Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu>:
We just had a discussion about 'role designators' for 'related works'
in a 700, on this list I think?
Jonathan,
I think that a 700 "related work" would be much like what I diagrammed
in my second "presentation": each resource is represented as a
separate work, and the works follow authority control rules
(name/title authority, meaning authoritative name and uniform title).
In a future carrier, there could be more relationships designated than
we have today in MARC.
What John Myers and Judith Kuhagen pointed out was different -- it was
something that looks very much like the 505 Contents note, with
multiple resources, and not necessarily authority controlled. It's
quite a different beast, and in AACR was considered a note, not a
controlled access field. It appears that in RDA the "related work"
relationship can take this uncontrolled note form.
I find this odd and somewhat problematic from the point of view of
system development. Perhaps I'm being too literal, but the
entity-relationship model in my mind meant, well, entities and
relationships. A contents note text string doesn't fit into any of the
available entities (WEMI), and so I'm at bit at a loss as to how to
place it in a data model.
Using something similar to individual 700 fields makes more sense to
me in the case I described. This would parallel what is done in music
cataloging to indicate the different works in a single published CD.
It still doesn't, however, give me a way to handle non-work chapters
from a book.
I guess I consider this unresolved at the moment.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
