As preliminary studies were undertaken that led to the creation of RDA, it became obvious that the GMD was an intellectually inconsistent hodgepodge of terminology. "Sound recording" managed to encompass an entire content category of recorded sound. Meanwhile, "motion picture" and "videorecording" split the content of 2-dimensional moving images into two primary media categories. Similarly "microform" and "electronic resource" effectively addressed media categories of textual content, although "electronic resource" could also encompass the content of computer files.
Historically, I suspect it was the disconnect between "electronic resource" GMD and the "computer file" Record Type that signaled the beginning of the end. Veteran catalogers may remember when all electronic resources, including those with textual content, were cataloged on a "computer file" format. Around 1998, we changed that guidance to today's practice of restricting "computer file" format to strictly computer oriented content that the divisions in content, medium, and carrier became pronounced. Things only acerbated as more material was digitized, as well as the proliferation of formats for "shiny, round, digital things." When a digital version of a sound recording could be encoded on a DVD-ROM, and as websites emerged capable of joining textual content with streaming imagery and sound, the nails were being put in the coffin. The need was obvious to clearly articulate the divisions between computer file content, digital media, and various digital carriers for a wide variety of non-computer file content. It is hard to dispute concerns that the resulting terminology is unwieldy. The system and display issues of incorporating the new MARC fields conveying this data into both lists and individual record displays are also significant. But a system that unambiguously encodes the nature of these three facets -- content, medium, and carrier -- is the long overdue fulfillment of an important need, and a necessary transition from the "fuzzy" categories represented by the GMD. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 -----Original Message----- Michael Bernhard wrote: Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? Or are the new rules already so set in stone that such a change could not be considered? It seems that many of you in these conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need for the continued application of the GMD. (I apologize for not being aware of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the GMD.)
