Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned.
Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Steven Arakawa wrote: > Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally > you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier > terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would > have more control over the terminology that best suits your user > community. The 338 > $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display > with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display > with the $3 terms for content and media type. 33X subfield $3 is for "Materials specified", meaning the portion of the resource to which the field applies. The example: 338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term "sheet" applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it accompanies. Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a. The definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other fields such as 490. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
