On 4/11/12 10:03 PM, Deborah Fritz wrote:
Karen,
I like your table as a way of looking at the lists, although I also take
Thomas' point about logical clustering of content/carrier/extent terms.
However, I noticed a few things about your table:
- Content is a closed list, so for anything not
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: April-12-12 3:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent
snip
The alternative I've suggested would have:
Content type: still image
Media type: projected
Carrier type: slide
Extent of carrier type: 100 slides
and with entirely new element...
Content extent: 100 photographs
This would capture the information of 100 photographs converted to
J. McRee Elrod responded to a quoted snippet:
Content: cartographic image
Content: text
Media needed to access content: unmediated
Carrier: volume
Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)
Or it could be Content: cartographic image, text
But why not map, text? RDA media terms often seem to use phrases where
Sorry I'm late into this conversation, I've been off of RDA-L for a spell and
thus am grateful for cataloging colleague Julie Moore for alerting me to this
ongoing discussion of cartographic 33X fields and their content and also
sharing strings of conversation with me the past 24 hours.
John Myers said:
Map is problematic because it means more than one thing.
[snip]
There absolutely has to be a one-to-one correspondence between
terminology and meaning.
Given the English language, that is not possible. And RDA media terms
don't even try, using computer to mean a media type
I've been finding this discussion fascinating. The examples really help
to think about these issues.
I noted in an earlier post that library cataloging rules do not conduce
to identifying printed books as a material type (the assumption being,
if it's not otherwise characterized, it's a printed
While I can see how the term Pagination Subunits might be precise for
those producing RDA records, I fail to see how it will do anything but
produce derision on the part of our users. The term is a bureaucratic one
that reminds me somewhat of the form 100 0 Bill, $cBuffalo in the early
years of
The subunits label can easily be dropped. The idea is to show two closely
related things are being counted, and they should be seen together in context,
as in:
Extent of carrier: 2 volumes
Pagination subunits: i, 999 pages
for a continuously paged resource (RDA 3.4.5.17)
RDA display
Larry Creider wrote:
While I can see how the term Pagination Subunits might be precise for
those producing RDA records, I fail to see how it will do anything but
produce derision on the part of our users.
I think that Thomas was suggesting this term as the name of the RDA element,
not as a
Given the English language, that is not possible. And RDA media terms
don't even try, using computer to mean a media type rather than a
piece of equipment, for example.
These terms are adjectives not nouns, so computer is perfectly acceptable
there. Other media type terms include audio,
Yes, point taken. The increased granularity is wonderful. Of course, you
have more faith in system vendors and, say, OPAC committees than I have.
Larry
--
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM
Larry Creider wrote:
Of course, you have more faith in system vendors and, say, OPAC committees
than I have.
Actually, I'm probably as pessimistic as you. Notice that I said ... we will
have LOTS of unimaginative and/or lazy system developers and/or vendors ...
(emphasis added). ;)
Kevin
Folks:
I'd like to make a brief comment on the portion of this thread having to do
with terms like other, unknown, etc. used to signify that there are no
defined terms that make the grade in a particular instance. This is a
traditional approach, used much in MARC where it was often necessary that
14 matches
Mail list logo
