Earlier I wrote RDA-L of the superiority of ISBD Area 0 content and media terms over those in RDA.
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/isbd/area-0_2009.pdf Another RDA-L poster remarked that with qualifications, they where just as long. We do not find that to be the case. First, qualifications "may" be added; they are not required. Second, even with qualifications they are shorter and better suited for display, e.g., 336 $aimage (still)$2isbdcontent vs. 336 $atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent or 336 $athree-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent. Following is what we are considering for a client who enriches e-text with pictures, audio and video files: 336 $atext$2rdaontent 336 $astill image$2rdacontent 336 $aspoken word$2rdacontent 336 $aimage (moving)$2isbdcontent 337 $aelectronic$2isbdmedia 338 $aonline resource$2rdacarrier We could use 336 $aimage$2isbdcontent to cover both still and moving images. The distinction between still and moving images seems more important to me than that between two and three dimensional ones, particularly in view of the display space that latter distinction requires. I wish RDA had taken advantage of the good work which went into creating ISBD Area 0. I hope EURIG does decide to adopt the ISBD Area 0 terms. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([email protected]) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
