The fact that RDA rules create a conundrum like this regarding what should be a simple line of description has got to be one of the most ridiculous examples of why this whole set of rules will be just another (big) nail in our professional coffins. The public doesn't want to be confused with all this nit-picking. They just want to know if they are looking for a thick or thin book with or without a lot of pictures. The machines can figure out what they need to figure out from the 33x fields if they are properly developed. This is a rant against the folly of RDA, NOT a knock on Prof. Wiesenmüller's ruminations. I just don't understand how the profession can embrace such folly though.
Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3 Lynn wrote: > Is there a reason we can't do something like this for graphic novels and the > like: > > 1 volume of illustrations ; some color or 138 pages of illustrations ; > some color > > I haven't gone through the RDA rules in depth like many of you, but 3.4.12.1 > says to give the number of units and/or subunits and if we look at the > examples under 3.4.5.9 (leaves or pages of plates). It looks like 'pages of > plates' would be considered a subunit, so why not consider 'volume of > illustrations (or other appropriate term)' or 'pages of illustrations' a > subunit. The challenge is to find a solution which is easily understandable for our users and also fits in with the internal logics of RDA (the second aim is the harder one, I think). As RDA now stands, if there is no text at all, you can't use the element 3.4.5 "Extent of text" (it is not quite clear to me whether it can/should be used if there is a little bit of text, though). But you also cannot use the element 3.4.4. "Extent of still image", if the resource is a volume. So you need to work with the general rule in 3.4.1. The unit is supposed to be given as a term from the carrier type list, which gives us "1 volume". If my coffee-table book has 350 pages, I think these are the subunits, so we get "1 volume (350 pages)". I don't think that, according to the logics of RDA, we can use "volume of illustrations" instead of "volume". The alternative in 3.4.1.3 allows us to use "a term in common usage" instead of the carrier type term, but I don't think this applies here. I also think that we cannot use "pages of illustrations" as the name of the subunit instead of a mere "pages". The definition in 3.4.1.1 says a subunit is "a physical or logical subdivision of a unit (e.g., a page of a volume, a frame of a microfiche, a record in a digital file)". The problem seems to be that illustrations are seen as belonging to the level of the expression, whereas chapter 3 is only about manifestations. However, it has been noted that RDA doesn't keep this distinction up consistently in chapter 3: "1 map", for example, mixes up carrier and content. The extent of the manifestation should really be "1 sheet". The information that there is a map on the sheet should be treated somewhere in chapter 7. I believe this is one of the main messages of the ALA discussion paper on machine-actionable data, as Francis Lapka has already pointed out earlier on this thread: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf They propose to introduce a new element "extent of expression". So, we could have "1 volume (350 pages)" as the "extent of manifestation" according to chapter 3, and "300 illustrations" or some such as the "extent of expression" according to chapter 7. That makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, the EURIG discussion paper on illustrative content and other augmentations http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-EURIG-Discussion-2.pdf proposes a completely different approach. They see illustrations not as a part of a certain expression but as a work in its own right, of which the illustrator is the creator. Up to this point, I'm quite willing to follow. I'm not so sure about the next steps: The combination of the expression of a textual work and of an illustration work is seen as taking place on the level of the manifestation. It is argued that - if the illustrations are not described as a work in their own right - the information should be handled as part of the description of the carrier. Therefore, the idea is to move 7.15 to somewhere in chapter 3. What bothers me is that illustrators are (if I understand the paper correctly) supposed to be two different things at the same time: 1. creators of the illustration work 2. persons with a relationship to a manifestation, if the illustration work isn't described in its own right I think the situation is a bit similar to a volume of essays by different authors: Each of them is a creator of his or her essay. But they are not seen as having a direct relationship to the collection as such. They aren't creators of their essay work *and also* contributors of the collection work. So how can it be different for illustrators? Heidrun -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
