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 <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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886 
rochkind (at) jhu.edu