Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
First, Kelley's original question was about what the correct Media Type should be for streaming video according to the instructions in RDA. In RDA, there is a relationship between Media Type and Carrier Type. The list of Carrier Types in 3.3.1.3 is divided into groups with captions that refer implicitly to the Media Type terms. This is based on the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization; the attribute that defines Media Type is one of the attributes that defines Carrier Type. For any given Carrier Type there is one and only one appropriate Media Type. Therefore, if the Carrier Type for streaming video is online resource, then the Media Type is computer because online resource is listed as a Computer carrier. [Note: One of the reasons why Media Type is not a core element in RDA is that the Media Type can always be deduced from the Carrier Type, and therefore there may be no need to record it explicitly.] The RDA Media Type is a general term identifying a category of storage media, based on the type of intermediation tool required; it has nothing to do with the type of files stored on the carrier or with the type of content stored in those files. As John says, most users will make an inevitable leap from the media term to a related content term, and this is one of the challenges in using Media Type. However, RDA is clear that Media Type has nothing to do with content. This said, I agree with Kelley that the distinction between audio, video, and computer intermediation tools is becoming increasingly unclear. All three are based on some sort of microprocessor, and the specific carriers (e.g., discs) are likely to work in more than one type of machine. This is a challenge for the RDA/ONIX Framework, and something that will need to be addressed by future development of the Framework. For background, see the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization [5JSC/Chair/10]: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5chair10.pdf Any discussion of changes to the RDA Content Type, Media Type, or Carrier Type terms needs to begin with a consideration of the Framework. John Attig ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee jx...@psu.edu - Original Message - | From: Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 7:06:40 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video | OLAC is in the process of updating its streaming media best practices | to be RDA-compatible so it's coming soon. | I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with the computer | media type and have thought so since the days when we were | commenting on the RDA drafts. There is nothing intrinsically | different between a DVD-ROM with an ebook or software on it and a | DVD video in terms of the physical carrier. Is there a difference | between streaming MP3 files and those on a CD? Are the MP3 files on | a CD like the streaming ones (probably computer) or like a regular | audio CD (audio)? Under AACR2, LC made the former decision and said | MP3 CDs were electronic resources. This was based on the fact that | they didn't play in standalone players initially, although over time | they started to sell CD players that would play MP3 CDs. The line | that we have historically tried to draw between what plays in a | standalone player and what needs a computer doesn't make much | sense anymore. I have argued before for a digital/analog divide. | Others in OLAC share my concerns, although there is less consensus | about the solution. | Kelley | On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, John Hostage | host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: | I was cataloging one of these the other day and faced the same | conundrum. I turned to the OLAC best practices document | (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/47) which is several years | old and needs to be updated for RDA and the new fields, but is | still useful. | | Following the definitions of the attributes in RDA, I came up with | the same 33X fields as you did. The trouble is that for the | average person, video is nearly synonymous with two-dimensional | moving image, i.e. it denotes a content type rather than a media | type. For a media type, digital would probably be more | enlightening than either computer or electronic. While we're | at it, why do we generally not take account of the sound aspects | of a 2-dimensional moving image, which can be sounds, spoken word, | and/or performed music? | | In a world where everything is stored digitally and used on a | digital device, these categories are going to get very blurry. | | -- | John Hostage | Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard | Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 | Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu | +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) | +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) | | -Original Message- | From: Resource Description and Access / Resource
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
Forgive the rant and ignorance of one stuck in the one dimensional 300 field. I've not clearly understood the concept of the three part construct of content, media, carrier let alone its finer delineations and declensions. Two dimensional moving image which leaves out sound is perhaps no worse than print text leaving out graphic. What about talking book and graphic novel... We've been told Gaul is divided into three parts. Fact is, it can be divided in many ways and into as many parts as one desires, politically, topographically, meteorologically. I suspect it's the same with RDA's cardinal conceptual base, not just details of the 33x fields. I'm not sure if the categories are actually blurry or just my eyes. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu 2/25/2013 5:01 PM I was cataloging one of these the other day and faced the same conundrum. I turned to the OLAC best practices document (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/47) which is several years old and needs to be updated for RDA and the new fields, but is still useful. Following the definitions of the attributes in RDA, I came up with the same 33X fields as you did. The trouble is that for the average person, video is nearly synonymous with two-dimensional moving image, i.e. it denotes a content type rather than a media type. For a media type, digital would probably be more enlightening than either computer or electronic. While we're at it, why do we generally not take account of the sound aspects of a 2-dimensional moving image, which can be sounds, spoken word, and/or performed music? In a world where everything is stored digitally and used on a digital device, these categories are going to get very blurry. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelley McGrath Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:38 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video I had always assumed that the 33x fields for streaming video should look like this due to the online nature of the resource: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier However, I was recently reviewing something where the following was used: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier A little googling found institutions recommending that as well as 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier The relevant RDA definitions for media type: Video: Media used to store moving or still images, designed for use with a playback device such as a videocassette player or DVD player. Includes media used to store digitally encoded as well as analog images Computer: Media used to store electronic files, designed for use with a computer. Includes media that are accessed remotely through file servers as well as direct-access media such as computer tapes and discs. Leaving aside the problematic nature of the computer media type in RDA and working with RDA as written, what should the media type(s) for streaming video be? Also worrying to me is the fact that catalogers are interpreting and applying the these elements in such disparate ways for the same type of material. What does this lack of consistency mean for our ability to map these elements to more human-friendly displays? I suppose the more important elements for mapping to icons, etc. are the content and carrier types, but I still find it a little unsettling. Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
The scope note for two dimensional moving image includes sound. From RDA 6.9.1.3 for two dimensional moving image: Moving images may or may not be accompanied by sound ... Details about sound are covered in the Sound Content element (RDA 7.18). 'Sound content' is the presence of sound in a resource other than one that consists primarily of recorded sound. I think the same basic logic applies to other resources in determining primary content from supplementary content. I would think a graphic novel would get a still image content type in addition to text. Books with accompanying illustrations would only get a value for illustrative content (RDA 7.15). In RDA 7.15, the reference is to illustrating the primary content of the resource, which means one doesn't use the Illustrative Content element if one of the content types is still image. For RDA 6.9 on Content Types, one records all, the most predominant, or the most substantial content types. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: February-26-13 10:26 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video Forgive the rant and ignorance of one stuck in the one dimensional 300 field. I've not clearly understood the concept of the three part construct of content, media, carrier let alone its finer delineations and declensions. Two dimensional moving image which leaves out sound is perhaps no worse than print text leaving out graphic
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. (The MRIs suggest just using
moving image for ease of display.) That is more in accord with RDA
than adding 337 $avideo$2rdamedia, I suspect.
Inconsistency will arise from the fact that RDA allows the recording
on only one major content, prominent contents, or all. The loss of
consistency in records will I fear be the major effect of RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
-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
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
John, Thanks for pointing to that RDA/ONIX Framework. I wasn't aware of it. This does put a lot of the content, carrier, media type terms in context. -- Sean Chen sc...@law.duke.edu Digital Resources Librarian J. Michael Goodson Law Library Duke University School of Law (919)613-7028 On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:24 AM, JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu wrote: First, Kelley's original question was about what the correct Media Type should be for streaming video according to the instructions in RDA. In RDA, there is a relationship between Media Type and Carrier Type. The list of Carrier Types in 3.3.1.3 is divided into groups with captions that refer implicitly to the Media Type terms. This is based on the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization; the attribute that defines Media Type is one of the attributes that defines Carrier Type. For any given Carrier Type there is one and only one appropriate Media Type. Therefore, if the Carrier Type for streaming video is online resource, then the Media Type is computer because online resource is listed as a Computer carrier. [Note: One of the reasons why Media Type is not a core element in RDA is that the Media Type can always be deduced from the Carrier Type, and therefore there may be no need to record it explicitly.] The RDA Media Type is a general term identifying a category of storage media, based on the type of intermediation tool required; it has nothing to do with the type of files stored on the carrier or with the type of content stored in those files. As John says, most users will make an inevitable leap from the media term to a related content term, and this is one of the challenges in using Media Type. However, RDA is clear that Media Type has nothing to do with content. This said, I agree with Kelley that the distinction between audio, video, and computer intermediation tools is becoming increasingly unclear. All three are based on some sort of microprocessor, and the specific carriers (e.g., discs) are likely to work in more than one type of machine. This is a challenge for the RDA/ONIX Framework, and something that will need to be addressed by future development of the Framework. For background, see the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization [5JSC/Chair/10]: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5chair10.pdf Any discussion of changes to the RDA Content Type, Media Type, or Carrier Type terms needs to begin with a consideration of the Framework. John Attig ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee jx...@psu.edu From: Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 7:06:40 PM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video OLAC is in the process of updating its streaming media best practices to be RDA-compatible so it's coming soon. I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with the computer media type and have thought so since the days when we were commenting on the RDA drafts. There is nothing intrinsically different between a DVD-ROM with an ebook or software on it and a DVD video in terms of the physical carrier. Is there a difference between streaming MP3 files and those on a CD? Are the MP3 files on a CD like the streaming ones (probably computer) or like a regular audio CD (audio)? Under AACR2, LC made the former decision and said MP3 CDs were electronic resources. This was based on the fact that they didn't play in standalone players initially, although over time they started to sell CD players that would play MP3 CDs. The line that we have historically tried to draw between what plays in a standalone player and what needs a computer doesn't make much sense anymore. I have argued before for a digital/analog divide. Others in OLAC share my concerns, although there is less consensus about the solution. Kelley On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I was cataloging one of these the other day and faced the same conundrum. I turned to the OLAC best practices document (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/47) which is several years old and needs to be updated for RDA and the new fields, but is still useful. Following the definitions of the attributes in RDA, I came up with the same 33X fields as you did. The trouble is that for the average person, video is nearly synonymous with two-dimensional moving image, i.e. it denotes a content type rather than a media type. For a media type, digital would probably be more enlightening than either computer or electronic. While we're at it, why do we generally not take account of the sound aspects of a 2-dimensional moving image, which can be sounds, spoken word, and/or performed music? In a world where everything is stored digitally and used on a digital device, these categories are going to get very blurry
[RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
I had always assumed that the 33x fields for streaming video should look like this due to the online nature of the resource: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier However, I was recently reviewing something where the following was used: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier A little googling found institutions recommending that as well as 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier The relevant RDA definitions for media type: Video: Media used to store moving or still images, designed for use with a playback device such as a videocassette player or DVD player. Includes media used to store digitally encoded as well as analog images Computer: Media used to store electronic files, designed for use with a computer. Includes media that are accessed remotely through file servers as well as direct-access media such as computer tapes and discs. Leaving aside the problematic nature of the computer media type in RDA and working with RDA as written, what should the media type(s) for streaming video be? Also worrying to me is the fact that catalogers are interpreting and applying the these elements in such disparate ways for the same type of material. What does this lack of consistency mean for our ability to map these elements to more human-friendly displays? I suppose the more important elements for mapping to icons, etc. are the content and carrier types, but I still find it a little unsettling. Kelley ** Kelley McGrath Metadata Management Librarian University of Oregon Libraries 1299 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403 541-346-8232 kell...@uoregon.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
Kelly McGrath posted for streaming videos:
336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent
337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia
338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier
I agree with your choice of 336 and 338. I think most patrons would
think of video as a disk played on a device.
The one change I would suggest is:
337 $aelectronic$2isbdmedia
That $2 code has been recently approved. This term would be less
confusing to patrons, since few consider Kobos or Kendles to be
computers.
Also worrying to me is the fact that catalogers are interpreting and
applying the these elements in such disparate ways for the same type
of material.
Agreed. Considering RDA's fuzzy language and many options, these will
not be the only variations. Witness the division of DVD noncast
credits between 245/$c and 508. vs. all in 508 (my preference) in RDA
test records.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
I was cataloging one of these the other day and faced the same conundrum. I turned to the OLAC best practices document (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/47) which is several years old and needs to be updated for RDA and the new fields, but is still useful. Following the definitions of the attributes in RDA, I came up with the same 33X fields as you did. The trouble is that for the average person, video is nearly synonymous with two-dimensional moving image, i.e. it denotes a content type rather than a media type. For a media type, digital would probably be more enlightening than either computer or electronic. While we're at it, why do we generally not take account of the sound aspects of a 2-dimensional moving image, which can be sounds, spoken word, and/or performed music? In a world where everything is stored digitally and used on a digital device, these categories are going to get very blurry. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelley McGrath Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:38 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video I had always assumed that the 33x fields for streaming video should look like this due to the online nature of the resource: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier However, I was recently reviewing something where the following was used: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier A little googling found institutions recommending that as well as 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier The relevant RDA definitions for media type: Video: Media used to store moving or still images, designed for use with a playback device such as a videocassette player or DVD player. Includes media used to store digitally encoded as well as analog images Computer: Media used to store electronic files, designed for use with a computer. Includes media that are accessed remotely through file servers as well as direct-access media such as computer tapes and discs. Leaving aside the problematic nature of the computer media type in RDA and working with RDA as written, what should the media type(s) for streaming video be? Also worrying to me is the fact that catalogers are interpreting and applying the these elements in such disparate ways for the same type of material. What does this lack of consistency mean for our ability to map these elements to more human-friendly displays? I suppose the more important elements for mapping to icons, etc. are the content and carrier types, but I still find it a little unsettling.
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
OLAC is in the process of updating its streaming media best practices to be RDA-compatible so it's coming soon. I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with the computer media type and have thought so since the days when we were commenting on the RDA drafts. There is nothing intrinsically different between a DVD-ROM with an ebook or software on it and a DVD video in terms of the physical carrier. Is there a difference between streaming MP3 files and those on a CD? Are the MP3 files on a CD like the streaming ones (probably computer) or like a regular audio CD (audio)? Under AACR2, LC made the former decision and said MP3 CDs were electronic resources. This was based on the fact that they didn't play in standalone players initially, although over time they started to sell CD players that would play MP3 CDs. The line that we have historically tried to draw between what plays in a standalone player and what needs a computer doesn't make much sense anymore. I have argued before for a digital/analog divide. Others in OLAC share my concerns, although there is less consensus about the solution. Kelley On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I was cataloging one of these the other day and faced the same conundrum. I turned to the OLAC best practices document (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/47) which is several years old and needs to be updated for RDA and the new fields, but is still useful. Following the definitions of the attributes in RDA, I came up with the same 33X fields as you did. The trouble is that for the average person, video is nearly synonymous with two-dimensional moving image, i.e. it denotes a content type rather than a media type. For a media type, digital would probably be more enlightening than either computer or electronic. While we're at it, why do we generally not take account of the sound aspects of a 2-dimensional moving image, which can be sounds, spoken word, and/or performed music? In a world where everything is stored digitally and used on a digital device, these categories are going to get very blurry. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelley McGrath Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:38 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video I had always assumed that the 33x fields for streaming video should look like this due to the online nature of the resource: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier However, I was recently reviewing something where the following was used: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier A little googling found institutions recommending that as well as 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier The relevant RDA definitions for media type: Video: Media used to store moving or still images, designed for use with a playback device such as a videocassette player or DVD player. Includes media used to store digitally encoded as well as analog images Computer: Media used to store electronic files, designed for use with a computer. Includes media that are accessed remotely through file servers as well as direct-access media such as computer tapes and discs. Leaving aside the problematic nature of the computer media type in RDA and working with RDA as written, what should the media type(s) for streaming video be? Also worrying to me is the fact that catalogers are interpreting and applying the these elements in such disparate ways for the same type of material. What does this lack of consistency mean for our ability to map these elements to more human-friendly displays? I suppose the more important elements for mapping to icons, etc. are the content and carrier types, but I still find it a little unsettling.
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
Kelly, I agree that this is a tough issue to untangle. Especially if we are trying to infer what users are thinking with respect to find, identify, select, obtain. We decided on using your second option in our digital asset description: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier For us though we actually are trying to overload our descriptions and include management of our physical media along with our streaming media (so I have additional carriers in some of our descriptions). We do this because our production folks produce DVD diigital file master and use copies along with our streaming manifestations. I believe the computer media type is now irrelevant and I think that referring to things as needing a computer is not going to be in alignment with how users are doing FISO. My use case is a person with an iPad or tablet, and goes ahead and views streaming video through the YouTube app; but, in their thinking their device isn't a computer. Instead that computer being that huge chunk of iron they have to deal with at work. As Mac implies though the electronic media type might be a good catchall for these sorts of content/carriers that can appear on a range of things that are mediated by digital devices (think computers, tablets, phones, wrist watches) . I won't presuppose a linguistic analysis that digital is better than electronic in this case; but I still go ahead and type with my digits on a device that pushes electrons. -- Sean Chen sc...@law.duke.edu Digital Resources Librarian J. Michael Goodson Law Library Duke University School of Law (919)613-7028 On Feb 25, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu wrote: OLAC is in the process of updating its streaming media best practices to be RDA-compatible so it's coming soon. I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with the computer media type and have thought so since the days when we were commenting on the RDA drafts. There is nothing intrinsically different between a DVD-ROM with an ebook or software on it and a DVD video in terms of the physical carrier. Is there a difference between streaming MP3 files and those on a CD? Are the MP3 files on a CD like the streaming ones (probably computer) or like a regular audio CD (audio)? Under AACR2, LC made the former decision and said MP3 CDs were electronic resources. This was based on the fact that they didn't play in standalone players initially, although over time they started to sell CD players that would play MP3 CDs. The line that we have historically tried to draw between what plays in a standalone player and what needs a computer doesn't make much sense anymore. I have argued before for a digital/analog divide. Others in OLAC share my concerns, although there is less consensus about the solution. Kelley On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: I was cataloging one of these the other day and faced the same conundrum. I turned to the OLAC best practices document (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/47) which is several years old and needs to be updated for RDA and the new fields, but is still useful. Following the definitions of the attributes in RDA, I came up with the same 33X fields as you did. The trouble is that for the average person, video is nearly synonymous with two-dimensional moving image, i.e. it denotes a content type rather than a media type. For a media type, digital would probably be more enlightening than either computer or electronic. While we're at it, why do we generally not take account of the sound aspects of a 2-dimensional moving image, which can be sounds, spoken word, and/or performed music? In a world where everything is stored digitally and used on a digital device, these categories are going to get very blurry. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelley McGrath Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:38 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video I had always assumed that the 33x fields for streaming video should look like this due to the online nature of the resource: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier However, I was recently reviewing something where the following was used: 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia 337 __ $a video $2
Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
Sean Chen said:
I believe the computer media type is now irrelevant and I think that =
referring to things as needing a computer is not going to be in =
alignment with how users are doing FISO.
I of course agree.
I have no argument that electronic is better as a media type than
digital. More than one attendee of RDA workshops suggested
digital.
There is however no source for digital as a term with an approved
code for $2, as there is for ISBD Area 0's electronic. It's simply
a matter of pragmatism.
Video as a media type does not have online resource listed as a
carrier, so I think using video as a media type with online resource
as carrier, is a mismatch. The SMD/unit name can be streaming
video, to get that word in.
If a patron searches 337 for videos, I doubt streaming ones are
wanted, just as one searching 008/28 for documents doesn't need state
university press publications. We should consider the utility of what
we code.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
