J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Would we now create a record for a manifestation we've never seen, in order to link to it? And are we talking about one work record, one expression record, and two manifestation records? The reproduction manifestation (Item?) record would have to link to three other records? Is it good to have a manifestation record in your catalogue, or linked to a record in your catalogue, for womething you don't have?
Ah, thanks, you reminded me of the other example I wanted to add to the cataloger scenarios -- I'm referring to the work we're doing to test out the RDA elements (http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/). We're creating various cataloger scenarios (http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios) and one (or more) that I want to do is one in which you don't have all of the information. I don't think this will be a problem... if we look at the FRBR entities as relationships. It has to be possible to catalog a work when you don't know about other expressions, or even much about the work itself. So we need a way to say: I'm sure there is a work, but I don't know anything about it, so that's blank for now. Regardless of whether works, expressions, etc. are separate records (and I think it's not appropriate to think of them as records... that's a database implementation issue), the relationships need to be possible WHERE you can make them, and not to interfere where you cannot.
kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
