Proposal: Revision proposal for RDA and RDA

August 1, 2014

Revision proposal for RDA and RDA



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Proposal: Revision proposal for RDA and RDA

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    Comment received from Mark Scharff, Washington University in St. Louis:

    In trying to alleviate confusion over what the statement “score and x parts” says about the physical disposition of the manifestation, the proposal goes too far in the other direction. This is an anomalous situation, to be sure; it appears to be the only RDA extent statement that uses the word “and” as a link to connect two entities that are physically integrated. If the two entities are uncoupled and no single notated-music term will be adequate to describe the volume, then “x pages” would be the only choice. This is not a user-friendly solution, however; notwithstanding icons or facets or search limits, users still expect to see a term assuring them that they have retrieved a description of notated music if that’s what they want. Perhaps a better solution is to take a cue from and and add “in 1 volume” to the existing formulation. The note at can then be retained for details about the physical disposition of things, e.g. what pages of the resource constitute the parts.

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      Comment posted on behalf of the Machine Actionable Data Task Force:

      The Machine Actionable Data Task Force agrees with the comments made by Mark Scharff (who serves as resident music expert on our group).

      In RDA, extent for notated music generally employs the pattern: [Extent of Expression] ([Extent of Carrier]). As Mark notes, the extent of the expression is an important part of this composite statement. It serves a vital role in the user task of identification, so it shouldn’t be relegated to a note.

      Currently, the Extent of Expression element does not formally exist in RDA, but our TF will propose its addition. It remains conceivable that extent for resources comprised of notated music would – in catalog displays – retain the syntax: [Extent of Expression] ([Extent of Carrier]).

      We agree with the solutions proposed by Mark. For the 2nd exception in, we suggest adding “in 1 volume” for clarification.

      1 score and 3 parts in 1 volume (19 pages)
      [or perhaps]
      1 score and 3 parts (in 1 volume (19 pages))

      We suggest employing the note at to indicate the location of content units within the carrier:

      Parts printed on pages 11-19.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    I agree with Mark and the MADTF that this proposed revision goes in the wrong direction.

    While I rather like the outcome suggested by the TF (adding “in 1 volume”), that isn’t compatible with RDA (Number of Bibliographic Volumes Differing from Number of Physical Volumes), or with its ISBD equivalent (5.1.2). I also can’t figure out how to concisely write instructions that would generate the outcome suggested by the TF.

    This leads me to question how the “score and one part” situation really differs from a textual work with extensive illustrations (say, 57 pages of text and 24 leaves of plates). In the latter situation, we’d give: 57 pages, 24 leaves of plates. Why aren’t we trying to do the same thing with these “score and parts” anomalies? That might look something like:

    1 score (10 pages), 3 parts (pages 11-19)
    or possibly
    1 score, 3 parts (19 pages)
    or the even the current practice of
    1 score and 3 parts (19 pages)

    Then could be applied to make a note about being in a single physical unit (or perhaps, a single physical volume?), if considered important for identification or selection.

    The situation with 4 parts bound together I think has to be:

    4 parts – per 3.4.3
    4 parts in 1 volume — per, if revised along the lines of what’s in this proposal.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    It seems that it would be prudent to minimize the changes to Chapter 3 until the MADTF makes its proposal addressing extent of expression.

    A shorter-term approach to the immediate problem would be to remove the 1st conditional clause in The Music WG’s assessment that this is phrased as if the “exception” in is an “alternative” is spot-on. I would also support the addition of the reference from to

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    If the JSC wants to pursue incorporating instructions for published-together parts, as suggested by the WG, then the word “of” should be inserted before “multiple parts” in the name of the exception and wherever else it is paired with the “score and one or more parts” clause.

    So, the exception would be titled:
    Resource consisting of a score and one or more parts or of multiple parts in a single physical unit.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    I also think the JSC should decide throughout RDA if the term should be
    “physical units”
    “physical volumes”

    They must mean the same thing — at least I hope they do!

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    What I recommend:

    1. Accept only the new paragraph proposed for the 2nd exception at, revised as follows to better follow RDA language [rewording suggestions welcomed]:
    Make a note to explain the extent, if considered important for identification or selection (see

    2. Change the heading for to:
    Score and One or More Parts, or Multiple Parts in a Single Physical Unit

    Otherwise, accept the WG’s proposed changes for this instruction.

Leave a Reply