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 <base 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
>>>
>>
>