I thought it would be interesting to see what RDA does with medium of 
performance, and it appears to have single field, P20215, that would 
correspond to the 382. It also does not seem to have anything 
corresponding to the 048. (I don't know of an "official" mapping from 
MARC to RDA. Anyone?) A slightly reduced turtle form is:

     reg:name "mediumOfPerformanceOfMusicalContent"@en ;
     a rdf:Property ;
     rdfs:domain <> ;
     rdfs:isDefinedBy <> ;
     rdfs:label "has medium of performance of musical content"@en ;
     skos:definition "Relates an expression to the instrument, 
instruments, voice, voices, etc., used (or intended to be used) for 
performance of musical content."@en .

The RDA vocabulary is not at the same level of detail as MARC, nor is it 
at the same level of detail of the RDA rules. (Which I do not have 
access to, so perhaps someone else can check that that is verifiably 
true.) In fact, I would say that RDA is specified at about the ISBD 
level. BIBFRAME is an even more "macro" view. RDA has about 1400 
elements, BIBFRAME has 104. Either can, however, be expanded.

There is work going on in RDA to define more specific elements for the 
"extent" area (e.g. making "23 cm" a separate numeric + unitOfMeasure). 
Clearly, the same would need to be done for musical instruments (and 
perhaps many dozens of other data elements.

There are various ways this could happen. One is that RDA and BIBFRAME 
could swell up to many many thousands of different classes and 
properties. Another is that a version (profile) of either or both could 
be developed for music materials. This would allow general libraries 
that are content to have a display form of the medium of performance 
could use the RDA or BIBFRAME property, while music libraries, 
especially those serving schools of music, could use the "full music 
extension" of either vocabulary. That way, we don't force that level of 
detail on libraries and users that have no use for it.

I always see music as a special case, with its structured uniform titles 
and massive aggregation problem. I think that a profile for music 
libraries would be a very interesting development. (I'd be happy to put 
in what I can on that.)

p.s. There are LOTS of other special cases: maps, photographs, archival 
materials.... all could use this kind of treatment.

On 9/3/14, 7:52 PM, Kirk-Evan Billet wrote:
> Thank you all for the helpful responses to this question.
> But to continue, I am rather perplexed at learning that MARC bib 382 is being mapped to a note field. Since the LCMPT (Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus) has recently been released as linked data, why would we want to be so “string-y” about medium of performance in Bibframe? Also, I have noticed that, in current transformations, MARC bib 048 (the “traditional” place for coding instrumentation before upstart 382 came along) is not being mapped at all. (Of course, some kind of programmatic conversion from 048 to 382 may be in our future.) Moreover, I want to be thinking also about new data we may soon begin to generate, outside of transforming what we already have. This aspect of music resources is crucial.
> Best day,
> Kirk-Evan Billet

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600