Kelly, I agree that this is a tough issue to untangle. Especially if we are trying to infer what users are thinking with respect to find, identify, select, obtain. We decided on using your second option in our digital asset description:
> 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent > 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia > 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia > 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier For us though we actually are trying to overload our descriptions and include management of our physical media along with our streaming media (so I have additional carriers in some of our descriptions). We do this because our production folks produce DVD & diigital file master and use copies along with our streaming manifestations. I believe the computer media type is now irrelevant and I think that referring to things as needing a computer is not going to be in alignment with how users are doing FISO. My use case is a person with an iPad or tablet, and goes ahead and views streaming video through the YouTube app; but, in their thinking their device isn't a "computer". Instead that computer being that huge chunk of iron they have to deal with at work. As Mac implies though the "electronic" media type might be a good catchall for these sorts of content/carriers that can appear on a range of things that are mediated by "digital devices" (think computers, tablets, phones, wrist watches) . I won't presuppose a linguistic analysis that "digital" is better than "electronic" in this case; but I still go ahead and type with my digits on a device that pushes electrons. -- Sean Chen <[email protected]> Digital Resources Librarian J. Michael Goodson Law Library Duke University School of Law (919)613-7028 On Feb 25, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Kelley McGrath <[email protected]> wrote: > OLAC is in the process of updating its streaming media best practices to be > RDA-compatible so it's coming soon. > > I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with the computer media > type and have thought so since the days when we were commenting on the RDA > drafts. There is nothing intrinsically different between a DVD-ROM with an > ebook or software on it and a DVD video in terms of the physical carrier. Is > there a difference between streaming MP3 files and those on a CD? Are the MP3 > files on a CD like the streaming ones (probably computer) or like a regular > audio CD (audio)? Under AACR2, LC made the former decision and said MP3 CDs > were electronic resources. This was based on the fact that they didn't play > in standalone players initially, although over time they started to sell CD > players that would play MP3 CDs. The line that we have historically tried to > draw between what plays in a standalone player and what needs a "computer" > doesn't make much sense anymore. I have argued before for a digital/analog > divide. Others in OLAC share my concerns, although there is less consensus > about the solution. > > Kelley > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, John Hostage <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was cataloging one of these the other day and faced the same conundrum. I >> turned to the OLAC best practices document >> (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/47) which is several years old and >> needs to be updated for RDA and the new fields, but is still useful. >> >> Following the definitions of the attributes in RDA, I came up with the same >> 33X fields as you did. The trouble is that for the average person, "video" >> is nearly synonymous with "two-dimensional moving image," i.e. it denotes a >> content type rather than a media type. For a media type, "digital" would >> probably be more enlightening than either "computer" or "electronic". While >> we're at it, why do we generally not take account of the sound aspects of a >> 2-dimensional moving image, which can be sounds, spoken word, and/or >> performed music? >> >> In a world where everything is stored digitally and used on a digital >> device, these categories are going to get very blurry. >> >> ------------------------------------------ >> John Hostage >> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard >> Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 >> Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected] >> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) >> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >>> Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kelley >>> McGrath >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:38 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video >>> >>> I had always assumed that the 33x fields for streaming video should >>> look like this due to the online nature of the resource: >>> >>> 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent >>> 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia >>> 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier >>> >>> However, I was recently reviewing something where the following was >>> used: >>> >>> 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent >>> 337 __ $a computer $2 rdamedia >>> 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia >>> 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier >>> >>> A little googling found institutions recommending that as well as >>> >>> 336 __ $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent >>> 337 __ $a video $2 rdamedia >>> 338 __ $a online resource $2 rdacarrier >>> >>> The relevant RDA definitions for media type: >>> >>> Video: Media used to store moving or still images, designed for use >>> with a playback device such as a videocassette player or DVD player. >>> Includes media used to store digitally encoded as well as analog >>> images >>> >>> Computer: Media used to store electronic files, designed for use with >>> a computer. Includes media that are accessed remotely through file >>> servers as well as direct-access media such as computer tapes and >>> discs. >>> >>> Leaving aside the problematic nature of the computer media type in >>> RDA and working with RDA as written, what should the media type(s) >>> for streaming video be? >>> >>> Also worrying to me is the fact that catalogers are interpreting and >>> applying the these elements in such disparate ways for the same type >>> of material. What does this lack of consistency mean for our ability >>> to map these elements to more human-friendly displays? I suppose the >>> more important elements for mapping to icons, etc. are the content >>> and carrier types, but I still find it a little unsettling. >>>
