[DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?

Sat Nov 22 09:11:54 MST 2014

I agree with John, I think.

I’d really like to hear from those of you who specialize in graphic and cartographic resources. This very topic will be treated in a RDA revision proposal later this year, and your input may well influence the recommendations we make in that proposal.

Francis

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of JOHN C ATTIG
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 1:31 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?

I would assume that for analog visual resources (digital technology changes all of this), the dimensions of the image are related to the dimensions of the plate (or whatever) that creates the image on the paper (or other carrier).  Therefore a plate of a different size is at least a new expression, if not a new work.

It is interesting that in the case of analog visual resources, the expression is actually a concrete thing, (some of) whose attributes can be described based on the characteristics of the manifestation.  (Of course, one could also describe the actual plate as a unique item, but that is something different.)

        John

________________________________
From: "Francis Lapka" <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 12:52:54 PM
Subject: [DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?

A theoretical question for a Friday afternoon:  Can dimensions be an attribute of content (i.e. Expression)? For most stuff, surely not. But what about for *visual* resources (and by extension, *cartographic* resources). For the latter, bear in mind that scale is an attribute of Expression.

When we record a dimensions statement like “image 13 x 14 cm, on sheet 33 x 42 cm” (to grab an example from DCRMG) – are the image dimensions still an attribute of the carrier?

Put another way: Does a significant change in size of a visual resource create a new Expression?

Francis

From: Lapka, Francis
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 12:30 PM
To: 'gordon at gordondunsire.com'; JOHN C ATTIG
Cc: sprochia at health.missouri.edu<mailto:sprochia at health.missouri.edu>; EOKEEFE at themorgan.org<mailto:EOKEEFE at themorgan.org>; kcoylenet at gmail.com<mailto:kcoylenet at gmail.com>; metadata maven; mscharff at wustl.edu<mailto:mscharff at wustl.edu>; Bourassa, Dominique
Subject: RE: Measurements (high-level AUQ) + Extent of the Carrier

I argue that one *could* make a case for dimensions of content – for select varieties of resources; I’m not necessarily suggesting that we *should*.

I think with Duration, FRBR/RDA has already set a precedent that a concrete (precise) measurement can be recorded for a *dimension* of content. The duration of an Expression will vary from Manifestation to Manifestation, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a rough duration that all of these Manifestations should have in common. If a performer decides to run through a piece at 4x the intended tempo, arguably this fundamentally changes the character of the piece into something like a new Expression. This same principle is transferable to many varieties of visual resources (and cartographic resources, as a subset of visual resources), where the dimension is length instead of duration. There are some visual resources for which a change in size may be the most evident attribute to make a distinction between two Expressions of the same Work. Yes, that change size in size will also probably be reflected in a change in size of the carrier or the applied material, but those are derivative changes.

Again, I think we probably *shouldn’t* pursue the idea of dimensions for Expression. But I think the same arguments made against the idea could be made against the idea of Duration as an attribute of content.

Francis

-----Original Message-----
From: gordon at gordondunsire.com<mailto:gordon at gordondunsire.com> [mailto:gordon at gordondunsire.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 11:50 AM
To: JOHN C ATTIG
Cc: sprochia at health.missouri.edu<mailto:sprochia at health.missouri.edu>; EOKEEFE at themorgan.org<mailto:EOKEEFE at themorgan.org>; Lapka, Francis; kcoylenet at gmail.com<mailto:kcoylenet at gmail.com>; metadata maven; mscharff at wustl.edu<mailto:mscharff at wustl.edu>; Bourassa, Dominique
Subject: Re: Measurements (high-level AUQ) + Extent of the Carrier

John and others

[In Friday mode/mood :-)]

What does it mean to record the dimensions (height, width) of an image as content? It seems obvious with unmediated carriers - but what about computer carriers? Especially if a printed image is digitized ... If I record the dimensions of an image in expression data as "23 cm x 15 cm" and then photo-reduce it on the unmediated carrier to fit on a smaller sheet, I end up with "1 image (23 cm x 15 cm) [carried] on 1 sheet (12 cm x 9 cm)" What does that mean? In fact, the image size on the sheet could well be smaller (with blank borders). If I take the same expression and embody it on a computer disk, then if it is digitized to a high density TIFF file, I can view it on the computer as if it were very much larger than the dimensions recorded in the expression data. So what are the actual dimensions of the image as content?

Isn't what carries the image on an unmediated sheet the applied material (ink, paint, etc.) on the sheet? If so, it would make more sense to record the area covered by the applied material, and that is surely manifestation data :-)

Isn't it sufficient to say "1 image on 4 sheets (10 cm x 10 cm)"?

We often talk about maps in this context. Following on from the argument above, what is important about cartographic content is the scale and bounding coordinates, not the dimensions of the map. The scale and coordinates are what determine the "natural" size of a cartographic image - but it can still be "bigger" or "smaller" depending on how the image is carried.

And what about 3-d cartographic objects? What is the Dimensions of expression of a globe? It can't be height or width - maybe it is diameter ;-) What about a 3-d relief? Height may be the height of the carrier (cast metal, carved wood,

whatever) or the height minus the thickness of the base.

If it is deemed insufficient for a particular resource to record "5 maps [carried] on 3 sheets (12 cm x 15 cm)" because 1 of the maps is printed on 2 sheets, and the other 4 are all on 1 sheet, then, as you hint, it is better to treat each map as a work in its own right.

As I said in Washington, Dimensions of expression makes me uneasy - and the feeling is getting stronger (maybe because it's Friday :-)

Cheers

Gordon

[earlier portions of the thread omitted – FL]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20141122/a87ee885/attachment-0001.html>