Proposal by BL: Merging Recording Base Material and 3.6.2 Base Material for …

Tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Proposal by BL: Merging Recording Base Material and 3.6.2 Base Material for …

  1. John Myers says:

    In general, I think this is a healthy consolidation of similar data. It might be nice however to convey the consolidated list in a table, with the added column to indicate suitable media type(s) to which a base material term would apply — this seems the root of the original divide between (for the unmediated medium) and 3.6.2 (a variety of mediated media). I hope this support for and modification of the BL’s proposal is shared by those more directly affected by the changes.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    I agree with this proposal and prefer option 1.

    One thing that’s missing from the proposal are Glossary definitions for the terms that are moving to 3.6.1. The JSC has discussed definitions for these terms in the past. These definitions should be finalized and implemented at the same time as the instructions are changed (April 2015?).

    With Glossary definitions, John Myers’ concerns about the application of the term to the right types of material might be solved — or at least mitigated.

  3. kelleym says:

    It makes sense to merge the instructions, but I much prefer the separate lists in terms of usability. They are much easier to scan and the two categories are clear-cut. Jumping back and forth to the glossary would be second best. I suppose, though, that polyester could conceivably be in both lists. However, it’s an open-ended list so I don’t think that’s really a problem.

  4. Dominique Bourassa says:

    This proposal makes sense. I also prefer the one-column approach to the alternative in the appendix. I am not sure John’s suggestion of adding a column showing media type is the best way to go. It might not be that useful. A lot of the terms (cardboard, parchment, wood, etc.) would just have unmediated as media type. Adding the missing terms to the glossary, as Kathy suggested, would probably be more useful.

    If this proposal is accepted, should the entry “Base Material for Microfilm, Microfiche, Photographic Film, and Motion Picture Film” be removed from the glossary.

  5. John Myers says:

    I courteously retract my suggestion, in light of the better and better informed options presented. 🙂

  6. Steve Kelley says:

    I think this proposal makes sense. I prefer the first option.

Leave a Reply