Additions and Revisions to RDA 7.11, Place and Date of Capture

RSC/MusicWG/1
21 July 2016

Additions and Revisions to RDA 7.11, Place and Date of Capture

 

Submitted by: Damian Iseminger, Chair, RSC Music Working Group

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Additions and Revisions to RDA 7.11, Place and Date of Capture

  1. Robert Bratton says:

    This proposal seems reasonable to me. I prefer option 1. Do we need a definition of “place, and date, and other details of capture ” [proposed] or “place and date of capture” [current] if place, date, and other details are all separately defined? It seems preferable to define them as separate elements:

    date of capture

    place of capture

    other details of capture

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I agree with Robert both on preferring option 1, and that a separate glossary entry for “place, date, and other details of capture” is not necessary.

  2. Teressa Keenan says:

    I agree that this proposal seems reasonable. I don’t have a preference between option 1 or 2. I agree with Robert that defining the three elements separately is better.

  3. Tina Shrader says:

    I generally support this proposal, and I think option 1 is preferable.

    I also agree with Robert that defining the three elements (place of capture, date of capture, and other details of capture) separately makes sense.

  4. Mary Huismann says:

    Passing along a comment from the music community: While I suppose many folks will continue to mash up this data into a single statement, I think it’s probably more forward-looking to treat statements about persons, etc. as statements of responsibility, which I take it would be the result of the additions mentioned in the Unresolved Issues.

  5. Mary Huismann says:

    I prefer Option 1 as it keeps all of the instructions together, though I do understand the reasoning behind option 2. I also agree with defining the three elements separately.

    • Diane Napert says:

      Add me to the list of people who prefer Option 1

      I’m not opposed to adding the paragraphs on page 2 to 7.11.4.1 or 7.29.3.1 However, I can’t say I feel strongly. Having worked with the Horowitz archive and having some interaction with the sound engineer for the Sony recordings for Horowitz, I think this may be applicable to a small percentage of recordings (historical re-issues perhaps).

    • Mary Anne Dyer says:

      I also like Option 1, and agree with the suggestion to separately define the three elements.

  6. Amanda Ros says:

    I agree with Robert about separate definitions. I also prefer option 1.

  7. Teressa Keenan says:

    Passing along a comment from our music cataloger…

    I like option 1 as well. It just seems more logical to have instruction for all aspects of capture in the same place. I also like the change to allow multiple capture locations and dates not necessarily in a range.

  8. Tim Kiser says:

    I also prefer option 1, and agree with Robert B. that three separately-defined elements are sufficient (and that a fourth definition combining the three elements is unnecessary).

    Regarding the unresolved issues on page 2, if the paragraphs are *not* to be added to 7.11.4.1 or 7.29.3.1 on the grounds that “the elements proposed for 7.11.4 or 7.29.3 would be appropriate for recording persons etc. associated with capture of a resource,” then I think the proposed language for 7.11.4.3 or 7.29.3.3 should make clear that “other details of capture” includes persons etc. associated with a capture, and the list of examples in 7.11.4.3 or 7.29.3.3 should include a person.

    If the paragraphs *are* included, should the definitions of “other details of capture” be revised to make clear that it does not include persons etc. associated with a capture?

  9. Kathy Glennan says:

    Potential rewording of 7.11.2.1

    Note that RDA’s wording for the scope is now:

    “Place of capture▼ is a place associated with the recording, filming, etc., of the content of a resource.”

    Given that the definite article has been changed to an indefinite article, I’m not sure that the “place or places” solution is needed anymore.

    Thoughts?

    (Note that this also applies to the wording in 7.11.2.2 & 7.11.2.3)

    Potential rewording of 7.11.3.1
    I don’t have the same concerns with the rewording of this scope to “date or dates”, although maybe I should, for the same reasons as above.

    Any additional thoughts?

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      Note that in 7.11.1.1 if “capture” is used in the term, it should also not be used in the definition.

      Hence, I prefer the current wording (“…the recording, filming, etc., of the content of a resource.”) to the proposed wording (“the capture (i.e., recording, filming, etc.), of the content of a resource.”)

      • Tina Shrader says:

        I agree that using the indefinite article obviates the need for the “place or places” wording, as long as the data element in which you record a place of capture is repeatable.

        I think the “date or dates” situation is a little different, because you could could conceivably have a single date, multiple non-concurrent dates, or a date range associated with the recording, filming, etc. Just saying ‘a date’ doesn’t get at the idea of date ranges, while ‘date or dates’ at least implies it.

        I also agree that using the word ‘capture’ in the proposed definition is redundant.

  10. Kathy Glennan says:

    Overall, I believe Option 1 is a better approach.

    However, I think it would be wise to replace the “other details” wording if at all possible, since that really carries a different meaning in RDA (7.27 notwithstanding). Is there a way to generalize this to just “Capture” (or “capture information” or ??).

    The scope could be something like “[term] is the place, date, and other information associated with the capture (i.e., recording, filming, etc.) of the content of a resource.”

    Or maybe:

    Capture information▼ is the place, date and other specifics associated with the recording, filming, etc. of the content of a resource.

    [This avoids using the term in the definition & gets away from using “details” as well. I haven’t looked yet to see how this would play out in later instructions…. Sadly, “specifics” isn’t in the RDA Toolkit now, so maybe “other details” is still the most logical way to go.]

    • Tina Shrader says:

      I like ‘capture information’ as the name of this element, or perhaps ‘other capture information’ since ‘place of capture’ and ‘date of capture’ are also types of capture information. I’m not sure about the wording of the definition, because I’m not entirely sure I understand why using ‘details’ is a problem.

  11. Kathy Glennan says:

    7.11.4.1

    The proposed scope note does not meet the latest RDA standards. It needs to be broken into two paragraphs. In addition, it would benefit from some rewording. The result could look something like:

    Other details of capture▼ is information associated with the recording, filming, etc., of the content of a resource other than place of capture and date of capture.

    Other details of capture includes the circumstances (e.g., a live or studio recording), the equipment used, etc.

Leave a Reply