Skip to main content


We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities:


Greetings Martina,
given your further description, my impression is that your DCMIType should
be “collection” not “dataset”, given that DCMIType suggests that a dataset
can not be further broken down and described—this is inferred because
“collection” is the only DCMIType class which can be further broken down
and “contain”/”hasPart” individually describable items. In that case the
most appropriate type biblatex type would be @collection, and each part
could be either @incollection or another more appropriate Biblatex database
entry type for when the item is referenced as a single entity. Looking at
the linked reference [1] I notice that there is no default @audio
or @recording which would be appropriate for audio type artifacts in
collections—an album is a type of audio collection. However even though
these are non-default, they are used in some style sheets (see link [2]).
This leads me to ask, if there you want to stay with the default settings
in Biblatex or if you are willing to provide data in formats used within
“standard” secondary communities of the biblatex community. That is, if
there is a biblatex style that is common with the major audience of the
content within your archive, then maybe venturing into providing biblatex
within that dialect would be acceptable. Another thing to note, if you are
serving archaeology data, is that you might have DCMIType
InteractiveResource material — assuming that some of the larger artifacts
are visualizations from lidar or other 3D imaging tools used in modern
You mention the collection size varying significantly and you list (1GB to
10GB) but, I suggest that your extent on a collection is not the number of
bytes that it contains but rather the number of objects which are uniquely
described within next lower level of the collection (collections in Dublin
Core can be recursive). Unfortunately, the number of items in a collection
does not fit into the allowable options of the extent field within DCTerms
(see [4]). One must use the property tableOfContents [5]. Different
referencing styles handle this sort of information in different ways.
APA6th edition [6] provides the following template on page 212, which I
have emulated for how I would apply it for a collection of field recordings
in linguistics. My application shows how I would provide the collection
summary statement to include the tableOfContents/extent information.
Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Title of material. [Description of
material]. Name of collection (Call number, Box number, File name or
number, etc.). Name and location of repository.
Paterson III, H. J. (2018-2019). Western Kainji Oral Stories. [435 audio
and video recordings, 5 hours, 8 languages]. African Voices (ark:12025,
DOI: 10.1234/780912 ) Pangloss, Paris France.
With an audio or video artifact (or set of artifacts) would not be
helpfully described as 1GB to 10GB, but would be more helpfully described
with a time based extent, e.g., 1h3m35s. Note that Zenodo does not
currently allow a depositor to distinguish between audio and video
materials—its painful.
all the best,
– Hugh Paterson III
[1]: reference:
[6]: VandenBos, Gary R, ed. 2010. *Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association*. 6th edn. Washington, DC: American Psychological
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:42 PM mtrognitz via Data Citation WG <
***@***.***> wrote: