Quoting Bernhard Eversberg <e...@biblio.tu-bs.de>:
Schutt, Misha wrote:
The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by
multiple layers of derivativeness.
True. <snip>
RDA, however, asks for a more detailed inspection because it is a
cornerstone of the FRBR model that related works, expressions and
manifestations be made transparent and meaningfully presented in a
catalog to assist the users in their arduous tasks of finding and
selecting the right thing. And this will mean a bit more work,
sometimes bordering on literary criticism, delving much deeper into
the content than cataloging rules used to require.
I find it hard to think that this will happen; at least, not widely.
See, for instance, the newly-formulated BIBCO standard record
<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf> -- a
formula less than core in terms of content required -- where the
prescription for the uniform title states (for 240, i.,e. uniform
title under author's name): "Supply if known or can be easily inferred
from the item being cataloged."
Since the commonest relationship, and the most frequent application of
240, is translation, and not every document discloses the title of the
work/expression/manifestation from which it was translated, I can only
suppose that the guiding spirits of BIBCO are not serious about the
FRBR as applied in RDA. And since I'm sure I've read that LC intends
to adopt the BIBCO standard record for at least some of its
cataloguing, I suspect that the initial application of RDA will be
partial, probably designed to be as much like AACR2 as can be attained.
Hal Cain
Dalton McCaughey Library
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
