Dear all
for those who are interested in RDA, ISBD, RFO and library linked data developments, my question has been abundantly answered and with generosity of references to current free tools for CPD about the matter via the RDA-List (RDA-L managed by "Library and Archives Canada - Bibliotheque et Archives Canada" LISTSERV Server is at ) where other interesting dicussions are going on about RDA and MARC etc etc
I sent a comment about the answers received last night, forwarded below
Regards
Brunella Longo
=============
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brunella Longo <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 16 February 2011 18:48:29 GMT
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms - dataset
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access <[log in to unmask]>
Thank you all for the excellent answers showing how complex is the achievement of a very basic level of interoperability (definitions). I have found particularly useful to compare rdacontent terms with ISBD designations.
I must admit I find easier to think about rdacontent terms in a non-ambiguous way considering rdacontent terms quasi equivalent to DC.types and ISBD designations. Perhaps those who have more familiarity with MARC codes need to refer continuously to RDA via MARC codes (that from my point of view is very confusing / difficult).
Basically, a dataset is a type of resource with its own unique aspects and cannot be at the same time neither a "physical object" nor a "sound" or an event or software or text or image or service etc etc. The key question is: what does qualify a dataset as a dataset? What is a dataset unique characteristique? Is data encoded in a certain predictable structure (this is the DC definition). What describe its nature or its structure (cartographic, financial, patent, etc) does not matter and should perhaps be put in the representation area of the description of the resource and not together with the rdacontent designation name. In sum I would recommend not to say that a cartographic dataset is a cartographic dataset. Just say that it is a dataset.
But this is just a preliminary reflection and hypothetical solution, not at all conclusive.
There is an increasing fascinating and systematic production and distribution of datasets in many fields (I quoted as example but there is plenty of others - factual, numeric, cartographic, financial, chemical etc - almost always supposed to be downloaded via WWW services and then archived, accessed and used through desktop software, smartphone applications or server databases / repositories even if we cannot exclude other generations of carriers).
Now, the (relative) peril I have seen is that cataloguing these resources one could be tempted to apply some sort of "special" solution that RDA and ISBD deserved to cartographic datasets also to other type of datasets - for instance "statistical dataset". This because uses and users seem demanding the distinction of a context of use as extremely valuable: you don't access cartographic and patents datasets with the same software! whereas it seems to me that for cataloguing purposes in a Web environment the nature, scope and other attributes of datasets and their uses should be treated via other elements of the resource description - in sum it is not necessary to say what type of dataset is a resource once you have identified it as a dataset.
Brunella Longo
7 New College Court
London NW3 5EX
T +44 (0)20 72095014 (home) - +44 (0) 75 49921488 (mobile)
http://www.brunellalongo.info (http://www.brunellalongo.it)
