[DCRM-L] revision of extent, dimensions, etc. (ALA proposal)

[Lapka, Francis]

Hi all.

I call your attention to an RDA revision proposal that will be discussed in the CC:DA meeting at Annual:

Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3 : Revision Proposal
http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?p=2032


The proposal suggests major changes to RDA for Extent and Dimensions, as well as Duration. The primary aim is to allow numerical measurements to be recorded in a machine-actionable fashion, applying controlled vocabularies for measurement types, units, etc. In so doing, RDA would incorporate changes already introduced in cataloging standards of the museum and archival communities. The potential benefits are best outlined in the task force's first discussion paper: http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tf-mrdata3.pdf.

Now let's get to the fun stuff.

In its review of Extent, the task force proposes greater adherence to the FRBR model by creating a new data element for Extent of the Content. For some formats, it has long been standard practice to record a quantification of content as Extent, e.g. 3 maps, 1 drawing, or 2 scores. The proposal suggests that such information should now be recorded as an attribute of the Expression. For the DCRM community, this change most impacts descriptions for Cartographic, Graphic, and Music resources. Extent of the carrier for such material would now be recorded in terms of sheets, volumes, etc., as appropriate (for more, see page 134 of the proposal).

The proposal also suggests a change that would impact all DCRM formats: a new element for Pagination and Foliation, which would re-purpose many of the instructions in RDA 3.4.5 Extent of Text. We suggest this change because pagination and foliation data is fundamentally different than that recorded for other varieties of Extent of the Carrier. That is, only for subunits of volumes do we emphasize how the resource self-represents its numeration. This practice is more like transcription than true measurement (for more, see pages 9-11 and 56 of the proposal).

I'm happy to explain (and/or reconsider) anything in the proposal that is unclear or troublesome.

For those of you thinking "Egad!" or other oaths, rest assured that these changes are too major to be introduced quickly; and in places, there's still obvious work to do. You will have plenty of opportunity to shape how the proposal goes forward. Matthew Haugen (RBMS Liaison to CC:DA), Liz O'Keefe (ARLIS/NA Liaison to CC:DA, and contributor the proposal), and I are all keen to convey your sentiments.

Francis






Francis Lapka  *  Catalog Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203.432.9672  *  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150610/4a38054e/attachment.html>