Discussion Paper: Instructions for Describing Accompanying Material in RDA

CC:DA/TF/Instructions for Recording Relationships/7
23 December 2014

Instructions for Describing Accompanying Material in RDA

Nathan Putnam, Chair, Task Force to Investigate the Instructions for Recording Relationships in RDA

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Discussion Paper: Instructions for Describing Accompanying Material in RDA

  1. Chair says:

    Comments from Francis Lapka, Yale Center for British Art:

    Questions for the task force (one for each recommendation):

    TF recommendation 1: “1. RDA 3.4.1 should be revised so that it covers resources of multiple carriers, whether of the same type or of different types.”

    FL: It’s unclear to me what would be changed in 3.4.1 to fulfill this recommendation. Could the TF elaborate? Is it intended to say 3.1.4 instead of 3.4.1?

    TF recommendation 2: “Further, RDA 3.1.4 could also be revised to deal with additional elements and to simplify the structure. See Addendum 2 for options for modifying 3.1.4.”

    FL: As the TF works on this issue, I would like them to keep in mind the possible merits of an introducing a similar instruction in RDA Chapter 7. If we introduce an element for Extent of Content, a Chapter 7 parallel to the instructions at 3.1.4 might make a lot of sense.

    TF recommendation 3: “The concepts of predominant and accompanying carriers need to be introduced into RDA, probably in”

    FL: Could the TF elaborate on what it means to designate a carrier as ‘predominant’ or ‘accompanying’? Is this a recorded attribute? If so, how? Could the same concept apply to aggregate Expressions?

    TF recommendation 4: “The use of a structured description in Chapter 27 is an appropriate way of describing accompanying material …”

    FL: My support for this recommendation depends on the answer to a question (directed at those who understand this aspect of RDA better than I): Can the value of a structured description be anything other than a single text string (a literal?)? Take an example from the TF’s addendum 3:

    Accompanied by (manifestation): 1 atlas (95 pages : 85 colour maps ; 32 cm)

    Its value includes information about extent, dimensions, etc., but is that data actually recorded in an Extent element, a Dimensions element, etc.? If not, I assume that would mean we cannot record this information in machine-actionable form – which would be an undesirable outcome.

  2. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Does 7.16 hold any potential for describing any of these types of materials? I know we’re talking about components that are physically separate, or at least separable, but something like a CD booklet inserted in a jewel case could perhaps be considered on par with a bibliography that spans a specified run of pages at the back of the book. The CD booklet is sometimes a little essay, like the separately titled things in the examples in the PS for Sure, you can physically remove the booklet from the jewel case, but you could also physically remove pages 310-375 from the back of a book if you really wanted to. OK, it’s obviously Friday afternoon.

  3. Dominique Bourassa says:

    There is a lot to digest in this discussion paper!

    The task force says: “when you treat one part as predominant, you can then treat the other part(s) as accompanying material,” and “Further, accompanying material only exists when one of the physical components of the resource has been declared to be predominant; in that case, the other physical components can be treated as accompanying material.”

    I do agree that resources with accompanying material often have a predominant resource and one or many secondary resources. However, the relationships “accompanied by (manifestation)” does not imply predominance. The reciprocal of “accompanied by (manifestation),” is “accompanied by (manifestation).” To me it implies that both can be considered as important.

    In fact, it is not always possible or desirable to determine which of two pieces is the predominant one. Is it a book accompanied by a DVD or a DVD accompanied by a book; a toy with a book or a book with a toy? I think relationships such as “accompanied by (manifestation)” are there to allow us to link records for different manifestations such these together. I could catalog the manifestation of the DVD and catalog separately the manifestation of the book and link both records using this relationship designator.

    Your last addendum is titled: “Draft Instructions for Recording Structured Description of Accompanying Material.” I would prefer to see Draft Instructions for Recording Structured Description of Accompanying Manifestations.

    You addendum includes examples, such as:
    Accompanied by (manifestation): 1 volume (12 pages : illustrations ; 18 cm)

    I don’t think a structured description should only describe the extent of a manifestation. Like Francis, I am not sure how useful such a structured description would be. And, isn’t the first part of describing a manifestation to record its title? If the accompanying manifestation does not have a title, one would have devised one. If the “manifestation” cannot or is too minior to be described by a title, maybe it is not suitable for a structured description. But I might be wrong.

  4. Tracey L. Snyder says:

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

    “Comments on Describing Accompanying Material: I agree that revision is needed for 3.1.4, but maybe not in the way the TF has suggested. Currently in RDA, Alternatives exist for Media Type and Carrier Type to only record the predominant type. A If/Then statement is in for extent that allows one to effectively only record the extent of the predominant carrier type (which should probably be re-done as an Alternative). However the placement and current language of 3.1.4 short-circuits the ability to apply the Alternatives above because it assumes that if you have a resource with multiple carrier types that they are all being recorded. This isn’t necessarily the case because of the Alternatives. So to my mind what 3.1.4 needs to have are revisions that make it clear that the instruction only applies when multiple carrier types and multiple extent statements are being recorded, at least for and For the materials that are not having carrier type or extent recorded, there could be wording to the effect that in such instances the non-predominant materials may be recorded as related manifestations.

    “To answer the concern about accompanying material that has the same carrier type, perhaps it would be better to add language to, Extent for this situation. I believe the situation we are trying to avoid is a book that has a small booklet in a pocket in the back. You would, I believe, have to record the extent as 2 volumes (this should also be looked at, see below), and I can see how you would rather just do the extent for the main volume. Why not add an Alternative to that says if you have a resource that consists of multiple carriers of the same type to only record the extent of the predominant carrier(s)?”

Leave a Reply