Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu> wrote: > 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.
You're not supposed to since content, media, and carrier (CMC) types are closed vocabularies. Converting them to something else for display purposes--like what Mac is/will be doing--may not be an issue as long as the original terms are stationed somewhere. > 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. That's a different element (3.19.2), not one of the CMC types (3.2, 3.3, 6.9). And according to 3.19.2, "[i]f none of the terms listed above is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term designating the file type as concisely as possible." In this respect, File Type is an open vocabulary, and nothing's preventing other terms eventually making their way into this listing. > I suppose it would be okay if a made up appropriate term were in a seperate > subfield. Good idea, at least until the new term gets established into the RDA guidelines. On a slightly related note, I wouldn't mind moving container dimensions into a separate MARC subfield(s), so its term and dimensions can be exercised separately from the remainder of the physical description, such as for display adding a contextual "in" before RDA's "container 12 x 14 x 25 cm". -- 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/>
