My understanding is that RDA uses Content Type to represent the way in which the major content of a work is realized. Text or still image is one of them. RDA actually uses Illustrative Content to represent illustrations in a text content. That is why it is encoded in $b of 300 fields.
But if you look at the explanation for illustrative content. It does not truly say its application context and purpose. *Illustrative contentâ–¼<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdagloss&target=rdagloss-851#rdagloss-851>is content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource. * Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Mitchell, Michael < michael.mitch...@brazosport.edu> wrote: > Would it make sense to consider the illustrations to be representative of > the content of the work (rather than the expression or manifestation) since > a work and thus its contents is really an idea? Something imagined? So if > we have a work about red objects then a picture book of red objects would > "illustrate the primary content of [that] resource." > > I'm not sure I follow your problem with illustrations v. still images. > Seems to me illustrations are (usually) still and are images. > > > Michael Mitchell > Technical Services Librarian > Brazosport College > Lake Jackson, TX > Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu > > ________________________________________ > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ > RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Kathie Coblentz [ > kcobl...@nypl.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:33 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content > > Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with > some of the examples posted in this thread. > > As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines "illustrative content" as > "Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource." (From > the Glossary.) > > Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b "chiefly illustrations." Nor > is it logical to put "Chiefly illustrations" in a note. > > Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is > not logical to have "illustrations" in the 300 field at all. Unless, > perhaps, it can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been > added to the still image content. > > I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special > Formats Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman > Building 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY 10018 > kathiecoble...@nypl.org > > My opinions, not NYPL's > -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
