<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As Liz as helpfully noted, one of the RDA revision proposals going to JSC in November concerns the
<b>dimensions of still images</b>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CCC-14.pdf">http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CCC-14.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I encourage any and all to share your thoughts about the proposal, on this list. I will be happy to compile these comments for discussion via CC:DA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Here are my own initial thoughts and questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D">1. On naming the shape of a nonrectangular resource (RDA 3.5.3.2), the proposed change appears to echo instructions in DCRM(G) 5D3.9. Does it introduce any conflicts?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D">2. The proposal introduces an alternative to record the dimensions of the sheet instead of the dimensions of the pictorial area (RDA 3.5.3.2). Unlike DCRM(G), RDA
does not offer medium-specific guidelines for taking dimensions, and such specificity may be beyond the scope of RDA.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D">3. The proposal adds guidelines (RDA 3.5.3.3-3.5.3.4) for images on more than one sheet, in parallel to guidelines already provided for cartographic material. Are
these guidelines adequate?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D">4. Dimensions of image in relation to dimensions of sheet, formerly RDA 3.5.3.3, has been moved to 3.5.3.5, with no apparent change in text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D">5. The proposal adds guidelines (RDA 3.5.3.6) for the dimensions of pictorial area on a folded sheet. The guidelines appear to be in harmony with DCRM(G) 5D3.10.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Francis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Ps. Many thanks to Liz for the well-articulated comments on RDA’s treatment of production information for unpublished resources. The issues you raise will be
kept in mind as we work on the new DCRM for RDA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Elizabeth O'Keefe<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] RDA revision proposal -- Publication (etc.) statements<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Francis,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Thanks for the heads up on this proposal. There was another proposal that might be of interest to graphics catalogers. This is the one on Revision of RDA 3.5.3 (Dimensions of still images)<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CCC-14.pdf">http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CCC-14.pdf</a><br>
<br>
So many proposals, so little time ...<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Liz O'Keefe<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>