 |
 |
Phew, that's very confusing, I'm going to have to read it over a couple times, but I think it does help, thanks for the info Diane. Diane Hillmann wrote: > Jonathan: > > I asked Gordon your question, and here's his reply: > > /The RDA/ONIX framework itself > (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5chair10.pdf) provides > information about how the RDA carrier terms have been derived (see > Appendix D in particular). The RDA carrier type vocabulary (as in the > metadata registry) is an example of what the RDA/ONIX framework refers > to as a <Bass carrier category> vocabulary, which uses only three of > the underlying attributes identified in the ontology > (StorageMediumFormat, HousingFormat, IntermediationTool). The > vocabulary does not incorporate any of the other framework ontology > attributes such as EncodingFormat. As the framework says, these other > attributes do not have a closed, controlled set of instances which is > generally applicable across a wide range of communities. In order to > gain the best interoperability potential from the framework, RDA has > chosen to create separate vocabularies incorporating some or all of > the non-base carrier categories, rather than, say, augmenting the base > carrier ! > categories (the RDA carrier type vocabulary) - because these are > guaranteed to interoperate with base categories from non-RDA > communities. For example, RDA has a vocabulary for EncodingFormat (see > section 3.19.3.3 in Chapter 3 of the RDA final draft > (http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview/Phase1Chp3_11_2_08.pdf); > examples of the terms are <DVD audio>, <DVD-R>, <DVD video>, <HD-DVD>, > etc. > > In RDA, a full description/label for the carrier of a specific > resource is created from a combination of terms from several of these > vocabularies, by following the guidance given in Chapter 3. See the > examples given in Appendix M of the RDA draft > (http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview/Phase1AppM_11_10_08.pdf). > > Unfortunately, it looks as if the example for a DVD on page 26 > might be a source of confusion. The Carrier type (videodisc) does not > appear in the vocabulary of Carrier types in Chapter 3 of RDA, but > this is probably an oversight because it is given as an example base > category in the RDA/ONIX framework. The Extent (2 DVD-videos) > presumably invokes RDA 3.4.1.5b (because videodisc is missing from the > carrier type vocabulary) or 3.4.15c (<DVD-video> is the term preferred > by the agency creating the example record - and not to be confused > with the Encoding format <DVD video>). The Extent in this example > should probably be <2 videodiscs>. > > Although some of the terms in this (flawed) example may appear to > be redundant, in fact only Media type (video) and Carrier type > (videodisc) have genuine redundancy for general metadata purposes > (Media type is derived from Carrier type). For example, a > videocassette (carrier type) can also be encoded as DVD audio > (encoding format), while a videodisc can be encoded as HD-DVD, etc. > > <Stuff> is complicated in the real world. A further source of > difficulty is the general conflation of carrier and content types in > single vocabulary terms, which is prevalent in most of the cataloguing > guidelines in use around the world by libraries. Many of these > guidelines have faced severe difficulty in recent years in clarifying > the difference between content and carrier, especially with > developments in digital technologies. The RDA/ONIX framework was > developed to assist metadata creators to make that clarification (to > improve interoperability between different metadata communities) and > avoid the problems in previous cataloguing rules. > > For example, Jonathan asks for controlled vocabularies for > <multimedia> materials, but does he mean mixed content types (still > images, audio and text on a single carrier such as a <DVD>) or mixed > carrier types (DVD, CD and workbook in a <multimedia kit>), or both? > Whatever, RDA provides a way of creating unambiguous metadata in the > fairly ambiguous environment of human metadata creators and consumers. > > Cheers > > Gordon > > Gordon Dunsire > Depute Director, Centre for Digital Library Research, University of > Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland/ > > I hope this helps. > > Diane > > Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> Thanks Diane. That article on RDA/ONIX doesn't seem to include actual >> terms, the actual vocabularly. I realize there are plans to >> 'register' it officially, but prior to that, can the actual term list >> be found anywhere in human-readable format? Or does it not exist yet? >> >> Jonathan >> >> Diane I. Hillmann wrote: >>> Hi, Jonathan, >>> >>> Two points as you search out a solution: >>> >>> 1. I agree with your assessment of the current RDA carrier >>> vocabulary. You might want to look at the RDA/ONIX vocabularies >>> (still not registered, but there are plans to do so: >>> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/dunsire/01dunsire.html). >>> >>> 2. These vocabularies are a start, not a finish: once RDA and the >>> vocabularies are "published" there's an intention to begin improving >>> them. The first step was to get the out of the text, the second to >>> build on the NSDL Registry's vocabulary development tools (some >>> there, some not yet) to build them up in ways that will be much more >>> useful. >>> >>> Diane >>> >>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> about? >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> about? >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>> >> > -- Jonathan Rochkind Digital Services Software Engineer The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu