Core CC:DA Public Space

Yesterday a question came up about what content type to use for a blank book that one of our catalogers was cataloging.  The resource is an artist's book consisting of a volume of blank pages. There is no text.

In the RDA content type value vocabulary, there does not seem to be an appropriate term to record for content type that is essentially no content.  The only possible term found there is three-dimensional form, but the resource is not sculptural in nature. The definition of "three-dimensional form" is "A content type that consists of content expressed through a form or forms intended to be perceived visually in three-dimensions."  The blank book is not intended to be viewed as an object the way a sculpture would be.

In the MARC content type list, two other terms could possibly be appropriate: other and unspecified.  We decided that other was probably the best choice to use for the blank book, but it isn't totally satisfactory either, because it implies content other than any of the other terms listed.  What really might be needed is a term denoting no intellectual or artistic content at all.  The same could be used if one were cataloging a blank audiocassette or any other carrier that contains no content.

Should RDA or MARC contain a content type for no content?  Or do you think other from the MARC list is the most appropriate term to use in this situation?

------------------------------
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
He/Him/His
------------------------------

Hi Adam:

Thank you so much for sharing this great question.  I think other from the MARC list is the most appropriate term to use in this situation.  We just need to pair it with clear notes and appropriate genre/form terms to signal the resource's nature to users and systems. 

Best regards,

Amanda 

------------------------------
Amanda Z. Xu
Team Lead, Librarian (Metadata)
National Agricultural Library
Beltsville, Maryland, USA
amanda.xu@usda.gov
------------------------------

I don't think there's a clearcut answer to this question, and the value a cataloger chooses will depend somewhat on the artist's intent and user expectations. In the case of artists' books, I would lean toward "three-dimensional form" as the content type for a book that is entirely blank and coding the type of record as "a" for books. If there were the tiniest bit of text, for example, an autograph or numbering indicating edition size by the book artist, I might consider "text" as the content type. If the book artist highlighted the artifactual nature or "object-ness" of the book in an artist's statement, that would be sound evidence for going with "three-dimensional form."

I've been following this discussion on the PCC list, and I know that one person suggested that the RDA Examples Working Group add an example of this case on the RDA content type element page. I chair this group, and it's something we can discuss. However, the challenge of adding edge cases as examples is that they may not apply in every context, it's hard to convey concisely the nuance of the particular situation, and it risks being overly prescriptive. One of the best things about our discussion lists is that we can talk through the pros and cons of nuanced cases together and work our way toward best practices without necessarily landing on one solution for all.

Re: your question about adding a "no content" content type, I think this is probably unnecessary. Content type in RDA is defined as "A categorization that reflects the fundamental form of communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense through which it is intended to be perceived." I have a hard time imagining a resource in our collections that couldn't be perceived in some way through at least one of our senses.

------------------------------
Jessica Grzegorski
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Northwestern University Libraries
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------