8 Responses to Proposal: Meta-metadata elements in RDA

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    While I understand the motivation to have a single definition for a single “meta-element” (such as “Cataloguer’s Note”), I am concerned about this as well. The current wording of these instructions has customized the single Glossary definition to fit the context of the chapter in which it appears. Although the paper argues that “RDA should expect cataloguer’s judgement to be applied to the specific context of the instructions”, I think these changes will cause confusion.

    For example, Chapter 5 is about recording attributes of works and expressions — the source consulted reference in 5.8 is not about how the name or the relationships were determined — those belong in Chapter 8 & Chapter 24 respectively.

    I would prefer an approach that breaks out these general instructions into an entirely different “section” of RDA — and just state them once.

    Perhaps this would need to be in Chapter 0?

    I’m not quite sure what to suggest here and would welcome other ideas about this.

    • John Myers says:

      I get and appreciate the impulse behind Recommendation 1, which results in the proposed textual changes to RDA. I’m not convinced of the need to generalize the text of the affected rules to the point of abstraction. It seems odd that the proposed parallel rules (e.g. 5.9.1.1, 8.13.1.1, etc.) would now be identical and completely lacking in context to the entities which their chapters address. I would almost prefer individually naming the separate elements, “Cataloger’s Note on Work or Expression,” “Status of Identification of PFC,” “Source Consulted for Relationship between WEMIs,” etc., so that the appropriate entities can be incorporated into the text of the rule. If the text alone is revised along the lines proposed, I would at least like to qualify the “an entity” edit by the type of entity for which the rule applies, for example “an entity of work or expression.” But I am not adverse to Kathy’s suggestion that these rules be gathered in Chapter 0.

  2. John Myers says:

    All of the Technical WG are impressive and dense works of analysis. They are to be commended for their efforts to address clean, consistent data modeling in RDA and for educating us on the relevant data modeling dynamics.

    I need further education though to assess the statement (Discussion: Recommendation 1: Paragraph 2) “The meta-elements cannot have an RDA entity (WEMIPFC) as a domain. Table 1 shows that the domain is either an RDA element or an authorized access point.” While this statement is supported by the content of Table 1 (although it appears that Relationships also constitute the subject/domain for these elements), in looking at 5.1.9.3d and its corresponding example, is not the Work entity that is the subject of the description the Domain of the note? Or do I need to go back to semantics school (as is perhaps more likely)?

  3. John Myers says:

    As a follow up to semantic education and the RDA registry, I can’t ACCESS the elements Date of Usage, Scope of Usage, and Undifferentiated Name Indicator in order to see the current specification for their Domain and Range. Date, and Undifferentiated show up in Unconstrained properties, but that’s as far as I can get. This makes it challenging to follow Recommendation 5. What am I missing, short of downloading the entire element set and sifting through XML? Or has Recommendation 6 already been effected?

      • John Myers says:

        Well, now that’s interesting. When I search directly I don’t get the details such as domain and range, but if I follow the link I’ve provided I do! And I see that for Undifferentiated Name Indicator the domain and range are currently unspecified, so how does deprecating the domain mean anything? I would have thought, from recommendation 5, that the domain would have been assigned to the class of RDA entities, which the discussion at Recommendation 1 has identified as not possible. What’s there to deprecate if the domain is not specified?

  4. John Myers says:

    P.S. “Reification” means that a triple can be the subject of yet another triple?? Gah, talk about cascading vortexes!

  5. Steve Kelley says:

    I agree with John that these Technical WG are dense, but I find them extremely hard to understand. I get what is being suggested in Recommendation 1, but I don’t see why this is necessary. In my attempts to read the proposal, I don’t see much justification for why these changes need to be made. They strike me as solutions in search of a problem.

Leave a Reply