JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-RDA Archives


DC-RDA Archives

DC-RDA Archives


DC-RDA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-RDA Home

DC-RDA Home

DC-RDA  April 2012

DC-RDA April 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: ISBD to RDA/ONIX mapping

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

List for discussion on application profiles and mappings <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:57:39 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

On 4/16/12 8:14 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>   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

But at the same time, it makes it impossible to link data between 
disparate systems. We're back to the question of rigidity of 
definitions, much like we ran into with FRBR. It seems that it would be 
more useful to define ISBD "image" as >= RDAONIXimage+touch or >= 
RDAONIXimage+sight than to say that they are incompatible. I think that 
we'll have more cases of making these kinds of reconciliations than we 
will have of finding data from different sources that has exactly the 
same definitions.

I guess I had assumed that the goal of the mapping was to ... well, to 
map two different but similar sets of terms so that they could interact 
in the big data soup. Maybe that's the next step? Because this seems to 
be a comparison without compromises.


  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.

And I assume that the "solution" will be to create mappings between the 
previous sets of terms (AACR2 mainly) and RDA. In fact, on the RDA list 
right now this is being discussed because I wanted to see a comparison, 
and people have (seemingly successfully) been able to do that because I 
have received some responses that do that mapping.

I want to second what Barbara said:

 >>> 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.

I think "harmonize" is the key statement here.

>
> I think your examples of "image" and "music" can be considered use-cases
> for abandoning the GMD/SMD approach.

I'm not so much concerned that we need to abandon the GMD (although we 
will with RDA) as that we now have a data format with conceptually the 
same data in multiple fields using different values, with no defined 
relationships between them. Creating those relationships between ISBD 
and AACR with RDA will be needed if we are to transform our data to... 
well, whatever it gets transformed to. Declaring that ISBD area 0 and 
RDA/ONIX are different (and we know they are) doesn't solve my use case, 
which is to have a lot of data from different sources play together well.

kc


-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
June 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
June 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager