Please _don't_ add your own made up appropriate term in a 336/337/338.
What makes them so useful is that they are a controlled vocabulary,
software can recognize the strings in there _exactly_, from a known
list, and take appropriate action.
So it's _entirely_ appropriate that no provision is made for "following
the File Type option of making up an appropriate term", that doesn't
suck at all! That's creating data that can be used by software.
I suppose it would be okay if a made up appropriate term were in a
seperate subfield.
But better, if this is actually important to our users (I'm not sure
_how_ important it is; if the video is available online, does it matter
if it's "streaming" or not? I'm not sure "streaming" means the same
thing to me as to you, let alone our users!), sure it has to be fit into
a controlled vocab of some kind, which it isn't now. In the meantime,
yeah, a note (which is not meant to be software-processable).
Getting all that content/form/format/genre stuff into a controlled
vocabulary is _really hard_, because the notions are so slippery. RDA
has done a pretty good job with the 336/337/338, but it still only
covers several layers of stuff and doens't get down into details like
"streaming", I guess? If so, not surprising -- they described a few
layers using rational formalized controlled vocab, but they didn't get
to _everything_.
Although is there SOME place to say if the video is an "mp4" or "avi"
for digital files? If so, THAT might be the appropriate place to say
it's "streaming" too, whether it "streams" or not is kind of analagous
to it's digital encoding/container format. But this stuff gets REALLY
confusing. Did you know that an mp4 can _also_ be an "avi", but not vice
versa? Seriously, the intricacies of categorizing digital audio/video
get _really_ confusing when you get into the details.
On 3/15/2011 2:03 PM, Diane Krall wrote:
>>> Mark Ehlert <ehler...@umn.edu> 3/15/2011 1:24 PM >>>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Linda Gonzalez
<linda.gonza...@lyrasis..org> wrote:
> Based on my own reading, and the majority of the test records, I
believe that
>
> 336 two-dimensional moving image
> 337 computer
> 338 online resource
That's my take on it too.
> 300 $a 1 online resource (1 streaming video file (xx min., x sec.))
A strict reading of the second paragraph of RDA 3.4.1.7.5 (Number of
Subunits - Online Resources) limits the choice of subunit terms (the
stuff in the second set of parentheses) to the terms listed under
3.19.2.3 (File Type) and no more. Note that the list does not include
"streaming [something] file." Nor does 3.4.1.7.5 mention following
the File Type option of making up an appropriate term like "streaming
video file" (i.e., changing 3.4.1.7.5's "...specify the number of
files using one or more terms listed under 3.19.2.3 to designate the
file type" to "...specify the number of files following the
instructions under 3.19.2.3 to designate the file type").
Again, strictly reading RDA, the streaming part is mentioned in a note
of some kind, whether following the final paragraph of 3.4.1.7.5 or
following 3.19.2.4 (Details of File Type)--perhaps for the latter, the
term could be interpreted in such a way that it gets squeezed into the
300 $b.
Kinda sucks, though. I'm hoping for a revision.
--
Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
Coordinator University of Minnesota
Bibliographic & Technical 15 Andersen Library
Services (BATS) Unit 222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message from Hamilton East Public
Library (including all attachments) is for the sole use of the
intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or
distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
