Home | Public Area

Comment #00348 - for resource type was the RDA/Onix framework considered? - rp-19-201x_ODI_draft_for_comments_final.pdf (revision #2)

Comment 348
New (Unresolved)
NISO RP-19-201x, Open Discovery Initiative: Promoting Transparency in Discovery (draft for comments) (Revision 2)
Comment Submitted by
Alison Hitchens
2013-11-05 10:19:12


"The intention is for the Publication Format field to be used to indicate whether the nature of the content being described is monographic, serial, a component part, collection, etc. The textual descriptors from the controlled list established in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Level position (07) of the Leader field is recommended to be used for this field’s content. The Type field is intended to be used to identify whether the content being described is textual, a visual recording, a sound recording, etc. The textual descriptors from the controlled list established in the MARC 21 Type of Record position (06) of the Leader field is recommended to be used for this field’s content."



Library professionals and publishers got together in 2006 to work on ways to identify resource categorization. Was this considered as an alternative to MARC definitions? http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair10.pdf

Submitter Proposed Solution