From email message from E. O'Keefe to CAC, 3 February 2012:

I'd like to suggest that as well as hearing reports on what transpired at ALA concerning the Bibliographic Framework Initiative, we start thinking about art documentation issues that CAC might like to air in the context of the transition from MARC to the "new environment". For example,

what should go in authority records for uniform titles for works of art? are all the fields needed identified, and are they sufficiently granular?  (by the way, the Getty is working on CONA; could someone from the Getty give an update on CONA?)

surrogate images of art works (those who provide access to surrogate images of works of art need to describe both the surrogate and the object it depicts; this hasn't been all that easy in MARC; how to make it easier?)

buildings and built works (authority records; formulation of access points)

manuscript facsimiles (we used to provide guidance on this; publishers are still putting them out, is anybody but the Morgan buying them?)

Other issues??? (lots, I'm sure)

AND ANOTHER MESSAGE FROM EOK ON 5 FEB 2012:

Might also be interesting to discuss where the BWR (Built Works Registry) fits into authority work. On the FAQ for the project, they disclaim any desire to act as an authority:

BWR is a registry and is not intended to function as an authority.  As a registry, BWR’s principal objective is to identify all built works with a name, location and unique identifier number and thus allow users to confirm the identity of a built work.  BWR will provide links to other institutions which provide and publish their own authorities, i.e.
Getty Research Institute’s Cultural Objects Naming Authority (CONA). BWR will serve as one of the core contributors to CONA.

But they could be a source. (And even a sort of authority, if they allow the recording of variant forms, along with the souce of the variant.).

Maybe this is a topic for the Cataloging Section or the Cataloging Problems Discussion Group instead.