6JSC/DNB/3

From CCDA
Revision as of 12:17, 19 September 2013 by Jfmyers4 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

6JSC/DNB/3 Attributes of manifestations: Instructions for more than one instance of an element

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment. You must be logged in to comment.

Please include in your comments:

  • Your name/liaison organization
  • Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

General comments

Text of proposal


The clarifications proposed here seem very helpful - I think ALA should support them (and LC's suggestions). --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2013 (PDT)


Revision to 0.6.1: Seems like overkill to me, but I can live with this. Prefer LC's suggested rewording: If only one instance of a core element is required, recording subsequent instances is discretionary. Kathy Glennan (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (PDT)

OK with other proposed changes. Kathy Glennan (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (PDT)

Shouldn't similar changes be proposed for 2.12.7.3 & 2.12.15.3? Kathy Glennan (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2013 (PDT)

OK with LC's proposed example change (see reference below in Constituency Response section). Kathy Glennan (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (PDT)


I also support this proposal and I like LC’s suggested rewording for 0.6.1 and additional example for 2.8.2.4—-Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Sept. 18, 2013

I support this proposal, along with LC's suggestions. -- Steve Kelley, CC:DA, Sept. 18, 2013


I would like to know CC:DA's reactions to the ACOC concerns listed in the constituency responses section below. Kathy Glennan (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2013 (PDT)

While I’m in support of the argument that clarity is needed, I’m in agreement with ACOC’s comments that the proposed revision need to be more carefully thought out for each instruction, for example, my suggested wording for the first given revision of 0.6.1 in DNB's proposal would be “The elements identified in RDA as core elements are listed at 0.6.2–0.6.9. If only one instance of a core element is required, recording some or all subsequent elements is discretionary.” since I find even LC suggested rewording still lacks sufficient clarity. -- Adolfo R. Tarango, CRS Liaison, 9/19/2013

Constituency responses

All responses

Summary of LC response

General support.

Suggest a modification to proposed wording at 0.6.1.

Suggest an example for 2.8.2.4 to illustrate the situation of more than one place of publication; prefer to modify the 4th existing example to do so.



Summary of ACOC response:

Feel that the overall methodology and the proposed rewording do not address the issue, and may result in more confusion rather than less.

Concern that the proposal suggests applying the same solution across the board, without consideration of core status. Implications of how many and which instances are recorded will vary depending on the element. In some cases, the reason for the ambiguity and confusion is broader than can be addressed by this single statement. 2.5.2.3 (Designations of edition) needs to be considered in this review.

Believes that the suggested rewording does not address the ambiguity, but rather alters the meaning of the instructions. ACOC has concerns about removing all references to how many instances of the element are present on the resource, and feels that, at the very least, such statements should be retained rather than replaced.

Don't like the "pick and choose" solution any better than the "all or nothing" approach currently in RDA. The change would compromise key principles of cataloging and will make it harder to share across databases.

COMMENT: I thought the DNB's proposal was fairly clear. A close reading of ACOC's response reveals some merit to their reservations. But these reservations seem founded on a larger complaint with contradictions to the general conceptualization and treatment of "core" rather than the more basic issue the DNB is attempting to address in regularizing the treatment of "extra" instances. I would like to see the DNB's proposal advance and prompt further retooling of the rules ACOC has identified as problematic. MYERS, CCDA liaison to the MAC, 2013/09/19


Agree with no further comments: CILIP.

Personal tools
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/DNB/3&oldid=9988
wikis.ala.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-35
17453
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:L64YVDOTFCMO2L4SDOE6MLZUQ6UR2GSV
<urn:uuid:3c3d3bc2-a765-400f-9451-fc5b8d4bdefc>
2014-08-29T09:09:25Z
208.113.146.31
sha1:XOBLNA2WNOFZOWHI3UB2GMKL4FOEXSMU
<urn:uuid:908860d3-8842-461c-a505-594cb235659b>
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/DNB/3&oldid=9988
response
<urn:uuid:784caacf-24d4-4c23-bb28-355b560369a4>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-180-136-8.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for August 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf