There is a difference between content type and illustrative content. Content type is at a higher level. It refers to the way a work (an idea) is realized. It could be text, still image, and so forth. I would say that it actually refers to the major content, the fundamental form a work is communicated. Certainly it is not limited to one type (one fundamental form).
I do not think that the definition for illustrative content in RDA is correct. Illustrative content actually only apply to textual content. I do not think that illustrative content would apply to other content, such as still image, sound, or moving image content. Also, illustrations may not be the primary content. When we put "portraits" in $b of 300 field, it does not mean that this book is primarily composed of portraits. For text books, when we put illustrations in $b of 300 field, an assumption has been there. The assumption is that the content type is text. I believe that we would see at least one illustration in most books. So we put 336 still image for most books? I do not think that it is correct. When we put chiefly illustrations in 500 note, the major content (still) seems to be text. A work is express by text with "many" illustrations :-) In such a case, the writer (if there is one) would be in 100 field, and the illustrator (if there is one) would be in 700 field. For picture books like comic books, I think that we will put still image in 336 field. But I do not think that there is a necessity for "chiefly illustrations". In such a case, the artist (if there is one) would be in 100 field. Is that right? Any more clarification is appreciated. Thanks Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Francis, > > If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then >> this content is no longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the >> primary content* in such a resource, so they no longer fulfill RDA's >> definition of illustrative content: "Content designed to illustrate the >> primary content of a resource." >> > > I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but > agree. So, if my resource is mainly pictures, it follows that I should not > record the element "illustrative content" at all. And this is probably the > reason why the former AACR2 rule about "chiefly ill. " and "only ill." was > abandoned. > > But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly > pictures? > > If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the > main content, and the text is only of secondary importance, we can > certainly bring it out by the content type (we use "still image", perhaps > even as the only one if we apply the alternative in 6.9.1.3). For the > extent element, I believe I still have to use "3.4.5 Extent of text", so > here we will only record the number of pages. It's different in "3.4.6 > Extent of image", where we give extent as something like "1 drawing" - but > as far as I can see, this element is not used for my coffee-table book. > > So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be > recorded in the extent element nor in the element "7.15 Illustrative > content" (as the illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be > visible in the content type. > > Phew. Does that really work in practice?? > > Let's compare two resources: > A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book) > B: mainly text, some illustrations > > For A, we record: > still image > text > 386 pages > > For B, we record: > text > still image > 125 pages : illustrations > > I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most > important one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not > even sure whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?). > > Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A > has more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only > the predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced > this is a good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA > (unless I've overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually). > > Now I wonder: How *are* these materials treated in practice under RDA, at > the moment? In the BL Monograph WEMI Workflow in the Toolkit, I've found > the following examples (in the "Expression Index"): > > Under "Record illustrative content (7.15)": > 300 ##....:$ball photographs (black and white, and colour) > > Under "Record content type (6.9)": > 300 ## $a12 unnumbered pages :$bchiefly illustrations (colour) ;$c26 cm > 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent > 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent > 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent > (Resource is a children's pop-up book) > > So at the British Librariy, they obviously use "illustrative content" in > these cases, and also continue the AACR2 practice of "all" and "chiefly". > > What do others do? > > By the way: This is a good example of how RDA often seems like an iceberg > to me. One puts an innocent little question, and under the surface it turns > out to be something much bigger... > > Heidrun > > > -- > --------------------- > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
