Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity?
The title statement has never been that optimal for collocating works, because even when it's not been left to cataloger judgement but has been recorded according to very specific rules -- they were rules based on how the title was printed on the item-in-hand (manifestation), which isn't neccesarily uniform accross works. Still, some algorithms try to make use of the 'title proper' in collocating works anyway, but it's very imperfect. I don't think allowing more cataloger judgement in manifestation 'title proper' will make things much worse for work collocation based on title proper (although i could be wrong). I think you're exactly right that some kind of 'authority file' (which contemporarily might be called simply a 'work identifier' instead) is the key to collocating works. But I am also not quite sure how 'we' get from here to there. But I don't see changing standards for title proper probably being an impediment. On 10/17/2012 5:58 PM, Lisa McColl wrote: I just attended an introductory webinar about RDA given by Chris Oliver. I'm wondering what changes RDA has that will help promote the collocation of the work entity. Is there an eye towards a web based authority file like VIAF, but for works, that can be integrated with our records? When Ms. Oliver spoke about particulars of the title statement being left to cataloger judgement, it seemed to me a move away from the uniformity that will be needed for computers to be able to compile and comb our data and group works. Thank you, Lisa
Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity?
The current NAF does include records for expressions, and those include much, much more than literary works. Two of the most obvious are sacred religious texts and musical works (including operas and ballets). Scientific texts also have different expressions: the Latin and vernacular expressions may have significant differences while successive editions of texts might be better treated as expressions rather than separate works. I'm not going to say that providing ways of distinguishing expressions is THE most urgent task, but it is one of the things that RDA will do better than our current very mixed system of authority records for works and some expressions. Larry -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept. New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: I'm not actually sure that the need to distinguish between expressions is that important -- outside of particular minority cases involving voluminous works with many editions that are the subject of study by literary scholars. I'm not saying it's useless, but I'm dubious that it's as important as some people are suggesting. (I'm not saying it's wrong to include it on our entity model! I think it's exactly right to; I just am not convinced it's a high priority for improving amongst all the things that need improvement). Certainly compared to just being able to collocate works, and present a search results where manifestations of the same work are grouped together under one entry -- that's something most of our systems still can't do, and I think a LOT higher priority.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity?
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: October 18, 2012 10:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity? I'm not actually sure that the need to distinguish between expressions is that important -- outside of particular minority cases involving voluminous works with many editions that are the subject of study by literary scholars. I'm not saying it's useless, but I'm dubious that it's as important as some people are suggesting. (I'm not saying it's wrong to include it on our entity model! I think it's exactly right to; I just am not convinced it's a high priority for improving amongst all the things that need improvement). Certainly compared to just being able to collocate works, and present a search results where manifestations of the same work are grouped together under one entry -- that's something most of our systems still can't do, and I think a LOT higher priority. Once you've collocated by work, simply displaying a list of items under that work grouped by _format_ is probably more useful than by expression (the majority of works will only have one expression, but many of these will still have multiple formats; print, audiobook, online, etc.) Print and audiobook would constitute different expressions, each of which could be found in different manifestations. With print, revisions and different language versions would constitute different expressions, and with audiobook, different narrators would constitute different expressions. Solving the problem with grouping works shouldn't mean ignoring the problem with grouping expressions-- one would think solutions for consistent data should apply across the board. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity?
It seems to me we need to be flexible about expressions in our data models. Some cases warrant a record (or data) that identifies a specific expression; but others (like, for example the expression that results from a translation of another expression into a different language) it may be sufficient just to identify a category of expression. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:17 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: October 18, 2012 10:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity? I'm not actually sure that the need to distinguish between expressions is that important -- outside of particular minority cases involving voluminous works with many editions that are the subject of study by literary scholars. I'm not saying it's useless, but I'm dubious that it's as important as some people are suggesting. (I'm not saying it's wrong to include it on our entity model! I think it's exactly right to; I just am not convinced it's a high priority for improving amongst all the things that need improvement). Certainly compared to just being able to collocate works, and present a search results where manifestations of the same work are grouped together under one entry -- that's something most of our systems still can't do, and I think a LOT higher priority. Once you've collocated by work, simply displaying a list of items under that work grouped by _format_ is probably more useful than by expression (the majority of works will only have one expression, but many of these will still have multiple formats; print, audiobook, online, etc.) Print and audiobook would constitute different expressions, each of which could be found in different manifestations. With print, revisions and different language versions would constitute different expressions, and with audiobook, different narrators would constitute different expressions. Solving the problem with grouping works shouldn't mean ignoring the problem with grouping expressions-- one would think solutions for consistent data should apply across the board. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
[RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity?
I just attended an introductory webinar about RDA given by Chris Oliver. I'm wondering what changes RDA has that will help promote the collocation of the work entity. Is there an eye towards a web based authority file like VIAF, but for works, that can be integrated with our records? When Ms. Oliver spoke about particulars of the title statement being left to cataloger judgement, it seemed to me a move away from the uniformity that will be needed for computers to be able to compile and comb our data and group works. Thank you, Lisa
Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity?
VIAF already contains records for Works and Expressions. Search for Nachtmusik for some examples. A catalog with entries for Works and Expressions is feasible and would remove the need for computers to comb through data. The research by OCLC proved that based on current records, computers are not able to distinguish between Expressions, which is the biggest added value to Identify and Select. Peter Schouten Ingressus The Netherlands Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Lisa McColl [lisa.abra.mcc...@gmail.com] Verzonden: woensdag 17 oktober 2012 23:58 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity? I just attended an introductory webinar about RDA given by Chris Oliver. I'm wondering what changes RDA has that will help promote the collocation of the work entity. Is there an eye towards a web based authority file like VIAF, but for works, that can be integrated with our records? When Ms. Oliver spoke about particulars of the title statement being left to cataloger judgement, it seemed to me a move away from the uniformity that will be needed for computers to be able to compile and comb our data and group works. Thank you, Lisa
