Karen
The framework requires that a single value from each of the vocabularies
forming a base category (for content or carrier) is used to underpin the
high-level category. In your examples, "image" can have Sensory mode =
"touch" as well as "sight", so cannot map to a single Sensory mode value;
and "music" can have Sensory mode = "sight" (notated music) and "touch"
(braille notated music) as well as "hearing". This is a powerful,
fundamental feature of the framework, as it forces high-level categories to
make the distinctions explicit; hence RDA has separate categories/terms for
"still image", "tactile image", "three-dimensional moving image",
"two-dimensional moving image", "performed music", "notated music" and
"tactile notated music".
The use-cases behind the framework included the GMD and SMD vocabularies
used in AACR2, and the increasing difficulties in using them (and adding
new terms consistently) as new forms of digital content and carrier exposed
the semantic ambiguity in the "traditional" approach. This has been
extensively discussed on the RDA-L listserv.
I think your examples of "image" and "music" can be considered use-cases
for abandoning the GMD/SMD approach. A positive use-case is one that I use
frequently in presentations:
The RDA content type "spoken word" is a base content category with values
Character = "language", Sensory mode = "hearing", Image dimensionality =
"not applicable" and Image movement = "not applicable". This can be used
for resource discovery to find stuff that can be listened to: give me all
the resources whose content type has Sensory mode = "hearing". This is
particularly useful for those with special requirements. And it is
independent of the high-level terminology, provided it is mapped to the
framework.
So I think the framework is very practical; it's based on years of
development of resource category terms in librarianship, cross-matched
against the much newer terminologies developed by the publishing industry.
It is certainly practical enough to be the basis of the RDA carrier,
content, and media type vocabularies.
For more information about applying the framework, including a very brief
discussion on its practical applicability to terminologies from outside the
library and publishing communities, see:
http://dlib.org/dlib/january07/dunsire/01dunsire.html
Cheers
Gordon
On 16 April 2012 at 14:41 Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm glad that Barbara replied, since she undoubtedly understands this
> better than most if not all. I was totally confused by the document, I
> have to say, and in part I think it was the layout of the tables that
> made it hard for me.
>
> I was particularly surprised that "Sensory mode" is not filled in for
> many of the elements, including "image" and "music." Perhaps that was
> covered elsewhere in the document, but I couldn't find it.
>
> I've read through the RDA/ONIX documents and I have a hard time
> understanding the use cases for this particular division of the world.
> It has the air of being more theoretical than practical, but maybe I
> just don't know what practice is intended. It would be helpful for me to
> see some concrete use cases.
>
> kc
>
> On 4/16/12 5:30 AM, Tillett, Barbara wrote:
> > Françoise and Mirna- Thank you for sharing the draft. I hope my
> > comments will find their way to the appropriate persons, if you two are
> > not the correct people. You asked that we respond to the Dublin Core
> > list, but hopefully the IFLA folks also will get the information.
These
> > are my own personal opinions.
> >
> > 1. The Tables. I do not understand why a column is used for the tables
> > when there is no information in any of the cells beneath it (storage
> > medium and housing format on Table 5; sensory mode and image movement
on
> > table 4; sensory mode and image dimensionality on table 3; image
> > movement and image dimensionality on table 2). Why include an RDA/ONIX
> > Framework category, if it doesn't apply for that ISBD category? I
> > understood the note on negative values, but this seems there are no
> > values at all
> >
> > There were several other categories for the RDA/ONIX Framework that are
> > not shown at all (extension mode, extension requirement, extension
> > termination, interaction, revision mode, revision requirement), so
> > presumably someone decided they did not apply?
> >
> > 2. RDA/ONIX Framework. I find the RDA/ONIX Framework terms and
> > categories in need of review - as is planned between the two parties,
> > the JSC (Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA) and the
> > publishing community, who created it, hopefully in the next several
months.
> >
> > Wouldn’t it be a useful step at this "early" stage to harmonize ISBD
and
> > RDA as the JSC and publishers re-open discussions with the publishing
> > community? Going in such different directions does not seem helpful to
> > international standardization efforts, and it is not clear why ISBD
> > chose to take such a divergent approach. Perhaps such harmonization
> > discussion would enable us to jointly agree on a better approach.
> > Gordon's analysis has certainly enlightened us all about the
> > difficulties with the current approach.
> >
> > I also will be at the London meeting and look forward to talking
further.
> >
> > - Barbara Tillett (not acting in any official capacity for this message
> > - these are my personal views)
> >
> > P.S.: One of my staff suggested the mapping document should include
> > examples for area 0. - bt
> >
> > *From:*List for discussion on application profiles and mappings
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Françoise Leresche
> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:44 AM
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Subject:* [DC-RDA] ISBD to RDA/ONIX mapping
> >
> >
> > Dear colleagues
> >
> > Please find attached a document providing the mappings between the ISBD
> > area 0 vocabularies and the RDA/ONIX Framework vocabularies prepared by
> > the ISBD/XML Study Group of IFLA Cataloguing Section. Please note it
> > provides mappings to base category attributes only.
> >
> > I am forwarding this document to the DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task
> > Group for review and comment. Please post any comment to the DC-RDA
list
> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>.
> >
> > Mirna Willer, chair of the ISBD Review group, and I will attend the
> > inaugural meeting of the DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task Group in
> > London, where we shall have the opportunity to discuss the mappings
> > face-to-face.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Françoise Leresche
> > Chair of the ISBD/XML Study Group
> >
> > Françoise Leresche
> > Bibliothèque nationale de France
> > Département de l'information bibliographique et numérique
> > Responsable du Pôle Modélisation fonctionnelle
> >
> > Tél. : (33) 1 53 79 86 29
> > Fax : (33) 1 53 79 85 86
> > Mél. : [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *Adoptez un livre ! <http://www.amisbnf.org/books.html>*
> >
> > *Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement.*
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
|
