[DCRM-L] We need a schema for that

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

For its simplicity, I like the idea of extending the RDA element sets in
conjunction with the DCRM revision.  This strikes me as a very obvious
route to take -- and one which we've already embarked on (paging Matthew...)

However this schema is eventually deployed, the first step will be to
review DCRM and identify a list of data elements.  This is something that a
task force could begin work on now.  (Yes, I am volunteering myself.)


Allison


On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  Yes, that is helpful.
>
>
>
> The *extension* of the RDA element set (by specialist communities) is
> compatible with the JSC’s vision for RDA. I think it would make sense to
> pursue such a course, either under the umbrella of the next version of
> DCRM, or in coordination therewith.
>
>
>
> For item-specific *notes*, RDA gives us two blunt elements: Note on item
> (2.21) and Note on item-specific carrier characteristics (3.22). We may
> want to define elements of greater specificity, if it serves user tasks.
> But probably the scope of these endeavors extends beyond a “holdings
> format”; the two sample properties in your message, for example, can apply
> to Manifestations.
>
>
>
> There are also some elements/properties that RDA defines for
> Manifestations (etc.) that we *may* also want to define for Items – say,
> for Dimensions, or Color Content.
>
>
>
> I like your suggestion that the properties (or data elements) most worth
> defining will usually correlate to the areas in which we’ve already
> developed mature *value* vocabularies.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150408/59a67726/attachment.html>