Revision to 3.1.4, Resources Consisting of More than One Carrier Type

CC:DA/TF/Instructions for Recording Relationships/8
June 6, 2015

Revision to 3.1.4, Resources Consisting of More than One Carrier Type

 

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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Revision to 3.1.4, Resources Consisting of More than One Carrier Type

  1. Tina Shrader says:

    I think this clarifies the instructions well.

  2. Robert Bratton says:

    This looks clear to me, and it addresses a real oversight in RDA.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    I generally agree with the proposed changes, but I think it would be better if there was a greater correspondence between the instructions in 3.1.4 and the subsequent instructions that expand on this section.

    For example, the alternative proposed for 3.1.4.1 could reference 3.2.1.3 Alternative. However, the scope of the alternative there (two situations) is broader than what appears here. I think the wording of the proposed 3.1.4.1 alternative should be modified accordingly.

    A similar situation occurs with the alternative proposed for 3.1.4.2, which could reference 3.3.1.3 Alternative — but this also has a similar scope disconnect.

    In 3.1.4.3, it might be better to change the optional omission to a paragraph that references 3.4.1.4 and 3.4.1.5. This could look something like:
    “If the number of units cannot be readily ascertained or approximated, or if the units cannot be named concisely, apply the instructions at 3.4.1.4-3.4.1.5.”

    I think that the term “carrier” should be plural at the end of the sentence in the Alternative at 3.1.4.3.

    The optional addition in 3.1.4.3 prompted me to consult 3.5.1.5, Dimensions of Container. I think we should propose a correction there as well. That instruction currently starts:
    “If the resource is in a container, name the container. Record the dimensions of the container …”

    I don’t think that “naming the container” should be part of an instruction for recording dimensions (after all, that’s in 3.1.4.3). Thus, I propose that this sentence change to:
    “If the resource is in a container, record the dimensions of the container …”

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      Regarding Kathy’s comment:
      I think that the term “carrier” should be plural at the end of the sentence in the Alternative at 3.1.4.3.

      An MLA member (June 17) suggested using “predominant carrier(s).”

  4. Dominique Bourassa says:

    I keep changing my mind about this proposal. I do agree that there is a problem in 1.5.2.

    One issue I have with the proposed instructions (at the moment and until I change my mind again!) is that their titles are the same as other instructions in chapter 3 (3.2, 3.3, 3.4). I don’t think there is any other place in RDA where general instructions have titles that are the same as specific instructions. It does not feel right. It makes these instructions look misplaced.

    I don’t quite understand, for example, why we need to have a section in 3.1.4 labeled “Media Type” explaining what to do when we have multiple media type (proposed 3.1.4.1) when we have already have instructions in 3.2.1.3 (part of the section 3.2 also labeled “Media Type”) that says what to do (and as Kathy as pointed out have not just 1, but 2 alternatives). Personally, if I want to know what to do when I need to record multiple media types, I go directly to the instructions on media type, that is 3.2.

    If we go that route (dividing by media, carrier, and extent), one may ask why not add dimensions to 3.1.4? But we obviously don’t need to do that because there is already a section (RDA 3.5.1.6 Resources Consisting of More Than One Carrier) that explains the different way to handle multiple carriers of the same and different types. We have to be careful to make sure instructions in 3.1.4 remain general and that specific instructions are discussed in the most logical place.

    I don’t mind removing type from the title of 3.1.4 Resources consisting of more than one carrier (or calling the section “Comprehensive description” (to reuse the wording in 1.5.2 and 2.1.2). But I am still struggling to figure out what is the best way to include all the information that should be in here without separating by carrier, media, and extent which, in a way, seems would solve so many problems.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      I also don’t think we could simply call these sections (3.1.4.1–3.1.4.3) “Media type,” “Carrier type,” and “Extent” because these duplicate the names of the elements at 3.2–3.4. Would it be too radical to suggest that the proposed content for 3.1.4.1–3.1.4.3 instead be added to the existing 3.2–3.4? I agree with Dominique that if I want guidance pertaining to those elements, I would want to go directly to those elements and then look to see if there is guidance for the situation at hand (multiple carriers). We could keep 3.1.4 nice and simple and use the subsequent work that has been done to augment existing elements.

  5. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Comments from an MLA member (June 19):

    The “alternative” in 3.1.4.2 Carrier Type says to “record only the carrier type of the predominant carrier.” Would we use the alternative quantitatively? My confusion stems around the ambiguity of what makes something “predominant.” Is it a value judgement? Would not something be lost by not including the additional carrier types? Perhaps there is a place in a notes field for other carrier types if they are not included in this scenario. The current text in RDA 3.1.4.3 does mention the option for notes.

    3.1.4.3 “optional addition” also caught my attention, especially since I work with album sets. The guidelines state that “if the carriers are in a container, record the extent by naming the container.” How is a container being defined here? Would the container for an album set be considered a worthy addition? According to the director of our audio archive, the containers are often important to researchers. Is this another case of value judgement?

Leave a Reply