This is a bit late, but perhaps these comments will be useful.

I was disappointed that this didn't come up in previous proposals about
recording RDA in MARC. Although the carrier attributes for moving images get
their own elements in RDA, we have still been stuck with putting them all
together in one 538. I had thought it might be good to have more 007
positions, but separate fields would also seem to work. 

Although separate fields will improve machine-processing, they're also going
to make our already long video records even longer in displays, at least in
current systems. I have often thought that tabular displays of these carrier
attributes and system requirements would be a lot more readable than the
lists we currently put in 538 if only we could get our systems to do that.

In RDA the non-digital video encoding formats are separated from the digital
video encoding formats. This may lead to some inconsistencies in display for
reasons that are not obvious to users. However, this is a problem with the
way RDA divides up the world, not MARC.

  300 1 videocassette : $b sound, color ; $c 1/2 in.
  346 $a VHS $b NTSC

  300 1 videodisc : $b sound, color ; $c 4 3/4 in.
  346 $b NTSC
  347 $b DVD video $e Region 1

I think some video catalogers liked the option to record the digital video
encoding format of DVD video in 300$b if using the generic carrier tem in
300$a since it made that important piece of information more obvious in
displays, although it obviously doesn't help with machine processing.

  300 1 videodisc : $b DVD video, sound, color ; $c 4 3/4 in.
  538 NTSC; Region 1.

I guess sound and color will remain undifferentiated in 300$b?

One drawback to splitting these things out is that once again you have the
problem of connecting the dots if you have more than one carrier that you
want to describe in a record. A related problem is that there's no obvious
way to get the related fields to display together to create a coherent
display for patrons.

Take for example a DVD video issued with a CD-ROM with supporting PowerPoint
presentations. If you want to use separately subfielded elements for both
carriers, you end up with something like:

  300 1 videodisc : $b sound, color + $c 4 3/4 in. + $e 1 computer disc
  346 $b NTSC
  347 $b DVD video $e Region 1
  347 $a text file $b PowerPoint

This paper did make me re-look at the way these terms for carrier attributes
in RDA are organized and reminded me of some of my problems with them.

I still think DVD-R is out of place in the list of video data formats. The
rest of the things in the list are data encoding standards. DVD-R has to do
with the physical method of encoding the information on the disc. Even
though DVD-R is helpful to have in the record, it is not a video data
format. The video data format would still be DVD video regardless of whether
that content is pressed on a DVD-ROM or burned on a DVD-R.

Kelley McGrath
[log in to unmask]