Domain" Materials working group's final report in early 1997 and placed it on the Web: The next phase focused on establishing the InDoMat proposal as the basis for a standard "minimal level" record. Noting the differences between the InDoMat proposal and those for "core" records developed for use in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), Willy Cromwell-Kessler (then at RLG), suggested that the proposal be submitted for review and comment by a PCC group set up specifically for that purpose. The aim was to examine the proposal in terms of InDoMat's overall applicability and to make any suggested additions to bring it up to "core" level, rather than to recapitulate the basic objectives. In the interest of time, the proposal was submitted to the PCC's Standing Committee on Standards (SCS), chaired by Joan Schuitema, which recommended the addition of three variable fields to the InDoMat list: 042 (PCC validation code), 246 (title added entry), and 7xx (added entry). Recognizing that mandatory 7xx field(s) would substantially increase the amount of authority work, the committee proposed that local needs and guidelines be followed to determine the extent of the 7xx fields used. The "enhanced" scheme was presented on the PCC's Web site for review and comment. The original deadline (January 15, 1999) was extended a month to permit more opportunity to respond. The ARLIS/NA Cataloging Advisory Committee endorsed the proposal on February 12, 1999 with the following comments. First, the exclusion of realia and three-dimensional objects from the scope of applicable collections was challenged. The committee pointed out that ephemeral collections often contain this type of material, and exclusion would limit the proposal's applicability. Second, it was recommended that the 260$c field be specified as mandatory if applicable. The InDoMat proposal required the fixed field values for date(s) (008/7-14); the committee reasoned that because the 008 is usually not displayed in most online catalogs and if the information was already determined, the extra effort required to enter the value in the variable field was worth the effort. Third, the committee recommended that the general 6xx heading requirement be modified to accommodate an additional mandatory 655 (form/genre) field as appropriate in addition to any subject heading(s). This reflects the utility of access to ephemeral materials by form. Responses are now being compiled, with most in favor of including a 260$c. It appears that only minor adjustments will be necessary before it can be presented to the PCC Policy Committee for expected final approval.