Setting up FMV tables from a Blank template: Questions & Answers

[tmqdeborah]

Use this discussion to ask questions and get answers about Setting up FMV tables from a Blank template

Please begin your question by copying and pasting the appropriate linked section heading:
1. Choose an element that needs an FMV table
2. Set up the Sources section
3. Set up column headers
4. Set up the Compare terms definitions tab for RDA terms
5. Set up RDA terms, codes, and IRIs in the “Mapping table” columns
6. Set up the Compare terms definitions tab for LC terms
7. Set up LC terms, codes, and URIs in the “Mapping table” columns
8. Fill in status checks for each table column and Sources row as you go

Then add a link to the FMV table in question, if appropriate.

******* When replying please reply to each question separately, using "Write a reply" instead of starting a new comment. *******

Related Links:

• FMV Tables folder

[tmqdeborah]

Sample question with reply attached

Fill in status checks for each table column and Sources row as you go

How do I fill in a status check?

[tmqdeborah]

1. For a Status pull-down below each column header, click on the cell for the pull-down and choose an appropriate option to indicate the status of the data in the entire column
2. For a Status pull-down for Sources, click on the cell for the pull-down and choose an appropriate option to indicate the status of the placeholders for each row

[dchen077]

4. Set up the Compare terms definitions tab for RDA terms
   @tmqdeborah Hi Deborah, if a term in RDA is deprecated but the exact term with the exact definition in LC vocab is not deprecated, is this a near match or no match or match? I.e. I am referring to solmization in musical notation. Here is the link to FMV table.

[tmqdeborah]

Good question, @dchen077.

If a term in RDA is deprecated but the exact term with the exact definition in LC vocab is not deprecated, it is a 'no match'.

i.e., there is no longer a match for the LC term. The term will be mapped as an LC URI.

[dchen077]

@tmqdeborah Hi deborah, after looking through some of newer spreadsheets that you did, I think I might have misunderstood what you meant by no match when a term is deprecated. I just want to confirm my understanding with you before I go through my past spreadsheet and fix the mistakes.

When a RDA term is deprecated, it still aligns in the same row as the LC term but with the status no match, instead of two separate rows for the deprecated term and the LC term.

like this:

deprecated rda term	lc term	no match

instead of this:

deprecated rda term	n/a	no match
n/a	lc term	no match

[tmqdeborah]

Yes, I think that your first table works better for the coders

deprecated rda term	lc term	no match

Just be sure that the "RDA IRI for mapping" is "n/a" for that row. Then the LC term will be mapped to the LC IRI and the RDA term will not be mapped.

[dchen077]

4. Set up the Compare terms definitions tab for RDA terms
   Hi @tmqdeborah, if an LC vocab has a variant that matches the RDA vocab, is this worth noting anywhere? Or should we ignore variant information? I.e. For playback, RDA has quadraphonic and surround whereas LC only has surround but quadraphonic is listed as a variant for surround.

[tmqdeborah]

Another good question, @dchen077.

In this particular situation (FMV: configuration of playback channels), the definitions for surround are significantly different: "more than four channels" vs. "more than two channels".

So, I would say that it is a 'no match' for that term. Which means that, in the mapping table, you need to provide a separate row for each use of the term "surround", so that:

the RDA term will map to the RDA IRI
the LC term will map to the LC URI (if an LC source code is provided in the $2)
the LC term will map as a string, if there is no $2

But this also raises the question of whether we should be mapping variant terms as (preferably) IRIs or as their preferred terms. If so, then we need to add an instruction in the Finding and Mapping Templates Instructions

@crystalyragui, I think we should ask the Group about this. Could you please put a link to this question in the Agenda for the Friday 4/24 meeting. It should not take more than 5 min. to get an answer.

[tmqdeborah]

The issue was raised at the Friday 4/24 meeting:

• If variant terms are provided in our sources, should we map them? No objections were raised

On 4/27/2026, I added relevant instructions in the following sections:

• Set up the Compare terms definitions tab for RDA terms
• Set up RDA terms, codes, and IRIs in the “Mapping table” columns
• Set up the Compare terms definitions tab for LC terms
• Set up LC terms, codes, and URIs in the “Mapping table” columns

@cspayne, please note that these changes affect only the content of certain columns of the FMV Mapping tables, they do not affect the structure of the tables.

@dchen077, new columns have been added to the FMV "Compare term definitions" table in the blank template. These columns will need to be added to existing tables and filled out if variant terms are found in the vocabularies.

[dchen077]

1. Choose an element that needs an FMV table
   @tmqdeborah Hi Deborah, for LC Groove Width/Pitch/Cutting, RDA has split the vocabulary into two vocabularies, Groove Pitch of an Analog Cylinder and Groove Width of an Analog Disc. How should we treat the vocabularies when they are split like this? Should we make a note anywhere? Or will it not have any impact? (I.e. Microgroove will be a no match in the RDA Groove Pitch but it will have a match in RDA Groove Width table.)

[tmqdeborah]

@dchen077 Hi Doreen, you have found another interesting twist!

1. In the "Sources section of the "Mapping table" tab, copy the below rows and enter the two LC vocabularies there:

LC vocab: | [link to vocab for element in LC Vocab]
LC Source Code | [Source code for LC Vocab]

2. In the "Compare term definitions" tab, merge the two LC vocabularies into one list and compare it to the RDA vocabulary
3. In the "Mapping table" tab, copy the following columns to supply the codes, terms, and IRIs for both LC vocabs, lined up with the RDA vocabulary terms
4. Then follow the usual procedures for the rest

I think that should do it. But let me know if I'm missing anything.

If it gets too complicated, chose the (just added) "Problem" status in the Elements & Vocabularies table and I'll take a look at it later

[dchen077]

Hi Deborah, just to clarify, do you mean merge the two RDA vocabularies? In this case, there is only one LC vocabulary.

[tmqdeborah]

Ah, I was in too much of a hurry. Sorry. We need to keep the RDA vocabularies as separate tables.

Chose the (just added) "Problem" status in the Elements & Vocabularies table for both RDA vocabularies and I'll get back to this as soon as I can.

[tmqdeborah]

I see the problem now. LC combines terms for three characteristics in LC Groove Width/Pitch/Cutting.

I have kept the two sets of terms that correspond to the RDA elements Groove Pitch of an Analog Cylinder and Groove Width of an Analog Disc in their tables

• FMV: Groove Width of an Analog Disc
• FMV: Groove Pitch of an Analog Cylinder

The remaining two terms for "Cutting" need to be mapped as LC URI from 344$d to groove characteristic. But RDA does not have a separate term or vocabulary for the Cutting characteristic; so, we can't do an FMV table for it. We just have to make a note about this and come back to it later.

@dchen077, please take a look at the two tables that you began and I finished and let me know if I missed anything.

[dchen077]

4. Set up the Compare terms definitions tab for RDA terms

@tmqdeborah Hi Deborah, in Illustrative Content, RDA has deprecated plural forms for singular (I.e., "Illustrations" deprecated for "illustration," "Illuminations" deprecated for "illumination"). The LC vocabulary uses plural forms throughout (i.e., "illustrations," "photographs," "portraits"). Since RDA made a distinction, I have indicated no match for the LC plural terms against the corresponding RDA singular terms.

I just want to confirm with you that we are treating singular and plural forms as distinct vocab?

Here is the corresponding FMV table (WIP): FMV: Illustrative Content

[tmqdeborah]

@dchen077 Hi Doreen, this is another good question.

As I recall, this topic was discussed early on in RDA development and the idea was that RDA had a semantic reason for giving controlled terms in the singular. So, I did some research and found a document that indicates that there was a decision to "[Remove] plural forms of a label if the singular form is present [and retain] plural form only where necessary." -- RSC/Chair/17, 7 August 2016, Page 3 of 16

To me, this means that singular (RDA) vs. plural (LC) is due to this change in practice, not in meaning of the terms.

But what is more significant is the difference in definitions, i.e., the lack of definitions for the LC terms, and whether we can assume that since it appears that these terms originated from previous lists that were using plurals, they carry the same meanings?

And, if we consider these terms to be 'near matches', then we should add the plural versions as variant terms.

@GordonDunsire, can you please weigh in on this?

And @crystalyragui, can we put this on the agenda for the Friday meeting this week (June 12, 2026), for a quick survey of the group?

[GordonDunsire]

Look at the issue from a data semantics point of view:

1. As stated in the discussion, the strings in question (singular or plural?) are the labels of SKOS concepts. Utility of the string for other purposes such as indexing, structured displays in other contexts, etc. is secondary; such utility can normally be achieved by additional coding .
2. Coding for determining that a singular or plural form is appropriate is based on a simple binary decision (if 1 else).
3. Not all language scripts have singular and plural forms.
4. For scripts with singular/plural distinctions, standard linguistic processing algorithms are readily available, covering regular plural formation (e.g. add "s") and irregular forms (e.g. "sheep", "geese").
5. RDA minimizes the use of labels with irregular plurals (e.g. "Corporate Body") and therefore makes it as easy as possible for plural forms to be handled at application/local level.

I think LC practice should be treated as an application. It is consistent with the conflation of recorded vs display data.

With no definitions and the only linguistic difference being plural forms, it is safe to transform to the RDA SKOS concept/prefLabel@en.

[tmqdeborah]

Thanks Gordon.

Based on your reply, whenever terms are given differently (singular vs plural) by LC and RDA, we will:

1. treat singular vs. plural terms as acceptable 'near matches' in our Compare term definitions tabs
2. map the LC terms to RDA IRI in our Mapping table tabs
3. add the LC terms as "RDA Alternate label" terms

I have adjusted the Mapping table and the Compare term definition for FMV: Illustrative Content, accordingly.

[crystalyragui]

Meeting notes from today: another type of alt label (with source?) instead of RDA Alternate label may make more sense since these terms are not given by RDA as alternate labels.

[tmqdeborah]

Meeting notes from today: another type of alt label (with source?) instead of RDA Alternate label may make more sense since these terms are not given by RDA as alternate labels.

Although these terms are not official RDA alternate labels, they should be treated as RDA alternates in transform coding.

And this raises the question of whether this issue applies to some or all elements with vocabulary terms

@cspayne, What is the best way to add these plural forms to the FNV tables for use in the coding for this and other elements?

• in the RDA Alternate Label column, with a note saying they are not official RDA alternates--where they will be handled by the code for RDA labels
• in a separate Alternate Label column, that will have to be added to the code for handling RDA labels

And this raises another question about whether the singular forms should also be given in the LC Variant Term column (to be handled by the code for LC labels) or in a separate Variant Label column that will have to be added to the code for handling RDA labels.

We need someone to go through all of the FMV tables in the Elements & Vocabularies table and report on when it might be useful to add the plural form of RDA terms and the singular form of LC terms

• FMV: Interactivity mode: plural form not needed
• FMV: Aspect ratio designation: plural form not needed
• 338 Mapping table: plural form needed

[dchen077]

2. Set up the Sources section
   @tmqdeborah Hi Deborah, I am not sure what happened or whether RDA Toolkit made a change to their links, but all of the element specific RDA Toolkit links in all of our FMV tables and in the Elements & Vocabularies are now directed to a page with an error that says page not found.

[dchen077]

FYI, recording medium is correct because I found out about the links not working before working on its FMV table.

[tmqdeborah]

Hi Doreen,

I don't know why that happened either. We must be doing something wrong in the way we get those links. Please let me know if the instructions for copying and pasting those links are causing the problem.

But the link is just too weird, e.g., https://access.rdatoolkit.org/Content/ContentById/606c4dbc-6e35-4f7a-b5e3-e7b779351617?highlight=Record+an+appropriate+term+from+the

I think I have fixed them all, but let me know if you find any I missed.

And I think this means that we have to check every link we make right after we make it to be sure it is going where it should go.

Thanks for reporting these

[dchen077]

Hi @tmqdeborah , Thank you for fixing the FMV tables! The RDA Toolkit column in the Elements and Vocabularies are still directed to the strange link for all of the vocabuaries.

The instruction says to copy and paste from that cell for RDA Toolkit Source, but I can just search in RDA Toolkit for the new vocabularies as well.

I do have a clear memory of the links working before, not sure what happened :(

[tmqdeborah]

Worse yet, I checked some of the links in the Elements & Vocabularies table last night, e.g., "aspect ratio designation" to see if copying them caused the problem, and they were ok.

So, I really don't know what is going on.

When you get a chance can you please fix the links in the Elements & Vocabularies table and indicate in a new column after the Notes column that they were "fixed" and then we wait and see if some gremlin changes them again.

I checked the Version history and there was no indication of a change since I did my check last night.

[dchen077]

Yes, I can do that!

[dchen077]

3. Set up column headers
   @tmqdeborah Hi Deborah, I am currently working on FMV: Frequency, and I wasn't able to find or remember any instruction/past threads on what we should do when there are two distinct MARC fields. Frequency has 310$a & 321$a $2rdafr. I just want to check in with you that this current setup is what we want or if it should be set up in some other way.

Another question on the EV table: collection accrual method and collection accrual policy rows are gray and I wasn't sure if that was intentional or do they need FMV tables too?

[tmqdeborah]

@dchen077 Hi Doreen,

For FMV: Frequency, I have changed the headers for RDA and LC columns to:

• 310 & 321 $a
• 310 & 321 $0 | $1

I think that when $b is present in 310 or 321, we will also have to map the string as a note on work and I have added that to the Mapping work elements table

Re the collection accrual method and collection accrual policy rows, let's ignore then for now.

[tmqdeborah]

@dchen077 Hi Doreen,

Could you please set up the 4 "Material" tables:

• material
• applied material
• emulsion on microfilm and microfiche
• base material

They all use the same RDA vocab; so, I think that you can copy the Material table and just change the pertinent column headers and Source info.

If you have questions about them, let me know.

[dchen077]

@tmqdeborah Sounds good! I am working through Material right now and will be creating the tables for the other three once Material is done.