> -----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: February-26-13 1:29 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
> 
> Jack Wu said:
> 
> >  Two dimensional moving image which leaves out sound ...
> 
> Jack, I empathize with your reaction to RDA media terms, and share your
> frustration.  But one does not have to leave out sound.  Media terms are
> repeating, either in repeating $a or repeating fields.
> (Most prefer repeating fields.)
> 
> You could add 336 $aspoken word$2rdacontent, in addition to 336  $atwo
> dimensional moving image$2rdacontent.  


So, in MARC terms, one would have LDR/06=g for "projected media" and 006/00=i 
for "nonmusical sound recording" to capture the essential content types of a 
movie-- "two dimensional moving image" and "spoken word"????

That's rather absurd when one steps back and looks at what is being proposed, 
and what is not even suggested by RDA, which reflects a lot of current 
categorization decisions for content types derived from AACR2 and MARC.

I watch movies and read subtitles. I plan to watch the (nearly) silent movie 
"The Artist." Spoken Word is not a relevant content distinction that needs to 
be added for users to identify movies as movies. It's only at that very broad 
"identify" user task requirement that decisions about Content Type need to be 
made. The other details can be added as supplementary elements, useful for 
further selections (films with closed captioning, films dubbed or subtitled in 
a particular language, form/genre category for "silent films", etc.).

In MARC, the equivalent to Content Types are captured by one predominant type 
in the LDR field, and other content types in 006 fields. MARC forces the choice 
of one predominant Content Type, whereas the default in RDA doesn't require 
this forced decision, but recognizes it as an alternative.

Rhetorical question:
How consistently  have libraries added all relevant additional content types to 
006 fields?

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Reply via email to