Learn a lot. Thanks to Thomas. Joan Wang llinois Heartland Library System
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas < tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote: > I think one key idea is that the relationships exist regardless of the > convention used to capture the relationship between two entities.**** > > ** ** > > RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works and > between expressions (relationships between manifestations and between items > use all of these conventions except authorized access points):**** > > ** ** > > 1. identifier**** > > 2. authorized access point**** > > 3. structured description**** > > 4. unstructured description.**** > > ** ** > > A specifically encoded relationship designator can usually be applied to > options 1 to 3. The free text of an unstructured description (essentially > just a note) can use the same vocabulary as the designator. Some MARC > conventions allow for tags, subfields and indicators to map to specific > relationship designators, and new MARC conventions (such as $i) are > placeholders for these designators. Designators are also populating SEE > ALSO references in RDA authority records. (Relationships not only can exist > whether we encode them or not, the historic conventions we’ve used – > bibliographic records and authority records – also don’t determine whether > these relationships exist. Rather it’s a matter of recognizing the > strengths and weaknesses of any one convention, and there are many > weaknesses in traditional cataloging conventions.)**** > > ** ** > > Authorized access points (heading construction) and structured > descriptions (ordered by areas of description usually) have their own set > of conventions and issues, and may not be the method used for creating > relationships in the long term.**** > > ** ** > > RDA also allows for identifiers to link entities. Those linked records or > sets of descriptive data will have discrete data elements that are not > necessarily ordered into authorized access points or structured > descriptions. In databases what gets displayed to end-users is not usually > the identifier but data elements assembled for display purposes.**** > > ** ** > > The conventions we use (identifiers, authorized access points, structured > descriptions, unstructured descriptions) will largely be determined by the > application we are using, but all conventions should convey the same > elementary information about a relationship between specified entities.*** > * > > ** ** > > Thomas Brenndorfer**** > > Guelph Public Library**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang > *Sent:* August 28, 2012 12:50 PM > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question**** > > ** ** > > According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or > expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful. > > Thanks > Joan**** > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage <host...@law.harvard.edu> > wrote:**** > > Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point? We have > additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records > that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the > bib records. All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be > handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA > 26.1.1.3). In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking > about (FRBR 5.3.2). For machine connections, identifiers in field 787 > would probably work best. > > Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet > the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction. > > Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely > receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when > that body is a national government? > > ------------------------------------------ > John Hostage > Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian > Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services > Langdell Hall 194 > Cambridge, MA 02138 > host...@law.harvard.edu > +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) > +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)**** > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access* > *** > > > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff > > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30 > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question > >**** > > > RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works*** > * > > > with the same title: > > > > 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions > > > > If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given > > under > > 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point > > representing a different work, or to an access point representing a > > person, family, or corporate body, make additions to the access point > > applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.9. > > > > 6.27.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Works > > > > If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given > > under > > 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point > > representing a different work, or to an access point representing a > > person, family, corporate body, or place, add one or more of the > > following, as appropriate: > > > > a) a term indicating the form of work (see 6.3) > > > > b) the date of the work (see 6.4) > > > > c) the place of origin of the work (see 6.5) and/or > > > > d) a term indicating another distinguishing characteristic of the work > > (see 6.6). > > > > In my case, both the full report and the summary have the same title > > proper, and since the works would be named by title only, 6.27.1.9 is > > applicable. I will go with "a term indicating another distinguishing > > characterist of the work" and use "Water availability in the Ovens > > (Summary)" as the authorized access point for the derivative work. I > > do think that the full report also probably needs to have a qualifier > > added to it to distinguish it. I'm thinking "Water availability in the > > Ovens (Full report)" is about as good as anything else. > > > > The bib records are OCLC #408550975 and 808387939. The name authority > > records are no2012115407 and no2012115406. I used reciprocal 530s in > > the NARs to link the two related works. > > > > > > Now that you've helped me solve this question - here's another for the > > same two works:**** > > > > > I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access**** > > > point made for the government of Australia, based on the subtitles: > > > > Water availability in the Ovens : a report to the Australian Government > > from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. > > > > Water availability in the Ovens : summary of a report to the Australian > > Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields > > Project. > > > > 710 2_ CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, $e > > author. > > 710 1_ Australia, $e ??? > > 710 2_ CSIRO (Australia), $e issuing body. > >**** > > > > > -- **** > > Joan Wang > Cataloger -- CMC**** > > Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) > 6725 Goshen Road > Edwardsville, IL 62025 > 618.656.3216x409 > 618.656.9401Fax**** > > ** ** > -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
