 |
 |
Stephens, Owen wrote: > Thanks Karen - some further comments (cross posted to the DC-RDA list as > it feels like I'm encroaching on this territory - original postings are > below): > > Two of the issues I raised I think relate to the question of what should > be in the 'usage guidelines': > > 1. Are AACR2/RDA 'usage guidelines' or a mixture of stuff that should be > in DSP and usage guidelines? > In a sense they are a mixture, but only in a human-readable way. The difference is that the DSP is a formal language, and readable by machines. So some of what is now in RDA will need to be re-interpreted and coded into a DSP, and some of what is now in MARC will also probably need to be added to such a DSP to make it complete. (Because MARC includes restrictions that apply to machine-readable records that are not included in RDA.) (BTW, the whole MARC/RDA thing is a huge issue which is not being discussed, IMO -- that is, what belongs in RDA, and what will actually be allowed when you create a record.) Which leads to your next question: > 2. Would you encode a restriction like 'books may have no more than 20 > authors' in the DSP, and also state it in the usage guidelines? > You could. Somewhere you need to tell the person who is actually creating the catalog record what the rules are so that they can make the decisions they have to make. Undoubtedly, a user interface could perform some of that by using a pull-down list for vocabularies and not allowing you to create two instances of a data element that is not repeatable. Ideally, the usage guidelines would explain *why* this is the case in a way that makes sense to the cataloger. I think different communities will do this differently, but I suspect that the library community will continue to want very detailed, human-readable rules. > I feel like I'm getting a bit picky here, but I wonder if it gets to the > heart of why one should adopt the DCAP approach rather than the approach > we currently have for RDA/AACR2 + MARC > Ah! as per my note above regarding MARC -- people do tend to forget that it's part of the mix, even though we know that catalogers today catalog "to MARC" as much or more than they catalog "to AACR2". > RDA at least (and I think AACR2 but don't have my copy to hand) make > statements about elements. To take an example para 1.4 of the RDA draft > lists 'mandatory elements'. Clearly if we did a DCAP for RDA, this would > be first listed in the DSP. From what you say, it would still be valid > for the statement to appear in the Usage Guidelines. > > However, this raises the possibility of inconsistencies, and thus > disagreements, about how you use elements etc. It also adds redundant > effort of course in keeping two things up to date. > > On the otherhand, you clearly do need a human readable version of the > standard - if we talk about library cataloguing, you don't want to give > a cataloguer a copy of the DSP to refer to, but something a bit more > (human) usable, which I'll call the 'manual'. It seems to me that > ideally this 'manual' combines information from the DSP (in a human > readable format) with the usage guidelines, and that the usage > guidelines should not repeat information already encoded in the DSP. I > suppose what I'm thinking of is establishing something like 'good > practice' for the usage guidelines, and that these would say 'do not > repeat information that is already encoded in the DSP' > There is some discussion about figuring out a way to embed the DSP in the guidelines document (or vice versa) in a way that the two are really one document with some machine-actionable code and some human-readable guidelines. The SWAP document heads in this direction, I believe: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Scholarly_Works_Application_Profile See the link "note about DC-text format" near the top of that document. f(http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/DCText) I'm not convinced you could do the same with RDA because of the complexity of the instructions, but it would be interesting to try. > However, given that the usage guidelines currently can/do repeat > information from the DSP, then I think the example you give on usage > guidelines containing advice on the maximum number of authors is fine - > and should stay in, although perhaps with a note highlighting the fact > that this limitation may or may not also be encoded in the DSP. > > Does this make sense? > Yes, but I still think I'll change the example, since it has caused at least one person (;-)) to be confused. I think using 'order' rules will be clearer, and, heaven help me, I do want the document to be clear. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------