Difference between revisions of "6/JSC/ALA/21"

Jump to: navigation, search
(Constituency Responses)
Line 91: Line 91:
--McGrath (OLAC) 10/27/12
--McGrath (OLAC) 10/27/12
[[Category:Completed documents]] [[Category:6JSC]] [[Category:ALA Proposals for November 2012 JSC Meeting]]

Latest revision as of 12:02, 26 July 2013

6JSC/ALA/21 Proposed Revision of RDA instructions of Sources of Information (RDA


Please include in your comments:

  • Your name/liaison organization
  • Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

Constituency Responses

Proposal and responses

Summary: CILIP doesn't think the revisions change anything; others agree in general.

A. Containers in and 2.2.4: ACOC, CCC, DNB, LC agree; BL disagrees on some details; LC offers a different wording. Need ALA position.

B. Covers as sources of information: ACOC, BL, CCC, DNB, LC agree; LC suggests including jackets, revising, and defining "cover". Need ALA position.

C. Priority of sources in and ACOC, BL, CCC, DNB, LC agree in general; ACOC, BL find the wording confusing; CCC, LC each provide different wording. Need ALA position.

-- John Attig/JSC Rep 2012/10/10

A. Containers in and 2.2.4:

Regarding BL comments on I'm not wedded to the tense change, but I don't think it does any harm either. I sympathize with the complaint about the long parenthetical, but I like the idea of the clamshell box example. Perhaps we could just stop after "compact discs" and make no mention of the individual cases?

Regarding LC comments on 2.2.4.a: Accept LC's rewording.

Regarding other LC comments on section A: I'm confused by the stated acceptance of proposed changes to paragraph c -- I don't think ALA made any changes here. I agree with LC's observation that c) and b) could be switched here, although I'd appreciate hearing from those who work with special/archival materials to make sure I'm not missing something important.

- Glennan (PCC), 10/23/12

B. Covers as sources of information:

Agree to LC's proposed changes to 2.2.2 and to

Adding a definition of "cover" is also OK by me -- but is one needed for "jacket" then too?

- Glennan (PCC), 10/23/12

C. Priority of sources in and

I prefer LC's rewording of to CCC's. I think this proposed revision still addresses all of ALA's concerns.

For, I prefer CCC's content (which would need to be tweaked to match LC's revisions in for style). LC's revision drops the "formally presented collective title" language that is really important to music catalogers.

- Glennan (PCC), 10/23/12

I agree that it is very desirable for the music community for to contain explicit reference to a collective title. We deal with this situation frequently.

For, the proposed revision could be read to include an individual jewel case for a single CD, right? I know the intent is to make it clear that an outer box is considered part of the resource, and if an outer box is considered part of the resource, then logically, of course an individual jewel case would be considered part of the resource, but I must admit that it makes me scratch my head for a moment, wondering if the proposed revision intends to exclude individual jewel cases for some reason.

That aside, maybe the parenthetical wording could be tightened up a bit: "(such as a box in which a game, kit, or set of compact discs is issued)"

For added clarity, how about: "(such as a jewel case, or a box in which a game, kit, or set of compact discs is issued)"

Tracey Snyder, MusLA, Oct. 23, 2012

On point A: I like Tracey's elaboration "(such as a jewel case, or a box in which a game, kit, or set of compact discs is issued)." Perhaps it should say "a jewel case in which a compact disc is issued, or …" I have to admit that I don't actually know what a clamshell box is, but just ignored that since the point of the example was clear. If we stick with the past tense, the example sentence should also say "was." Kit could probably be removed from the example list without affecting clarity, especially since the concept of kit doesn't really exist in RDA.

The past tense makes more sense to me, but I don't think it's a deal breaker either way.

I am okay with LC's rewording of 2.2.4a, although I think an explicit mention of analytical descriptions would be a time saver. On the face of it, it seems to me that a published description might be more reliable than a container not issued by the publisher, but this is not a situation that I encounter. I am actually not sure what distinction is meant to be made between a published description and a reference source.

--McGrath (OLAC) 10/27/12

On point B: Adding jacket seems like a good idea. I am fine with a glossary definition of cover and it would make sense to also include one for jacket. Agree with change to

--McGrath (OLAC) 10/27/12

On point C:

If the text of is to change, I don't have a strong preference between the LC and CCC versions. LC's intro language is perhaps a little cleaner ("Tangible resources: use as the preferred source the first of the following that bears a title"). CCC includes embedded metadata in the possible sources for tangible digital moving images. I believe that video content on DVDs has embedded metadata, probably with a textual title. However, without research I don't know how to get at it and I imagine most other catalogers don't, either. The argument for keeping it is that it exists. The argument for not keeping it is that we don't want catalogers to feel forced to hunt for it. I supposed embedded metadata could also potentially be interpreted to be included in the "internal source" option. I could live with this either way.

Where both of these introduce a change in meaning is in giving an explicit preference to textual sources over embedded metadata for online resources. This seems to be an unsettled area, which was the reasoning behind introducing option c with one of the following rather than a hierarchical preference. For online resources, rather than "first of the following," I prefer ALA's existing "one of the following." Hopefully, catalogers will exercise the option to give a source of title note for these resources.

In, I share the music community's concern about losing the preference for a collective title. I also think both alternatives miss the intention of ALA's version to allow catalogers to privilege a title screen title over a disc label for a tangible digital resource over a disc label (option a) if they so choose and the equivalent issue in with textual information on a web page featuring a media resource and embedded metadata (option c). For this reason, I am not in favor of the proposed changes.

--McGrath (OLAC) 10/27/12