At 11:17 AM 1/2/2009, Karen Coyle wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Diane I. Hillmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Folks:
>
>  "Other" and "Unspecified" are dead ends and should be unceremoniously rejected (they will not--repeat NOT--be added to the vocabularies while I have breath).

Not to mention that MARC lists often include all four of these:
 - Other
 - Unknown
 - Not applicable
 - No attempt to code

I argued before the MARC standards group that anyone who was not
attempting to code the data element in question would also NOT be
likely to code "No attempt to code"... oh, well.

On the other hand, for fixed-length data, there has to be something there.  I think most of us thought of "no attempt to code" as a default that would occupy the position unless someone changed it.  OCLC in fact does this for many elements in their workforms.

But that is MARC.  As I indicated in a previous message, I hope that we can reach a consensus on the best practice for recording lack of information.

Back to the lists: there are a number of "lists" that aren't really
lists in RDA:

7.17.2.3 R Recording Colour of Still Images
If the still image or images contained in the resource are in black
and white or shades of grey, record black and white.
If the image or images in black and white are tinted and/or toned,
specify tinted, toned, or tinted and toned as appropriate, in
parentheses, following black and white.
If the image or images are in sepia, record sepia.
If the image or images in the resource are in one or two colours, name
the colour or colours.

Yet RDA considers this a controlled list, and there are different such
lists for different materials: RDA colour (still images), RDA colour
(moving images), RDA colour (three-dimensional forms) (and there may
be others). The lists are included in the RDA element analysis table
as vocabulary encoding schemes. So we have lists that don't have a set
of values, but in addition we have these lists whose values (if we had
them) would overlap

The MARC record has actual vocabulary lists for colour for different
materials, and these are not open-ended (well, except for 'other'). So
for projected material MARC has:

One color
Black-and-white
Multicolored
Hand colored
Mixed

and for electronic material:

One color
Black-and-white
Multicolored
Gray scale
Mixed

IF there were actual lists in RDA, it might be possible to create a
master list and use the application profile concept to create
format-specific lists. But there aren't really lists in RDA...

First, it must be admitted that there are a lot of RDA instructions that specify recording of a particular term, but don't formally specify a vocabulary.  You might consider these a partial vocabulary: some terms are specified, but everything else is uncontrolled.  We recognize that this isn't ideal, but it isn't always possible to specify a full vocabulary.  Consider this a work in progress.

Second, color was a particularly telling example to cite.  In some ways, I think the JSC may have handled this incorrectly, but we needed a practical solution that would work with current technology.  The problem was political.  An earlier version of the proposal for the Colour Content element (7.17) instructed catalogers to record "colour" if the item contained colour content.  This generated screams of protest from all the catalogers in the United States who considered that this required them to misspell the word ("two nations divided by a common language ...").  So the JSC decided that this element would not have a controlled vocabulary and that the presence of colour could be recorded using "an appropriate term" but not specifying what term or spelling.  As I said, I'm not sure that this was the correct decision, particularly given that RDA specifies what term to record not what term to display.  I hope that we will have systems eventually that can display "color" to a U.S. user and "colour" to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, that feature isn't commonly available today and the issue had become so politically inflamed that we needed to do something.  Note also that MARC doesn't have to deal with this issue, because the lists above are for coded values; systems either display the codes or translate them to their preferred terms/spellings.

So, bottom line, our intention was that there not be a controlled vocabulary for this element, although some specific values are specified in individual instructions.

        John Attig
        ALA Rep to the JSC