Home | Public Area

Comment #00352 - Content type and format combined in tables 1 and 2. - rp-19-201x_ODI_draft_for_comments_final.pdf (revision #2)

Comment 352
New (Unresolved)
NISO RP-19-201x, Open Discovery Initiative: Promoting Transparency in Discovery (draft for comments) (Revision 2)
Comment Submitted by
Nara Newcomer
2013-11-11 09:59:34

Content type and format in tables 1 and 2 are presented one element, not two.

Since the “content type/format” row is missing from table 1, I am unsure how they are defined, but I suggest that the best definitions are along the lines of RDA’s “content type” and “carrier type.” You may want to reword.

That is: content type = “a categorization reflecting the fundamental form of communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense through which it is intended to be perceived.”

Format (RDA carrier type) = “a categorization reflecting the format of the storage medium and housing of a carrier in combination with the type of intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content of a resource.”

Submitter Proposed Solution

Content type and format should be separated into two individual elements. The amalgamation of content type and format is a common problem in discovery systems. When content type and format are amalgamated, users cannot, for example, select all videos, and also select a specific video format, i.e. online, DVD, VHS, etc. While this document is not about interfaces, necessary metadata must be present behind interfaces.

Note: though I’ve referred to RDA, I do not suggest using RDA’s carrier type list. For example, the video carrier “videodisc” does not differentiate between laserdiscs and DVDs.

See III.B in the Music Discovery Requirements for more information on content and carrier type [what the ODI document calls “format”]. Note that content and carrier elements are vital to all audio and video, not just music.