4 Responses to Proposal: Note and related elements in RDA

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    Either I’m confused about Table 4, or there’s a problem with the 2nd & 3rd entries.

    Element name = Note on Changes in Carrier Characteristics
    Proposed name = Changes in Carrier Characteristics
    but
    RDA 3.1.6 already exists with a *very* similar name: Change in Carrier Characteristics

    Element name = Note on Changes in Content Characteristics
    Proposed name = Changes in Content Characteristics
    but
    RDA 7.29.2.3 already exists with a *very* similar name: Change in Content Characteristics

    • Dominique Bourassa says:

      I am confused by this too. When I read this proposal, I put a big question mark next to Table 4. Maybe I missed something or there is something I don’t understand.

      Why does the WG suggest to change 5 elements in this table to “Note about…,” but does not do the same for the 4 other elements? This paper aims to “maintain consistency” (p. 1). This table does not look consistent. These elements are notes so why not call them all notes?

  2. Steve Kelley says:

    I’m confused by the entire proposal, not just Table 4.

  3. John Myers says:

    n general, I am supportive of the WG’s analysis and proposed changes. (As with most of the Technical WG’s papers, the read is a tough slog.)

    Regarding table 4, I think we should include the expressed concerns. I will charitably attribute the inconsistency to an overenthusiastic attempt at simplifying captions outside the semantic patterns that are the focus of the paper. Or perhaps there were other semantic concerns about the form of the 3 captions of that don’t conform. In any case, perhaps, “ALA notes that the proposed captions for entries 2 and 3 of Table 4 are so similar as to make no difference from those already existing for rules 3.1.6 and 7.29.2.3, respectively. We suggest that all the captions in Table 4 conform to the pattern, ‘Note about … ‘.”

Leave a Reply