Thomas raises a salient point here. The notion of Form/genre is not
addressed well in FRBR, FRSAD or RDA. In RDA, "Form of work" currently
only maps to places in MARC where it would be used in an access point,
or in the corresponding 380 field; this, to my mind, reflects the idea
of using Form of work as an element for identification, rather than as
facet to be treated robustly in subject-like authority data structures.
To be sure, various levels of granularity/robustness are required by
different knowledge domains (e.g. literature, film, cartographic
resources, music, etc.) But the fact that the authors of FRSAD decided
to completely side-step the issue is worrisome. John's observation of
the various other RDA elements that address "isness" of other FRBR
entities is apt; however, these attributes are of fairly low granularity
and as such do not seem appropriate for domain-specific form/genre access.
This kind of form/genre access has historically been commingled with
true "aboutness" subject access. Efforts to decouple these have been/are
being taken up by the various LC Form/genre projects, with a view to
deploying terms in a more faceted, post-coordinated way. In the case of
the music project, we have found that many of the "isness" terms
currently used do not apply at the Work level (e.g. arrangements, vocal
scores), and some are difficult to categorize by FRBR entity at all.
Such borderline cases will have to be addressed in a Scenario 1
environment, where the form/genre term must be encoded in the proper
record. For the current Scenario 3 environment, moving form/genre terms
into post-coordinated 655 fields will effect a significant improvement
in access, if not a complete long-term solution.
Regardless of such efforts, it remains that this facet of access is not
accounted for sufficiently in RDA. In fact, given the conspicuous
absence of form/genre as an entity unto itself in any of the FR models,
there is not even a placeholder chapter for it. Thus, we are compelled
to continue providing this kind of access outside of the aegis of RDA.
Is this the desired outcome? Should form/genre be included in a content
standard that strives to be holistic enough to encompass matters of
subject access? If so, the current outline of RDA simply does not
support it.
Cheers,
Casey
On 12/11/2010 5:15 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Another new RDA element also relates to form/genre subdivisions. RDA 7.2 "Nature of
the content" has values similar to $v form/genre subdivisions.
RDA 7.2 "Nature of the content" is mapped to 245$k, 500, 513 and 516. In the
RDA to MARC mapping it's noted that MARC differs in that it combines values comparable to
Media Type, Carrier Type and Content Type with Nature of the content values in these MARC
fields. Not discussed in RDA is 008/24-27 (Nature of contents) which also duplicates many
of the values used in form/genre subdivisions.
As I look through $v subdivision values most appear to align with RDA Form of work or RDA Nature of the
content concepts and so are Work-related terms. A few are questionable (ex. "$v Facsimiles") as
they match Manifestation or other entity elements (ex. relationship designator "Facsimile of
(manifestation)"). Another good example: "$v Translation into [language]" conveying
Expression-level information.
The placeholder chapter, 23 General Guidelines on Recording the Subject of the
Work, I've noted as being about only the Work entity and its relationship to
subjects (Concepts, Objects, Events& Places). What happens to subjects with
form subdivisions that contain Manifestation- or Expression-level information?
With all these duplicated form values I wonder if there shouldn't be a parallel
to what's happening with Ch.16 Identifying Places. This is a chapter about a
Group 3 entity that is not just used in a subject relationship but found in
bibliographic records as qualifying information.
There is an acknowledgement of this problem in the Functional Requirements for
Subject Authority Data http://www.ifla.org/en/node/1297. Unfortunately, as
stated on page 11:
"The FRSAR Working Group is aware that some controlled vocabularies provide
terminology to express other aspects of works in addition to subject (such as form,
genre, and target audience of resources). While very important and the focus of many user
queries, these aspects describe isness or what class the work belongs to based on form or
genre (e.g., novel, play, poem, essay, biography, symphony, concerto, sonata, map,
drawing, painting, photograph, etc.) rather than what the work is about. Some of these
aspects are explicitly covered by the FRBR model, for example, “form of work,” “intended
audience,” etc. as attributes of work. While the Group acknowledges that there are cases
where a vocabulary provides terminology, or has been used, also for isness, the focus of
the FRSAD model is on aboutness (the FRBR-defined relationship work “has as subject …”).
On the other hand, any case of a work about a form or genre (e.g. about romance novels,
about dictionaries) clearly falls within the aboutness category."
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of John Attig [jx...@psu.edu]
Sent: December-11-10 2:40 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Form
On 12/10/2010 5:34 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
Perhaps the most straightforward way to rephrase what Thomas
Brenndorfer said is that "Form of work" is a work attribute. You
could have "form of expression", "form of manifestation", and "form of
item" attributes as well.
In fact, it could be argued that all of these potential elements are in
fact included in RDA (under different names).
The "Content Type" element is in fact the form of expression. The
"Media Type" and "Carrier Type" elements are in fact form of
manifestation. And "Item-specific carrier characteristics" (3.21) covers
form of item.
John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu
--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com
--
"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might
enable the enlargement of that minority."
-Martha Yee
