Addition of New Chapter 3 Elements for Optical Disc Physical Standard, Optical Disc Recording Method, and Optical Disc Data Type

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Addition of New Chapter 3 Elements for Optical Disc Physical Standard, Optical Disc Recording Method, and Optical Disc Data Type

  1. Dominique Bourassa says:

    I still need to digest this proposal. Until then, here are a few comments:

    As a non-specialist, I would rely on the information in the glossary to learn what many of these terms mean. At this point, though, there are a lot of issues with the proposed new definitions for the glossary.

    The term “compact disc” leads to CD. At the moment, there is already a definition for “compact disc” in the glossary because “compact disc” is used as a carrier type. How will you indicate the difference between the two terms?

    There are consistency issues:

    As a non-specialist, I am wondering if there is a difference between a standard and a specification. Shouldn’t all the definitions below start with the same term: standard or specification for the sake of consistency? (There are other definitions in your list with this issue)

    Sometimes the word disc is included in a sentence, sometimes it is not
    Sometimes a sentence is plural, sometimes it is singular

    Blu-ray Audio: A specification that standardizes the encoding and storage of audio content ona Blu-ray [disc]. Blu-ray Audio discs are designed for playback on standalone players as well as personal computers. Note that there is currently no single specification for Blu-ray Audio; instead, there are a number of competing formats that fall within this classification.

    Blu-ray (Video): A specification that standardizes the encoding and storage of audiovisual content on a Blu-ray Disc [lower case d?]. Blu-ray Video discs are designed for playback on standalone players as well as personal computers.

    CD Audio: A standard (IEC 60908) published in 1980 for the physical layout and logical encoding of digital audio on compact discs. CD audio [disc] is [are] designed for playback on standalone players as well as personal computers.

    DVD-Audio: A specification published by the DVD Forum that standardizes the encoding and storage of audio content on a DVD. DVD-Audio discs are designed for playback on standalone players as well as personal computers.

    DVD-Video: A specification published by the DVD Forum in 1996 that standardizes the encoding and storage of audiovisual content on a DVD. DVD Video discs are designed for playback on standalone players as well as personal computers.

    • kelleym says:

      Thanks for the feedback, Dominique. I don’t think we meant anything different by standard and specification and will certainly work to make the language more consistent. Kathy has already responded about the current place of compact discs in RDA.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    Comment on proposed 3.x:
    I think this works well, although I recommend using the standard RDA phrasing for the last paragraph: “If none of the terms in the list is appropriate or sufficiently specific

    Comments on proposed 3.y:
    I currently prefer the alternative treatment for this aspect, presented on p. 13-14 as 3.9.4, Production Method of Optical Disc.

    I note that in either case, the paragraph after the “optional addition” (3.y.1.3/3.9.4.3) should begin “If neither of the…” rather than “If none of the …”

    In the 3.y approach, I think the proposal should include the standard “Details of” sub-instruction (and related Glossary definition):

    3.y.1.4 Details of Optical Disc Recording Method
    Record details of optical disc recording method▼ if considered important for identification or selection. For scope and sources of information, see 3.y.1.1 and 3.y.1.2.

    I cannot easily identify an instruction in RDA which provides a closed list in an “optional addition”, so this approach gives me pause (in either 3.y or 3.9.4). In some ways, I’d like to see this more specific information be recorded as “details of”, but that doesn’t offer the option for a list of any kind. This is the approach the JSC took with colour content in 7.17.1.4 — the examples are now the only place where “sepia” appears. This approach also happens in 3.19.1.4, Details of Digital File Characteristic, although this isn’t quite as structured as what OLAC is looking for. Another possibility would be to model this after the 2nd-to-last paragraph in 3.19.3.3, Recording Encoding Format, which says: “Record the version of the encoding format if it affects or restricts the use of the resource.” [This would obviously need to be reworded to fix this particular instruction instead.] The advantage of either of these approaches is that the Glossary would not need to contain definitions for BD-R, DVD+R, etc. (Of course, that’s possibly a disadvantage as well.)

    Comments on proposed 3.z:
    My first question here is whether this belongs in Chapter 7 as content-related information, perhaps in a sub-instruction titled “Recording the Format of Optical Disc Data”.

    I’m not very comfortable with definition in 3.z.1 which uses “high-level” twice. While I get what OLAC is trying to convey, this term is not used in RDA currently. I also don’t think we should use “description” in this definition (at the very least I think it could be “a high-level term for the content…” instead).

    Other comments
    I hate to contradict Dominique, but “compact disc” is not an RDA carrier type and is not currently in the RDA Glossary.

    FYI, the JSC has not registered these vocabularies yet, so I don’t think it will be too problematic to request removal of HD-DVD & SVCD (although don’t hold me to that!). It may be worth also looking at the definitions in webopedia.com; this was an early source the JSC used for proposed definitions for these types of terms.

    • kelleym says:

      Thanks, Kathy. The definitions for DVD-R, etc., are not very useful and take up a lot of room in the glossary, but I do think it would reduce confusion to have an official core vocabulary. I don’t have any great ideas about how to make it fit the RDA model, though.

      I guess the reason why 3.z made sense to me in chapter 3 is that these values are in many ways similar to the sort of values that are currently in 3.19.3 encoding formats. Those also are often linked to a specific content type, but are still apparently considered manifestation-level details. The same expression could have a different disc data type (e.g., a QuickTime video on a DVD would be DVD application date vs. a DVD video)

  3. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Comments from an MLA member who is also active in OLAC (June 17):

    This proposal attempts to bring out three basic characteristics of optical discs: the physical standard of the disc (the “tech specs”), the recording method (“how the data gets on the disc”), and the type of data on the disc (audio, video, application). The proposal is a revised section of the 2012 proposal (6JSC/ALA/16) that takes into account the feedback received.

    Overall, I think the biggest hurdle with this proposal is the separation of “data type” with the file-level encoding – and, as the proposal states, RDA doesn’t differentiate this well, either.

    It would be good to have these new RDA elements if only to provide consistency in recording this information – rather than using free-text notes to record the details. In the case of Optical disc recording method, while I would prefer the element, I’m not opposed to its inclusion under Production method (the alternative proposal).

    On the OLAC side, we did have some discussion about hybrid SACDs – but it was decided to continue to apply both the CD and SACD data types rather than considering a new data type for hybrids.

    I hope OLAC will be able to sort out all of the video encoding formats sooner rather than later!

  4. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Comment from me:

    I think “burned disc” vs. “stamped disc” would be appropriate as 3.9.4, as in the Alternative version of the proposal.

  5. Robert Bratton says:

    I think it is odd that the RDA glossary has deifinitions for “analog,” “centre track,” and “nitrate,” but we would not want the addition of the definitions related to videorecordings. Is the intention to eventually jettison all of the “specialist” definitions to application profiles?

Leave a Reply