Strawman Proposal: Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3

CC:DA/TF/Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3/5
20 December 2014

Strawman Proposal (January, 2015)

Francis Lapka and Diane Hillmann, Co-chairs

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Strawman Proposal: Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3

  1. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Comments from MLA member Damian Iseminger (Chair of JSC Music Working Group):

    In general, I am in favor of the work that the TF has done. While these changes would especially affect music materials (in particular, notated music), I still maintain that this is more “under the hood” changes that will allow for better machine manipulation. Specific comments below.

    Question 1: I agree with the proposal for a generalized measurements model.

    Question 2: I’m agnostic on this question. My preference is to describe scenarios within the text of the relevant instruction, but I can also see the case for doing scenarios at a general level.

    Question 3: No opinion.

    Question 4: Has the TF considered that a blanket prohibition on recording subunits of reproductions could impact a text volume that is a facsimile? If there is no pagination pertaining to the resource in hand, we have generally used the pagination as it appears on the facsimile. Would this not be allowed?

    Question 5: For notated music, vocabularies already exist in RDA that are defined (Format of Notated Music), so Option 1 or 4 makes the most sense to me, at least in the short term. I am also intrigued by the idea of using open vocabularies in Option 7. This has the advantage of not having to rely on RDA for format of notated music terms and such a list could be added to rather easily. Of course the downside is that we (MLA, etc.) would have to maintain such a vocabulary.

    Question 6: I believe that Extent of Content should be Core for some, but not all, resources. For a print text volume, I have trouble seeing the utility in always providing the number of words. But this would definitely be needed for notated music and making it Core would force one to always include this for music. Thought would also need to be given to if this would just apply to the units or both the units and the subunits. For notated music, a subunit of content could be multiple things, not just “songs on an album” mentioned on page 34. It could be movements in a symphony, number of works in a compilation, number of measures, etc.

    As currently defined, the extent of the content could theoretically lead to some unintended situations. For example, could you have a situation where the extent of the manifestation is 1 volume, but the extent of content is 3 scores because there are 3 different works? In other words, is the number of scores dependent on the number of works in a resource? Or could you consider the resource to constitute one work and describe it as 1 score?

    Page 37, No Equivalent in Chapter 7 to 3.1.4: I believe that there would have to be some kind of parallel. In music we commonly encounter sizeable prefaces, followed by the music. The proposal as currently worded would force one to provide the extent of the text content. There needs to be an option to only provide the extent of content for the predominant part of the resource.

    Question 7: This comes down to an issue of semantics in how RDA wants to define extent. To me it seems logical to consider Duration and Dimensions as Extents.

  2. Pingback: Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3 - CC:DA

Leave a Reply