> -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe > Sent: October 23, 2012 8:03 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA > ... > > Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey > the nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects > and with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable > to this type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to > RDA, but the revision process is ongoing. >
Perhaps, but there are issues of overlap of what each element is supposed to convey. As with the GMD, the 336, 337, 338 values are "general". Putting more specificity into the GMD is as problematic as putting more specificity into 336-337-338 elements. There already were many kludges to fix the GMD to get some useful specificity such as [videorecording (DVD)] or [sound recording (CD)]. For many, the GMD was a hopeless and flawed practice, and certainly a big reason to have it changed. The 336 is also an Expression term that can exist in authority records, whereas 337 and 338 are Manifestation terms. The 336 Content Type can be a qualifier for authorized access points for expressions. There are also some decisions that are trigged from the broad categorizations in 336-337-338 such as when to create a new record for a serial, and matching the value that is in the Extent element. Also, there is a good correspondence between many 336, 337, and 338 values and MARC fixed fields, so in some ways one would still be making the same kinds of decisions about content and carrier. I don't think the 336-337-338 fields can be ignored because they are interwoven into other parts of RDA and there are some dependencies built in. One useful Content Type term is "spoken word" which I would very much like to see displayed more prominently (as opposed to terms like "non-musical sound recording"). The "nature of the resource" is also covered by other Work and Expression elements, and the RDA-MARC Toolkit map has $k pointing to other possible RDA elements. I think more effort needs to be made on the whole form/genre issue as RDA 6.3 (Form of Work) and RDA 7.2 (Nature of the Content) only carry forward the limited scopes found in AACR2. The problem though is that we jump at the idea of a physical location for a field (right after the title) and desire to pour into that field that perfect term for the resource. But often that choice for a term reflects different aspects of resources. The path we should be following is to separate out terms logically, and then build consistent and meaningful displays from that process as a secondary step. For continued local use of $h in 245 I don't see a problem in the short term. One way to approach this is to isolate $h properly (no punctuation included) so that batch updates can easily delete or change the value in this field. There does seem to be some confusion though, as the GMD's placement in the 245 doesn't mean that this term has to be part of the title element ($h was never a "transcribed" value like the title proper-- there are separate elements being discussed here, even though in MARC the punctuation is entangled). For local use of 245$h I would at least end the inclusion of punctuation, as I mentioned, and perhaps put the subfield at the end (often 245 $c is dropped from Title Browse displays or separated in online catalog displays, so there's room for experimentation based upon current system mapping for displays and indexes). Locally, we've used many variations over the years, including other fields such as 590, 591, 690, 691 to capture aspects of the resource that couldn't be captured in traditional MARC fields. Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms shouldn't be bogged down by display issues. For some, the GMD means a field stuck after the title (an 'early warning' tool); for others it just means that perfect term or phrase that captures the essence of the resource (and therefore where it's placed is not the issue). These two aspects for describing general content and carrier terms need to be separated. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
