Whatever field(s) and subfield(s) we choose to display in the 1st line for title display, search and discovery are critical for users.
Re-Packing SMD (special material designation) from meaningful 33X into 245$h [GMD] is logical based on demo records shared by Steven Arakawa from Yale Univ. Library if such choices enable a user's task completion for the following: 1) playing Jazz music via mp3 audio or mp4 video player such as iPod; 2) viewing online map via browser; 3) reading eBook via eBook Reader such as Kindle Fire, etc. So far, the discussions are very intriguing and rich. But whatever we do, the 1st line has to be clear to the user at least which devices, browsers, eReaders to be invoked for the user's task completion, e.g. playing, viewing, reading, etc. in addition to transcribing the title proper as it appears. The creative use of content type and media type based on the demos for music, online map, and ebook is sense-making as well, particularly if we look at them via index definition of the title display and search. It's another story for discovery. At least, they are registered as: 1) RDA Content Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/45.html; 2) RDA Media Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/37.html; 3) RDA Carrier Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/46.html Thanks a lot for sharing them!!! Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:27 PM, "Arakawa, Steven" <steven.arak...@yale.edu> wrote: > We don't display the new 3xx fields in our OPAC either; I've always thought > it was obvious from the controlled, technical vocabulary used in $a & $2 that > 336-338 $a and $2 were not intended for display. However, in our system the > fields are keyword indexed. In the current and near future catalog, they > should be relatively easy to apply to keyword filters running in the > background. > > 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. > > The MARC Authorities example 338 ## $asheet$2rdacarrier$3liner notes > > Other possibilities? (throwing these out for consideration). At your next > cataloger cocktail party, think up your own opac labels and index displays! > > For jazz performance recordings on an Ipod > > 336 ## $aperformed music$2rdacontent$3jazz > 337 ## $aaudio$2rdamedia$3mp3 audio > 338 ## $aother$2rdacarrier$3Ipod > > Public labels in record display: > Format: jazz > Access via: mp3 audio > On: Ipod > > Index display: <author><title> <icon of loudspeaker used in Windows tray> > (Ipod) <term pulled from 338 $3> > > For an online map: > 336 ## $acartographic image$2rdacontent$3e-map > 337 ## $acomputer$2rdamedia$3any university computer > 338 ## $aonline resource$2rdacarrier$3Internet website > > Public labels: > Format: e-map > Access via: any university computer > On: Internet website > > Index display: <author><title><icon of globe>(Internet website) > > For an e-book: > 336 ## $atext$2rdacontent$3e-book > 337 ## $acomputer$rdamedia$3e-reader > 338 ## $acomputer card$2rdacarrier$3Kindle > > Public labels: > Format: e-book > Access via: e-reader > On: Kindle > > Index display: <author><title><icon of book>(Kindle) > > 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 Kathleen Lamantia > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:02 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA > > Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do. > > When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking > help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of > material is wanted by the patron. That is supposed to be the basis of the > entire FRBR/RDA changeover. > > If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, > especially once I showed them the terms used ("oh yes and and 'unmediated > text' is a book") they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me > if I had lost my mind. > > In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific icon, so we > are okay there. We are currently suppressing the 3xxs in the public display. > They take up too much room in the display because of where they fall, and > they convey no useful information to searchers. > > Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS > Technical Services Librarian > Stark County District Library > 715 Market Avenue North > Canton, OH 44702 > 330-458-2723 > klaman...@starklibrary.org > Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelleher, Martin [mailto:mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:17 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA > > Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most > systems to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide > on such a direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems > stop accepting them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be > supported for some time to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come > up with a more effective alternative.... > > Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 > fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete > the remainder..... > > If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with > revised terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a > popular revision! > > > Martin Kelleher > Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool > > -----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: 23 October 2012 13:03 > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA > > How about using the $k subfield instead? > > Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245: > > $k - Form > Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials, determined > by an examination of their physical character, subject of their intellectual > content, or the order of information within them (e.g., daybooks, diaries, > directories, journals, memoranda, etc.). > > 245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5. > 245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm > (jacketted in fiche). > 245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts > :$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille. > > 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. > > Liz O'Keefe > > > > > Elizabeth O'Keefe > Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum > 225 Madison Avenue > New York, NY 10016-3405 > > TEL: 212 590-0380 > FAX: 212-768-5680 > NET: eoke...@themorgan.org > > Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the > web at http://corsair.themorgan.org > > >>>> "Kelleher, Martin" <mart...@liverpool.ac.uk> 10/23/2012 5:05 AM >>>> > "Transcribed information in transcribed fields" only? I can't see the point > of it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more > obscure..... > > Hear hear to reviving GMDs! > > A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something > more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal > and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified > record cloggers (the 330s). > > The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine > carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as: > > DVD video > DVD audio > DVD-ROM > Audio CD > Video CD > CD-ROM > Videocassette > Audiocassette > > Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got > more than the 330s will...... > > Too late now? > > Martin Kelleher > Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod > Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35 > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA > > Michael Bernhard said: > >> Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in >> addition to the new 33x fields)? > > This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed information in > transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the abandonment of "[sic]" > or supplying missing letters in brackets. I think the reasoning behind no > additions was to make it easier to use captured data without change. Use > without even standardizing punctuation is allowed. > > We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX > information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just > start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs. > > It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions in > 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted. > > Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean Riddle > Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could have been > improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even compound > GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms > than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked > quite well in our experience. Only systems able to provide understandable > icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD. > > > __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) > {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing http://www.slc.bc.ca/ > > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
