"It's clear from FRAD that the relationship of the director to the moving image work would be considered a bibliographic relationship and not an authority relationship. That is, FRAD doesn't discuss the person to work relationship type - the diagram on page 23 of FRAD and chapter 5 on relationships make it clear that this type of relationship is not reflected in authority data according to the FRAD model"
Which to me, is clearly a big flaw in the FRAD model. The FRBR model is pretty good, applying an entity-relationship model to what we've traditionally done. The FRAD model is much much less good, sticking way too closely to an exact description of simply what we've traditionally done in authority records, which does not produce an entity-relationship model which makes any sense. Person to work (with role) is clearly a valid relationship, and if both 'person' and 'work' are entities in FRAD, they should have a relationship in FRAD. What does it matter that these aren't reflected in traditional 'authority data'? To say "it's a bibliographic relationship not an authority relationship", in the realm of FRBR entity-relationship, is to say that you can only draw relationships between manifestations (more or less our traditional 'bibliographic' record) and not Works. This doesn't make any sense at all conceptually, and doesn't allow us to model the relationships we actually need. FRAD really needs some work, and I hope nobody is required to go about building other standards or tools on top of it as if it's set in stone. Jonathan ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 4:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) > Would this be a work record by the FRBR model? (I know that Barbara Tillett > was talking about using authority records to implement FRBR, but I don't know > how far the thinking about that was developed.) > > kc Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) lists the following Attributes of a Work: Form of work Date of the work Medium of performance Subject of the work Numeric designation Key Place of origin of the work History Other distinguishing characteristic It then says: Note: The attributes of a work listed above include only those that are normally reflected in controlled access points or in other data elements recorded in authority records. They do not include other attributes of a work that may be reflected in bibliographic records, as identified in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. It's clear from FRAD that the relationship of the director to the moving image work would be considered a bibliographic relationship and not an authority relationship. That is, FRAD doesn't discuss the person to work relationship type - the diagram on page 23 of FRAD and chapter 5 on relationships make it clear that this type of relationship is not reflected in authority data according to the FRAD model. Adam ************************************** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **************************************
