Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3 : Revision Proposal (June, 2015)

CC:DA/TF/Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3/6
June 8, 2015

Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3 : Revision Proposal (June, 2015)

 

Francis Lapka and Diane Hillmann, Co-chairs, Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3 : Revision Proposal (June, 2015)

  1. Tina Shrader says:

    I have no substantive comments on the content of the proposal. If there’s community consensus that we need these elements to contain machine actionable data, I think this proposal would accomplish that.

  2. Robert Bratton says:

    I have no objection to putting this data into a format that is machine actionable, and I don’t have strong feelings about where these instructions reside in RDA. I do have one concern: our profession has a long history of diligently creating machine actionable data that no machine ever actually utilizes.

  3. Robert Bratton says:

    I asked a coworker who works with some older and Rare books to look over the proposal and we have some additional feedback.

    Question 1. He supports separating pagination and foliation from extent.

    Question 2. We both think it is reasonable to always record number of volumes, even if there is only one. This is how we describe all other resources, and we’ve noticed that this practice appears in some of the contemporary non-English bib. records we encounter.

    Question 3 and 4: yes, assuming there is a new section for pagination and foliation.

    Question 6: Should the same exception for Early printed resources that appears at x.2 (page 59) for Single Volume with Numbered Pages, Leaves, or Columns, apply at x.5 (page 64) for Misleading Numbering?

    Questions 9a and b: I would hesitate to start changing the language here unless we think there’s a real problem (I don’t there is).

  4. Robert Bratton says:

    Forgot to mention, at the bottom right of page 21, “corollary” is misspelled.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    Question 1: Makes sense to me

    Question 2: Yes

    Question 3: OK

    Question 4: OK

    Question 5: The current treatment of “Location within the Larger Resource” is OK by me. Note the similar request for Chapter 24 in RBMS/2015/1.

    Question 6: I prefer Extent of the Carrier (3.4)

    Question 7: I like adding “incomplete” when pages are missing from both the first and last part of the volume.

    Question 8: I think the table is a good idea, since it simplifies the instructions.

    Question 9a: I think that changing “length” to “width” makes sense here but will defer to experts in MusLA & OLAC about the wisdom of making such a change. (I think that it might be good to move away from using “length” for these resources, which might also have a duration.)

    Question 9b: Wikipedia uses “gauge” for film width, so I think we should stick with that term, as the one in common usage.

    Question 10 & 11: I think that the revisions to instructions for dimensions should take the same path as proposed for extent of carrier. First you describe/record exactly what you have physically. Then, if needed for identification, consistency, comprehensibility by users, etc., you can describe the image size, etc. This would have a significant impact on the instructions for still images and maps, but I think it is a much more principled approach. It is also consistent with 6JSC/CCC/14/ALA response from 2013.

    Question 12: I’m uncomfortable using the term “item” in relation to intellectual units, since that’s not what it means in a FRBR context. I’m not quite sure what to suggest instead. If we feel we must use “items” then I think the qualifiers are necessary.

    Question 13: Does this have to be a binary choice? There may be communities that would prefer the greater specificity of “running time” instead of just “duration”.

    Question 14: I think that examples relating to carrier belong in Chapter 3.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    The formal proposal will need to include Glossary definitions/revisions for: “measurement”, “measurement type”, measurement unit”, “measurement quantity”, “part measured”, “measurement qualifier”, “extent of the carrier” [currently “extent”], “carrier unit” [currently “unit”], “carrier subunit” [currently “subunit”], “pagination and foliation”, “extent of the content”, “content unit”, and “content subunit”.

    Missing from proposed 3.4.1.3 is the current sentence “Record the term in the singular or plural, as applicable.” The new examples show this being carried out, but the revised instructions do not justify it, since 3.3.1.3 gives only singular terms. This sentence should be added just above the examples.

    I think that anywhere the text says “a) a set of measurement sub-elements” that this should be followed by a reference to x.y. This way, the examples don’t carry the implications of following this instruction. Is there a difference between this wording and “a) as a set of sub-elements” in 3.5.1.3 (and elsewhere)? Should this wording be standardized?

    In 3.4.1.5, 2nd paragraph, final sentence through the end of the instruction: I wonder if this could be a reference to 3.4.1.4 instead, since I don’t think there’s a real difference here between these two sub-instructions. A similar situation arises in 7.x.1.5.

    In 3.4.1.6, I think more work needs to be done to remove the term “content” here. Are we talking about identical “layout” or perhaps “physical characteristics”? I realize that identical content is important too, but that’s in the proposed Chapter 7 revisions. Perhaps we could just define “identical”?

    In 3.4.1.7.9.1. Folded Leaves (p. 40): One example uses “some folded”, but the instruction doesn’t provide guidance about this.

    In 3.4.1.7.9.2., I think the “optional addition” is really an “alternative”. The same situation arises in Pagination and Foliation, x.18. (Yes, the latter would be a change from the current RDA wording.)

    In 3.4.1.10, a couple of examples need to be updated from “measurement qualifier: incomplete” to “measurement qualifier: not yet complete” (to match the terminology in 3.4.1.10.a).

    In 3.4.1.11.1, I think the standard “a) … set of sub-elements and b) … string” needs to be added just after the 1st paragraph.

    I suggest rewording 3.4.1.11.3, so that it does not say “Record the extent by giving the extent….” I think the current RDA wording is OK here. Similar rewording needs to happen at 7.x.1.11.3.

    For Pagination and Foliation – Facsimiles and Reproductions: If these instructions are recommended for Chapter 3, this Chapter 2 boilerplate language can be removed.

    For Pagination and Foliation, x.5: If we’re removing the examples for “48 leaves, that is, 96 pages”, then the “e.g.” statement needs to be updated to remove “when only alternate pages are numbered or”.

    In Pagination and Foliation, x.6: This might be an opportunity to address something that’s missing in RDA now: what to do when the initial part of the volume is missing.

    In Pagination and Foliation, x.9, please do not reintroduce “of text” in the 1st paragraph. Non-textual works can have plates. I suspect that something like “main sequence or sequences” could be used instead.

    In my review of the revised 3.5, I’m struck by how some of RDA’s carrier terms are containers in and of themselves (e.g., various cassettes and cartridges). These are not addressed in 3.5.1.5 because they are carrier terms — but they are also containers. Is there any interest in reconciling this?

    In 7.x.1.3.b, I think we should remove the final sentence: “Omit the term for measurement type”. This appears to be covered in the subsequent exception. (Or, there should be some other way of reconciling this language.)

  7. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Comments from an MLA member (June 19):

    I agree in principle with the revision proposal. In particular, I give a resounding “Yes” to Question 2 — everyone (i.e. the book community) has to participate in order for this to work.

    Question 5: The extent of content would be covered under the alternative to 3.4.1.7.9.1, correct? If so, I think Location within the Larger Resource should be a separate element; perhaps this element would be better served as a note.

    Question 6: Pagination and Foliation should be associated with Extent of the Carrier.

    Question 7: It would DEFINITELY be more helpful to record (Incomplete) in the second part.

    Question 8: I feel the examples serve the purpose much more clearly; if you include the examples with the syntactic patterns, all you’ve done is double the size of 3.5.1.3.

    Question 9: I am not aware of an industry standard for describing tape cartridges; the focus is on the width/gauge of the tape. Therefore, it may be reasonable to suggest that cartridges be measured height x width like most other formats. I don’t think there’s a reason to be inconsistent about the use of “width” or “gauge”; I like the idea of using “gauge” since it applies specifically to the tape.

    Question 10: This seems related to Question 5 — the extent of carrier is the size of the paper, the extent of content is the dimensions of the image. They should be handled similarly.

    Question 11: Same as Question 10 — we need to be consistent.

    Question 12: I hope the context is enough to leave the term unqualified; “item” is a ubiquitous term.

    Questions 13-14: I think it is important that we differentiate between true durations of content (e.g. audio files, viewable video) and suggested durations (e.g. scores, choreographical notation). A score by itself has no real temporal dimension and if we are deconstructing every other practice regarding extent, duration should be reconsidered as well. It doesn’t seem necessary to differentiate between types of durations when the content has a temporal dimension (e.g. “playing time” vs. “running time”).

  8. Chair says:

    From Francis Lapka, co-chair, Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3

    Changes implemented since Annual

    Throughout

    Changed all occurrences of “set of sub-elements” to “set of measurement sub-elements” (per Glennan suggestion).

    For each occurrence (in the instructions) of “set of measurement sub-elements,” added reference to x.y (per Glennan suggestion).

    3.4 Extent of the Carrier

    Major changes

    3.4.1.6: Removed the guidelines for Units and Sets of Units with Identical Content (3.4.1.6), prompted by Glennan suggestion. The appropriate location to record such information is in Extent of the Content.

    3.4.1.7 (Subunits): Applied a more principled approach to resources for which subunits parallel those issued as a volume (e.g,. PDFs and microfilm) making a distinction between those that reproduce other resources and those that don’t.

    3.4.1.7.9 (Subunits of Volumes): Vastly pared and simplified the instructions for recording number of pages and leaves (as extent subunits) — eliminating all reference to how the resource represents itself (which is handled by pagination and foliation). Per suggestions of Reser and Maxwell. This approach is more principled and fully embraces the distinction between extent and pagination/foliation.

    3.4.1.12.2 (Location of the Part Within the Larger Resource): The proposal suggests that this data should be recorded in a new element associated with relationships: Location within a resource (24.7) — see RBMS proposal.

    Minor changes

    3.4.1.3: Added the sentence “Record the term in the singular or plural, as applicable.” (per Glennan comment)

    3.4.1.5 2nd paragraph, final sentence through the end of the instruction: Changed to a reference to 3.4.1.4 instead (per Glannan suggestion).

    3.4.1.7.9.1 … Folded Leaves: added instruction for the condition of some leaves folded (per Glennan comment)

    3.4.1.10: Fixed value “incomplete” to “not yet complete” (per Glannan comment); changed one of the examples to “unknown”.

    3.4.1.11.3. Implemented Glennan suggestion: “I suggest rewording 3.4.1.11.3, so that it does not say “Record the extent by giving the extent….” I think the current RDA wording is OK here. Similar rewording needs to happen at 7.x.1.11.3.”

    x Pagination and Foliation

    Major changes

    x.5 Misleading Numbering: The proposal removes the instruction to correct misleading numbering within the pagination element. It would be more consistent with RDA’s current approach to transcription to make such a correction in a note.

    Minor changes

    x: Proposed that the element is core if the resource is complete or the full pagination and foliation is known.

    x.5 Misleading Numbering: Implemented Glennan suggestion: If we’re removing the examples for “48 leaves, that is, 96 pages”, then the “e.g.” statement needs to be updated to remove “when only alternate pages are numbered or”.

    x.6 Incomplete Volume: Per Glennan instruction, implemented instructions for volumes missing pages other than at the end.

    x.8 Complicated or Irregular Paging, Etc.: Removed method ‘a’ (e.g. 1000 pages in various pagings) which can be recorded with a combination of Extent and Pagination & Foliation, if desired.

    x.9: Implemented Glennan suggestion: In Pagination and Foliation, x.9, please do not reintroduce “of text” in the 1st paragraph. Non-textual works can have plates. I suspect that something like “main sequence or sequences” could be used instead.

    3.5 Dimensions

    Major changes

    3.5.1… : For dimensions of the face of the cartridge (etc.), changed the instruction to record height × width (formerly length × height).

    [Still mulling over how best to make the distinction between dimensions of the image and dimensions of the sheet]

    7.x Extent of the Content

    Minor changes

    7.x.1.3.b. Implemented Glennan suggestions: “In 7.x.1.3.b, I think we should remove the final sentence: “Omit the term for measurement type”. This appears to be covered in the subsequent exception. (Or, there should be some other way of reconciling this language.)”

    Not yet implemented (but worth consideration)

    GLENNAN Question 12: I’m uncomfortable using the term “item” in relation to intellectual units, since that’s not what it means in a FRBR context. I’m not quite sure what to suggest instead. If we feel we must use “items” then I think the qualifiers are necessary.

    7.22 Duration

    Major changes

    Throughout: Inspired by Snyder’s MLA suggestion, revised the section with the assumption that there are fundamentally two types of duration: (plain) duration, a measured temporal length; and intended duration, an unmeasured temporal length, based on additional information provided on the resource or by another source. The latter is especially appropriate for resources such as notated music, notated movement, or text of performed material.

    7.22.1.6 Deleted examples that exclusively concerned carrier. Modified the remaining examples so that they describe content alone. New question: input from Annual suggests that the deleted examples properly belong as an attribute of the Manifestation. Can we have a note on the duration of a carrier without having a duration of the carrier element (which we certainly won’t have now — in time for this proposal)?

Leave a Reply