Proposal: Addition of new Chapter 3 elements for optical disc physical standard, optical disc recording method, and optical disc content type

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Proposal: Addition of new Chapter 3 elements for optical disc physical standard, optical disc recording method, and optical disc content type

  1. Francis Lapka says:

    > ” … burned discs are less reliable. Older drives and players, in particular, may not read them and they deteriorate faster than stamped discs …”

    FL: The proposal presents a strong functional justification for recording “recording method.” Rather than create a new element, however, could we call this *Production* Method for Optical Disc and insert it as a sub-element under 3.9 Production Method?

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    I have seen some comments (outside of this blog) which wondered about using the term “content type” as part of this proposal (“Optical disc content type”). While the term itself may not really be a problem, it does raise the question about putting these particular instructions in Chapter 7, instead of in Chapter 3.

    • kelleym says:

      I think this probably just needs a different name. Of the things currently in RDA, it is most similar to the digital encoding formats. If those are related to media type, this probably should be, too.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    In finalizing this proposal, we need to consider if we’ve addressed the concerns in JSC constituency responses to ALA/16 — our first attempt at trying to solve these problems. See the CILIP response in particular 6JSC/ALA/16/CILIP response

  4. kelleym says:

    We did not see a way to go farther in the direction of the CILIP response so far as I understand it without doing a lot more work and without ending up with something that is impractical to apply. If that needs to be done, the people that want it are going to have to do it.

Leave a Reply