How about using the $k subfield instead?
Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245:
$k - Form
Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials,
determined by an examination of their physical character, subject of
their intellectual content, or the order of information within them
(e.g., daybooks, diaries, directories, journals, memoranda, etc.).
245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5.
245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm
(jacketted in fiche).
245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts
:$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille.
Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to
convey the nature of a resource (we have this issue with
three-dimensional objects and with manuscripts) might find the $k
subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this type of information. Of
course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the revision process
is ongoing.
Liz O'Keefe
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now
on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org
>>> "Kelleher, Martin" <mart...@liverpool.ac.uk> 10/23/2012 5:05 AM
>>>
"Transcribed information in transcribed fields" only? I can't see the
point of it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're
examining more obscure.....
Hear hear to reviving GMDs!
A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into
something more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the
opposite, it's removal and replacement with a clutter of significantly
less user-friendly codified record cloggers (the 330s).
The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is
combine carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:
DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette
Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what
we've got more than the 330s will......
Too late now?
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Michael Bernhard said:
>Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
>addition to the new 33x fields)?
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed
information in transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the
abandonment of "[sic]" or supplying missing letters in brackets. I
think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use
captured data without change. Use without even standardizing
punctuation is allowed.
We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX
information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just
start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions
in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted.
Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean
Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could have
been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even
compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience. Only systems able to provide
understandable icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
