The Getty terms do seem to be more or less what I'm looking for, under
"information artifacts by physical forms". I'm not sure if I can re-use
them without a license from them though?
And oddly it breaks things into different hiearchies than I would. To
me, "CD" vs. "phonograph record" are peers, when the CD is being used to
hold sound. But AAT keeps "CD" out of the "sound recordings"
hieararchy, and instead just puts it in "machine-readable artifacts". I
guess this is the danger of hieararchy, especially with such a slippery
concept as form.
It's also a bit more in-depth then I really need. Hmm.
For digital sans container format, I think Internet Content Type (MIME
Type) is probably sufficient.
Custer, Mark wrote:
> Perhaps I'm not sure what you're looking for, but the Getty has the Art
> & Architecture Thesaurus:
> bjectid=300220523 (got your cd, dvd, but not blu-ray... yet)
> But when you're talking "digital" (sans container), I guess you're just
> talking format, like you said. For that, there's the PRONOM registry:
> Either of those helpful?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] multimedia carrier vocabulary?
> Anyone know of any good existing controlled vocabulary for 'format' or
> 'carrier' for multimedia materials? I'm thinking of things like "CD",
> "DVD", "digital", etc.
> The closest I can get is from RDA at
> http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html (thanks
> Karen and Diane), but it seems _really_ insufficient. As far as I can
> tell "audio disc" is used for both a CD and a vinyl disc, and there's
> nothing available there for "DVD" at all. Or for "digital". Although
> I'm not sure what I mean by "digital", I guess CD and DVD are both
> digital, but I was thinking of something to identify a digital file on a
> computer network free of particular carrier. I guess that wouldn't be in
> a carrier vocabulary at all, after all, that would be sort of a null
> carrier. Phew, this stuff does get complicated quick. Which I guess is
> why nobody's worked out a good one yet.
> Too bad RDA's is so _far_ from good though. Any others anyone knows
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
rochkind (at) jhu.edu