RDA - PART A, Chapters 3 and 4
COMMENTS ON THE MARCH 2007 DRAFT
Submitted by: Martha M. Yee
Cataloging Supervisor
UCLA Film and Television Archive
1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90038
323-462-4921 x27
E-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 30, 2007
SOME GOOD THINGS
There are some good things about this draft:
1) RDA finally admits that online resources still have the content parts of
the old AACR2 "physical description," so they can potentially be coloured,
have a playing time, etc., even when the carrier has changed to a digital
one.
2) Some rules pertaining to content (but not all--see below) have been moved
from Chapter 3 to Chapter 4.
3) 4.12.0.3 is evidence that RDA is beginning to take the more general "if
applicable" approach to rules, rather than tying rules to the old AACR2
"classes of materials," still evident in many other places in RDA.
That said, there are still many logical and other problems in this draft.
GENERAL PROBLEMS
[MAJOR ISSUE] p. 4, the phrase "considered to be important for
identification or selection" recognizes a logic that is not recognized by
the fundamental arrangement of the rules in RDA, based as it is on the FRBR
tasks. Since the same piece of data can be important for BOTH
identification (for the user looking for a known work/expression) and
selection (for the user looking for works/expressions on a subject), the
fundamental arrangement of RDA based on FRBR tasks makes no sense. It would
make much more sense to arrange the rules based on ISBD areas, i.e., placing
the elements that tend to identify the work first, then the elements that
tend to identify the expression, and finally the elements that tend to
identify the manifestation.
[CLARITY] p. 4-5 introduces the concept of recording data in "structured" or
"unstructured" form, yet neither of these terms appear in the glossary. It
is imperative that these two concepts be defined functionally, or catalogers
will not understand why the distinction is being made. How does
"structured" form compare to the preferred form of name for a FRBR entity in
the form of a heading that can appear in an index independently of the
bibliographic record? Is "structured" form comparable to a controlled
vocabulary in that it is intended to control synonyms and homonyms for
keyword searchers? Or is it structured to take up less space in the display
of the record than a free form note would?
[MAJOR ISSUE] In general, these chapters feel like they were designed to
support the construction of pull-down lists for data entry. This seems like
a fundamental misconception of the nature of cataloging, which is actually a
kind of expository writing. Those skilled in its practice can concisely and
accurately describe anything unusual collected by a library, archive or
museum, even when there are not specific cataloging rules to cover it. This
art of cataloging can never be reduced to selecting from pull-down lists.
The mechanized combination of terms from pull-down lists evident in the
examples in this draft make us sound illiterate.
[MAJOR ISSUE] The length and complexity of the rules for describing carriers
are staggering. Can anyone seriously think that the metadata folks are
going to plow through this?
ELEMENTS THAT ARE CONTENT (CHAPTER 4) NOT CARRIER (CHAPTER 3)
Many of the data elements still listed in Chapter 3 ("Carrier") are actually
content elements, and should be moved to Chapter 4, specifically:
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.12, colour: For motion picture and television works, colour
is associated with the work, not the carrier. A film or program is either
made in colour or it is made in black and white. If a colour film is
subsequently exhibited (usually broadcast) in black and white, or if a black
and white film is subsequently colourized, this is a kind of damage to the
work that should be pointed out to users in a warning note, not even treated
as a new expression of the work, damage comparable to publishing an Agatha
Christie novel without the last chapter. It is certainly content
information, not carrier information, as it is fundamental to the visual
design of the work when it was originally released. I suspect this same
argument could be made for all visual works, but art librarians, map
librarians and others should be consulted about this.
[MAJOR ISSUE] Re "colourized," since it is a kind of damage, it should be
treated the same way incompleteness is treated in 3.4.4.5 (of which more
below).
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.17, sound characteristics: For motion pictures, sound is
associated with either the expression or the work, not the carrier. For
sound films, the design of the sound is integral to the design of the work
as a whole; if a sound film is exhibited without its sound track, it is
damaged. For silent films, sound could or could not be added, so sound is
expression information. Many silent films have been reissued with music
tracks by different composers; each different music track creates a new
expression of the silent film work, and the film shown with no sound track
at all is yet another expression. If a sound film is designed to have a
stereo. track or a quadraphonic track, a release with a mono. track has also
suffered a kind of damage. This may be an interesting difference between
film sound and musical sound, since the music people seem to conceive of the
musical score as being the work, various performances as being expressions,
and perhaps mono. and stereo. versions of a particular performance as being
manifestations? Not sure, but they should be asked...
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.18, projection characteristics: For motion pictures, the
shape of the image that is intended to be projected onto the screen is part
of the fundamental visual design of the work. If the work was intended to
be shown in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio (height 1 to width 1.85) or a 2.35:1
aspect ratio, but it is panned and scanned or shown full screen with the
image cropped, this is a kind of damage to the work that should be pointed
out to users in a warning note, not even treated as a new expression of the
work, again, damage comparable to publishing an Agatha Christie novel
without the last chapter, since part of the original image is actually
missing. It is certainly content information, not carrier information.
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.5.3.3.2 (film length) vs. 4.12.0.3.1 (playing time): There
seems to be a logical inconsistency in considering playing time to be
content related but film length to be carrier related, since the film length
can be translated mathematically into the playing time. As a related query
pertaining to 3.4.2 and 3.4.4, do we never have expression-linked extent
information for works other than moving images? What about Lubetzky's
research at the Library of Congress in the 1940s that demonstrated the
frequency with which two books containing the same work with the same paging
and different title pages actually contained the same edition (the same
setting of type), and two books containing the same work with different
paging and the same title pages actually contained different editions
(different settings of type)? Doesn't that indicate that paging in books
can be an important clue about changes in expression (content)?
DAMAGE
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.4.4.5: Why is there a specific rule for text only (3.4.4.5)
that allows adding the parenthetical (incomplete)? Texts are not the only
type of material that can be incomplete in a particular collection, making
it impossible to report the extent of a complete copy. Also, if it is
possible to input condition information in parentheticals for texts, why not
for other materials? Logically, this would be the place to put the
following for moving images:
colourized
black and white (if the film was originally released in colour)
full screen (if the film was originally released in wide-screen)
mono. (if the film was originally released in stereo. or quadraphonic)
ARCANE AND INACCURATE LANGUAGE
[MAJOR ISSUE] Okay, I am not a monograph cataloger or a cataloger of
choreographies, but I am a catalog user from time to time. Volume? Notated
movement? Is that the best we can do to try to match our users' language?
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.3 and 3.20.0.5: We cannot continue to call DVDs videodiscs.
In the public mind, a videodisc is a different, obsolete format from that of
the DVD. We need to use the language of our users even when it does not fit
into the logical framework we have set up in which technically DVD is an
"encoding format."
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.12.0.5.2: The AACR2 abbreviation col. should not be
translated as 'coloured' when applied to moving images. There are rarely
used color processes that involve coloring black and white film stock in
order to create a color film, as opposed to the standard process of using
colour film stock to create a colour film. For moving image users,
'coloured' will imply the use of those rare processes. Instead, use either
'colour' or 'in colour.'
[CLARITY] 4.2.0.2: The relationship between 'Performed music' and 'Moving
image' is ambiguous. If you have a moving image that records a musical
performance, which should you use? Does 'expressed through music in an
audible form' exclude cases in which the music is expressed in audible form
accompanied by moving images of the performers?
[CLARITY] Glossary: 'Audio film reel' is not the language used in the field.
'Sound track on reel(s)' would be more communicative.
[CLARITY] Glossary: 'Projection' is not 'media.' 'Projection' is the
process of projecting. Use 'Projected media'?
OTHER LOGICAL PROBLEMS
[MAJOR ISSUE] 3.19 vs. 3.20: Cross classification AACR2 style is creeping
back in here. Many things are both video and digital, specifically DVDs.
The glossary definition of video even mentions the DVD player. Why are DVDs
classed as digital when most video catalogers will be looking for them under
video?
[MAJOR ISSUE] 4.18: Awards pertain to work, not expression, don't they? In
our field, at any rate, an Academy Award is awarded to a film work, not to a
film expression (e.g. director's cut).
[MAJOR ISSUE] 4.9.0: The assumption here seems to be that illustrations
appear only in printed texts. What about an audio spoken word lecture
illustrated with musical clips, or a video spoken word lecture illustrated
with video clips?
