On 4/12/12 4:27 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Unspecified used to be needed because of the structure of the
fixed fields -- you had to put *something* in every position. It's
no longer needed (and I am presuming that the age of fixed fields
is over). If you don't give a value, then it is, by
On 4/12/12 10:50 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Larry Creider wrote:
While I can see how the term Pagination Subunits might be precise
for those producing RDA records, I fail to see how it will do
anything but produce derision on the part of our users.
I think that Thomas was suggesting this
Karen Coyle said:
This is an application or situation-specific decision. The terms in the=20
lists for content and carrier are descriptive of the resource being=20
described. Unspecified is about a cataloging choice, not the resource.=20
It should not be in the same list ...
I'm trying to apply
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of
Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 6:36 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms
I decided that it would be interesting
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: April-12-12 3:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent
snip
The alternative I've suggested would have:
Content type: still image
Media type: projected
Carrier type: slide
Extent of carrier type: 100 slides
and with entirely new element...
Content extent: 100 photographs
This would capture the information of 100 photographs converted to
J. McRee Elrod responded to a quoted snippet:
Content: cartographic image
Content: text
Media needed to access content: unmediated
Carrier: volume
Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)
Or it could be Content: cartographic image, text
But why not map, text? RDA media terms often seem to use phrases where
-
From: John F. Myers mye...@union.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:20:09 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms
J. McRee Elrod responded to a quoted snippet:
Content: cartographic image
Content: text
Media needed to access content: unmediated
John Myers said:
Map is problematic because it means more than one thing.
[snip]
There absolutely has to be a one-to-one correspondence between
terminology and meaning.
Given the English language, that is not possible. And RDA media terms
don't even try, using computer to mean a media type
I've been finding this discussion fascinating. The examples really help
to think about these issues.
I noted in an earlier post that library cataloging rules do not conduce
to identifying printed books as a material type (the assumption being,
if it's not otherwise characterized, it's a printed
] Comparison table of extent terms
Content: cartographic image
Media needed to access content: unmediated
Carrier: volume
Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)
Don't forget that at least some of these kinds of resources will have
more
than one content type! For example, in addition to maps, atlases often
have
. Creider
Sent: April 12, 2012 1:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms
While I can see how the term Pagination Subunits might be precise for
those producing RDA records, I fail to see how it will do anything but
produce derision on the part
Larry Creider wrote:
While I can see how the term Pagination Subunits might be precise for
those producing RDA records, I fail to see how it will do anything but
produce derision on the part of our users.
I think that Thomas was suggesting this term as the name of the RDA element,
not as a
Given the English language, that is not possible. And RDA media terms
don't even try, using computer to mean a media type rather than a
piece of equipment, for example.
These terms are adjectives not nouns, so computer is perfectly acceptable
there. Other media type terms include audio,
Yes, point taken. The increased granularity is wonderful. Of course, you
have more faith in system vendors and, say, OPAC committees than I have.
Larry
--
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM
Larry Creider wrote:
Of course, you have more faith in system vendors and, say, OPAC committees
than I have.
Actually, I'm probably as pessimistic as you. Notice that I said ... we will
have LOTS of unimaginative and/or lazy system developers and/or vendors ...
(emphasis added). ;)
Kevin
Folks:
I'd like to make a brief comment on the portion of this thread having to do
with terms like other, unknown, etc. used to signify that there are no
defined terms that make the grade in a particular instance. This is a
traditional approach, used much in MARC where it was often necessary that
I decided that it would be interesting to see all of the extent lists
side-by-side:
http://kcoyle.net/rda/extentAll.html
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Karen posted the URL:
http://kcoyle.net/rda/extentAll.html
Yes, it is interesting.
It seems to me impossible to create an exhaustive list of all possible
unit names (aka SMDs). Fortunately there is the provision to use a
specific term, including a trade term, as unit name. I think patrons
: (321) 676-1904
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of
Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 6:36 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Comparison table
Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com wrote:
So, e.g., I could imagine something like this (but I could be VERY wrong
with these examples!!):
Content: still image
Media needed to access content: projected
Carrier: slide
Extent: 100 photographs
Extent: 100 slides
RDA follows AACR2
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
[debo...@marcofquality.com]
Sent: April-11-12 4:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table
Content: cartographic image
Media needed to access content: unmediated
Carrier: volume
Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)
Don't forget that at least some of these kinds of resources will have more
than one content type! For example, in addition to maps, atlases often
have a good deal of textual
Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of
Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:16 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms
Content
Deborah said:
You are also missing from the Carrier list:
object
I would also add equipment.
So, given that Extent uses an open list of terms, it has just occurred to me
that *perhaps* 'Extent' simply is not meant to be machine-actionable, after
all?
Agreed.
So, e.g., I could imagine
***
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:16 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms
Content
: April-11-12 5:15 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms
Content: cartographic image
Media needed to access content: unmediated
Carrier: volume
Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)
Don't forget that at least some of these kinds of resources will have
Content: cartographic image
Content: text
Media needed to access content: unmediated
Carrier: volume
Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)
Or it could be Content: cartographic image, text
But why not map, text? RDA media terms often seem to use phrases
where a word would do.
Both 336 and 336$a are
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: April-11-12 8:18 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent
29 matches
Mail list logo
