subject:"Re\: \[RDA\-L\] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working"


Bernhard Eversberg wrote:



You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this,
as this thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such
approach will be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates
that we use what we have more extensively and in better ways.
Sure, it is nice to have a complete theory, as it is fine to
have a Theory of Everything for the elementary particles, but
that's largely for the textbooks!


I think Bernhard is absolutely right in stressing that a whole lot of 
information is already there and should be made better use of (actually 
that has been one of my own mantras for some years now).


But I still believe it would be more than just nice to have a sound 
underlying theoretical framework. This may, of course, only be due to my 
being a lecturer and therefore a potential writer of textbooks...


In my dreams the theoretical framework would not be some highbrow model, 
completely separate from real life cataloging, but rather something that 
would really help with cataloging, give us ideas as how to present our 
existing data, open up new ways of using them, and giving hints to 
possible improvements and further developments.


Indeed quite often we may find that something which looks new and 
frighteningly difficult in the theoretical model may turn out to be 
something for which a real life equivalent is already there in actual 
cataloging. So it may often turn out that people are, in fact, familiar 
with it already, but just haven't thought of it in that way. But making 
us aware of that would (or at least, could) be more than simple giving a 
modern and technical sounding name to something well-known. It might 
make us view it in a new, wider context. I'm not sure whether I managed 
to make myself clear...


For those of you, who are still following the details of modeling 
aggregates: I've done some more thinking on my alternative model and 
now propose two small additions to it.


1. The title of the part works should be different from the title of 
the corresponding individual work, and include the title of the 
aggregate work. E.g. the title of a part work could be something like 
Pride and prejudice (Best loved novels). This would make it possible 
to distinguish easily both between the individual work and the 
corresponding part work and also between several part works 
corresponding to the same individual work, but belonging to different 
aggregate works.


2. There should be a relationship between an individual work and its 
corresponding part work. For want of a better name let's call it an 
individual/aggregate relationship (the definition would roughly be: 
the relationship between an individual work and the corresponding work 
as part of an aggregate work). This would make it possible to start with 
the aggregate work, go to one of its parts and, from there, directly to 
the corresponding individual work, which has links to _all_ expressions 
(whereas the part work only has links to the expressions really used 
in the aggregate work).


Heidrun




--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-09 Thread Tillett, Barbara

Heidrun - You may have seen some of my presentations about FRBR that explain 
this point of view approach to show that the theoretical, conceptual model is 
indeed describing what we already have as entities since the beginning of 
catalogs and bibliographic information (e.g., in the British Museum printed 
book catalog, in LC's OPAC, in linked data environments, etc.).

As for your alternative:

1. Naming the parts - by having the relationship/link to the whole, you 
alleviate the necessity of having to provide a title for the parts that 
includes the title of the whole. There may continue to be a need for a default 
display form to name the work, but I hope we can eventually get away from the 
need for a heading or authorized access point (other than a default used 
for displays), so the display context could govern what additions are needed 
for naming an entity. Of course, if the title of the part coincidentally does 
include the title of the whole, then that should be given as found. For display 
purposes both titles (whole and part) can be displayed when needed depending on 
the context.

2. Yes, and FRBR already provides for the whole/part relationships and the 
inherent relationships as you describe. - Barbara Tillett

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 5:37 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working 
Group on Aggregates

Bernhard Eversberg wrote:


 You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this, as this 
 thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such approach will 
 be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates that we use what we 
 have more extensively and in better ways.
 Sure, it is nice to have a complete theory, as it is fine to have a 
 Theory of Everything for the elementary particles, but that's largely 
 for the textbooks!

I think Bernhard is absolutely right in stressing that a whole lot of 
information is already there and should be made better use of (actually that 
has been one of my own mantras for some years now).

But I still believe it would be more than just nice to have a sound 
underlying theoretical framework. This may, of course, only be due to my being 
a lecturer and therefore a potential writer of textbooks...

In my dreams the theoretical framework would not be some highbrow model, 
completely separate from real life cataloging, but rather something that would 
really help with cataloging, give us ideas as how to present our existing data, 
open up new ways of using them, and giving hints to possible improvements and 
further developments.

Indeed quite often we may find that something which looks new and 
frighteningly difficult in the theoretical model may turn out to be something 
for which a real life equivalent is already there in actual cataloging. So it 
may often turn out that people are, in fact, familiar with it already, but just 
haven't thought of it in that way. But making us aware of that would (or at 
least, could) be more than simple giving a modern and technical sounding name 
to something well-known. It might make us view it in a new, wider context. I'm 
not sure whether I managed to make myself clear...

For those of you, who are still following the details of modeling
aggregates: I've done some more thinking on my alternative model and now 
propose two small additions to it.

1. The title of the part works should be different from the title of the 
corresponding individual work, and include the title of the aggregate work. 
E.g. the title of a part work could be something like Pride and prejudice 
(Best loved novels). This would make it possible to distinguish easily both 
between the individual work and the corresponding part work and also between 
several part works 
corresponding to the same individual work, but belonging to different aggregate 
works.

2. There should be a relationship between an individual work and its 
corresponding part work. For want of a better name let's call it an 
individual/aggregate relationship (the definition would roughly be: 
the relationship between an individual work and the corresponding work as part 
of an aggregate work). This would make it possible to start with the aggregate 
work, go to one of its parts and, from there, directly to the corresponding 
individual work, which has links to _all_ expressions (whereas the part work 
only has links to the expressions really used in the aggregate work).

Heidrun




--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, 
Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:

This problem also appears in the use of 655 genre/form headings. A 
GSAFD genre/form heading like Short stories (despite the plural 
form) is applied to an individual work -- in effect, a single short 
story. A collection of short stories would get the 650 heading, Short 
stories -- Here are entered collections of stories as the LC 
authority record emphatically indicates. There are also some existing 
lurking effects of aggregating expressions in RDA. The authorized 
access point for compilations of works are dependent on whether there 
is a single creator or not.


Reading Thomas' mail, it occurred to me that all of us quite naturally 
think of _aggregate_ works and _aggregate_ expressions, when discussing 
the matter, and not of _aggregating_ works and _aggregating_ expressions 
as the Working Group does. It took me some time (and some prompting by a 
German colleague, Thomas Berger) to work out that this is not just a 
matter of fuzzy terminology but in fact a crucial difference. The 
Working Group deliberately uses aggregate only in connection to 
manifestations, but aggregating when they talk about works and 
expressions.


The reason seems to be that the aggregating work (and, consequently, the 
aggregating expression) does not stand for the sum of the things 
combined, but rather for the process of combining things. Remember the 
definition: In the
process of creating the aggregate manifestation, the aggregator produces 
an aggregating work. This type of work has also been referred to as the 
glue, binding, or the mortar that transforms a set of individual 
expressions into an aggregation. (p. 5).


I find this very hard to understand. Perhaps we could envision it as 
e.g. first drawing a number of boxes on a piece of paper (symbolizing 
the individual works) and then drawing a line around these boxes. An 
_aggregate_ work now would mean the whole of the area surrounded by the 
line (including this line). An _aggregating_ work, on the other hand, 
would mean only the line, but not the area surrounded by it. In order to 
grasp the difference between the aggregating work and the aggregating 
expression, it could perhaps be put thus: The aggregating work is the 
idea of drawing the line around the boces, and the aggregating 
expression is the actual drawing of it.


I find this picture completely counterintuitive, but it seems to be in 
accordance with the general model shown on p. 5 of the report: 
http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf


Note that there is no line connecting the aggregating work or the 
aggregating expression with the individual works and expressions. I 
don't think that these lines were merely left out (perhaps to make the 
diagram easier to read), but that they really aren't there at all. The 
only point where the aggregating work (via its expression) and the 
individual works (via their expressions) get into contact which each 
other is the manifestation (which is then, consequently, not called 
aggregating but aggregate).


So, the report of the Working Group (at least in the main body of the 
text; an alternative is hinted at in Appendix B) does very decidedly see 
the aggregating work not as the sum of its parts (with some additional 
factor of aggregating) but as something which is quite apart from the 
individual parts. To put it strongly, the aggregating work doesn't have 
anything to do with the individual works - apart from the fact that its 
expression is embodied in the same manifestation as those of the 
individual works. And that's why I don't think that such an aggregating 
work could inherit an attribute like novel from the individual works. 
(If my interpretation is wrong, could some member of the Working Group 
please point this out?)


One point that needs to be highlighted is that the report on 
aggregates specify the one unique relationship in FRBR-- the 
Expression-to-Manifestation relationship is the only many-to-many 
relationship in FRBR. All other relationships are one-to-many -- a 
work can have multiple expressions, but an expression can realize only 
one work.


Yes, they do stress this, and formally, their model is indeed within the 
boundaries of FRBR. I'd still say (as I pointed out in my paper) that it 
is stretching the FRBR model a lot to have expressions of two very 
different kinds (of individual works and of a rather elusive aggregating 
work) embodied side by side in the same manifestation. As already noted, 
my alternative model would require some change here, namely that it 
whould have to be possible for an expression to realize one individual 
work and the corresponding part of an aggregate work at the same time. I 
think that such an amendment would be justified.


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de:



Furthermore, others have already passed us by, inventing devices
that do the job we expect work records to do, and not in very
complicated ways either:

  http://www.librarything.com/work/1386651

note their canonical title, original title, ...


Librarything has done a great job of gathering information of interest  
to readers, including names of characters, etc. There is less emphasis  
in LT on describing manifestations than in library cataloging, and I  
believe this is why they have been free to emphasize works. LT isn't a  
strict inventory and does not need to distinguish clearly between two  
similar but not exactly the same manifestations. The manifestations  
that users add in their personal libraries are merely fodder for  
creating the work information. In at least some cases the  
manifestations chosen by LT users are not the exact ones on the user's  
shelf (and I know this from personal experience) because the  
underlying goal is to record the work, not the physical object.


I would said that LT is what readers are interested in, and library  
cataloging is what libraries think libraries (and a very few scholars)  
need. Library cataloging is still primarily describing a  
manifestation, which this recent discussion is proof of.


kc



B.Eversberg





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
 Sent: January 9, 2012 9:43 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
 Group on Aggregates

..

 Note that there is no line connecting the aggregating work or the
 aggregating expression with the individual works and expressions. I
 don't think that these lines were merely left out (perhaps to make the
 diagram easier to read), but that they really aren't there at all.

No, the scope of the report emphasized the primary relationships, but the 
nature of the entities cover what is already covered by other relationships, 
such as existing whole-part relationships. There are already many conventions 
for situations when individual entities interact with collective entities, and 
they are still valid even when primary relationships are explored and 
enumerated.

This quote from the report shows that all the common situations for collections 
within a single resource apply to the analysis of aggregating expressions:

A distinctive characteristic of collections is that the individual works are 
usually similar in type and/or genre such as a collection of novels by a 
particular author, songs by a particular artist, or an anthology of a genre of 
poetry.
http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf

I think this also gets at the earlier discussion of how entities exist. 
Entities are only conventions that we use for whatever purposes we need. If we 
want a collective entity related to individual entities, then we will make one. 
But in the process of doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good 
to avoid unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the efficiency 
of systems built out of the data model.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca:

If we want a collective entity related to
individual entities, then we will make one. But in the process of  
doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good to avoid  
unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the  
efficiency of systems built out of the data model.


This is the *theory* of databases, but the practice varies. Most  
actual databases are designed with redundancy that is necessary for  
efficient retrieval and display. A theoretically efficient data model  
is not necessary a system that serves the needs of users.


My concern about the theoretical model of FRBR is that in practice it  
will be horribly inefficient for user services. So far our discussions  
of FRBR are all about getting the data *in* but very little about  
using the data for retrieval and display. The users seem to be  
entirely missing from this discussion. If the library data cannot  
provide what LibraryThing does (and with reasonable response time),  
then I can assure you that we've missed the user view and have lost  
the users.


Shouldn't we really be discussing what we want to provide for users?

kc



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-09 Thread Tillett, Barbara

FRBR includes whole/part relationships for all of the Group 1 entities (see 
5.3.1.1 - work level
5.3.2.1 - expression level
5.3.4.1 - manifesation level
5.3.6.1 - item level.

The relationships between the group 1 entities are the 
*inherent relationships (i.e., is realized through/realizes or expresses, is 
embodied in/embodies, is exemplified by/exemplifies), 
not the 
*structural relationships like whole/part, accompanying, sequential, and not 
the 
*content relationships like equivalent, derivative, and descriptive. - Barbara 
Tillett

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working 
Group on Aggregates

Quoting Tillett, Barbara b...@loc.gov:

 Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be 
 handled with a placefolder at the expression level.

Yes, but what is the relationship? to isn't a valid relationship. As I read 
both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between Manifestations. I don't see 
how you can have a whole/part from a Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can 
simply have

Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is embodiment of 
Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C

This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps it is 
sufficient.

The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams)

w1
   e1
m1 (the aggregate work)

w2
  e2
m2 (one of the essays)

w3
   e3
 m3 (another essay)

m1
  has part m2
m1
   has part m3

Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would see. 
However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data.

kc


   Of course there
 will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not 
 to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it 
 can be added.  This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon 
 Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, 
 and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while 
 allowing the structure to be complete in systems.

 As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is 
 covered in RDA.  Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with 
 MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and 
 parts will depend on systems.  You may be interested in seeing a 
 training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard 
 Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully 
 demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can 
 show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter.  It would show 
 you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and 
 FRBR.
  - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion)

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
 Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
 Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR 
 Working Group on Aggregates

 Quoting JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu:

 - Original Message -

 | Karen said:

 | RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing 
 | similar to the MARC 505.

 Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are 
 considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a 
 structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of 
 the parts of the resource.

 If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, 
 you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the 
 examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you 
 will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator 
 Contains used as a caption.

 Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data 
 creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question
 is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties?

 RDA:  http://rdvocab.info/
 FRBR:  http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html

 John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I 
 am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that 
 is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the 
 same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that 
 support it.

 If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you were 
 the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work relationship then 
 it cannot be used to indicate a relationship between a manifestation 
 and a work. It isn't clear to me how a manifestation can have a 
 related work, since manifestation in FRBR must manifest an

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
 Sent: January 9, 2012 10:28 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
 Group on Aggregates

 Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca:

 If we want a collective entity related to
  individual entities, then we will make one. But in the process of
  doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good to avoid
  unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the
  efficiency of systems built out of the data model.

 This is the *theory* of databases, but the practice varies. Most
 actual databases are designed with redundancy that is necessary for
 efficient retrieval and display. A theoretically efficient data model
 is not necessary a system that serves the needs of users.

We were shown examples of unnecessary duplication. The negatives were practical 
issues such as excessive data entry complexity, and excessive CPU requirements. 
The enduser would be largely oblivious to this, other than in perhaps waiting 
longer for new features to be added, since new features might mean undoing all 
the unnecessary duplication and rebuilding from scratch. A good data model from 
the start is what's needed, and it needs to follow its own logic. What gets 
prioritized for display is a separate issue, as any enduser at any point in 
time may only be interested in a subset of the available data. But if that data 
is not logically connected behind the scenes then the enduser is potentially 
and needlessly underserved.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Tillett, Barbara b...@loc.gov:


FRBR includes whole/part relationships for all of the Group 1 entities (see
5.3.1.1 - work level
5.3.2.1 - expression level
5.3.4.1 - manifesation level
5.3.6.1 - item level.

The relationships between the group 1 entities are the
*inherent relationships (i.e., is realized through/realizes or  
expresses, is embodied in/embodies, is exemplified by/exemplifies),

not the
*structural relationships like whole/part, accompanying, sequential,  
and not the

*content relationships like equivalent, derivative, and descriptive.


Yes, I think we've covered that in our discussion. There does seem to  
be some confusion about the nature of the structural relationships,  
which some folks seem to perceive as having a whole/part nature --  
perhaps because of the terminology embodied. It would be good to  
clarify what that embodied means.


The difficulty is that there appears to be a desire to create a  
whole/part from, say, a Manifestation to an Expression, which does not  
seem to be valid in the FRBR model, even though it is conceptually  
logical. If you want to say that Essay1 is a part of ManifestationX,  
and you want the whole/part aspect to be clear, that is different from  
a structural relationship using embodied. For this to be a  
manifestation-to-manifestation whole/part, then you need a  
manifestation for Essay1. But say there isn't a separate manifestation  
for Essay1, and it doesn't seem to make sense to say that Essay1 in  
ManifestationX is a part of ManifestationX. What one seems to want to  
be able to say is that the Expression of Essay1 is manifested in  
ManifestationX as a *part* of ManifestationX.


If you can see a way out of this one, shout it out!

kc


- Barbara Tillett

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR  
Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Tillett, Barbara b...@loc.gov:


Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be
handled with a placefolder at the expression level.


Yes, but what is the relationship? to isn't a valid relationship.  
As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between  
Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a whole/part from a  
Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can simply have


Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is  
embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of  
Expression C


This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps  
it is sufficient.


The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams)

w1
   e1
m1 (the aggregate work)

w2
  e2
m2 (one of the essays)

w3
   e3
 m3 (another essay)

m1
  has part m2
m1
   has part m3

Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would  
see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data.


kc


   Of course there

will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not
to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it
can be added.  This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon
Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry,
and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while
allowing the structure to be complete in systems.

As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is
covered in RDA.  Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with
MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and
parts will depend on systems.  You may be interested in seeing a
training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard
Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully
demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can
show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter.  It would show
you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and
FRBR.
 - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion)

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR
Working Group on Aggregates

Quoting JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu:


- Original Message -

| Karen said:

| RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing
| similar to the MARC 505.

Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are
considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a
structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of
the parts of the resource.

If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit,
you will

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-09 Thread Jonathan Rochkind


On 1/9/2012 11:23 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:


The difficulty is that there appears to be a desire to create a 
whole/part from, say, a Manifestation to an Expression, which does not 
seem to be valid in the FRBR model, even though it is conceptually 
logical. 


I'm not sure it's conceptually logical, but it may be, I'm getting 
confused thinking about it, I admit. (I say with confidence it's not 
conceptually logical to say that an M of a particular piece is 
contained in a WORK. But it may be conceptually logically to say it's 
contained in particular Expression, I'm not sure. )


I think you need to just create an identifier for the manifestation or 
expression that doesn't yet exist (if it doesn't), and make the 
relationship M-M to E-E.  The 'extra' M or E you created doens't need to 
have any other metadata recorded about it -- just it's M/E relationship, 
and the whole/part relationship you want to record.


But now the 'extra' M or E is identified in case someone later DOES want 
to assert things about it.


Are there problems with this approach?  Whether or not M/E 'contained 
in' relationships might conceivably be conceptually logical, a model is 
just a model, in the end. If the FRBR model says make 'contained in' 
relatinoships only M-M or E-E (or conceivably W-W) -- what are the 
actual practical or theoretical problems, if any, of just doing so, 
creating identifiers for intermediate M's or E's as neccesary?   I think 
there are some benefits to this approach, in clarity and parsimony.


Jonathan



If you want to say that Essay1 is a part of ManifestationX, and you 
want the whole/part aspect to be clear, that is different from a 
structural relationship using embodied. For this to be a 
manifestation-to-manifestation whole/part, then you need a 
manifestation for Essay1. But say there isn't a separate manifestation 
for Essay1, and it doesn't seem to make sense to say that Essay1 in 
ManifestationX is a part of ManifestationX. What one seems to want to 
be able to say is that the Expression of Essay1 is manifested in 
ManifestationX as a *part* of ManifestationX.


If you can see a way out of this one, shout it out!

kc


- Barbara Tillett

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR 
Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Tillett, Barbara b...@loc.gov:


Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be
handled with a placefolder at the expression level.


Yes, but what is the relationship? to isn't a valid relationship. 
As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between 
Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a whole/part from a 
Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can simply have


Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is 
embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C


This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps 
it is sufficient.


The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams)

w1
   e1
m1 (the aggregate work)

w2
  e2
m2 (one of the essays)

w3
   e3
 m3 (another essay)

m1
  has part m2
m1
   has part m3

Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would 
see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data.


kc


   Of course there

will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not
to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it
can be added.  This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon
Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry,
and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while
allowing the structure to be complete in systems.

As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is
covered in RDA.  Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with
MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and
parts will depend on systems.  You may be interested in seeing a
training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard
Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully
demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can
show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter.  It would show
you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and
FRBR.
 - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion)

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR
Working Group on Aggregates

Quoting JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu:


- Original Message -

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

Thomas said:

One of the first epiphanies I had when learning to catalog was in
realizing that there are no specific rules for main entry for series

The same rules should apply to both series and serials, because what
is a series in one library is a serial in another.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

 -Original Message-
 From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
 Sent: January 9, 2012 11:46 AM
 To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
 Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
 Group on Aggregates

 Thomas said:

 One of the first epiphanies I had when learning to catalog was in
 realizing that there are no specific rules for main entry for series

 The same rules should apply to both series and serials, because what
 is a series in one library is a serial in another.

Yet a finite resource is not a serial-- it's a multipart monograph. The same 
goes for finite multi-part series -- they are treated as monographs, and get 
the same main entry treatment as monographs. A multi-part series in one library 
might be a multi-part monograph in another.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-09 Thread Casey A Mullin

[I'm behind on this thread, which raced forth over the weekend. Still 
catching up...]


In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To be 
clear, I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be flagged as 
primary or secondary. What I'm referring to is the idea that certain 
works/expressions need not even be identified in the data. According to 
FRBR, we may know they exist, but identifying them (whether through 
access points, identifiers, etc.) is of marginal utility in a case like 
this.


Take Karen's third example, which has Nabokov's novel and an 
introduction by the author (and, consequently, an aggregate of the two). 
In AACR2, we identify the novel as the work (by assigning Nabokov as 
main entry and giving a uniform title if needed). In a non-MARC data 
environment based on FRBR, there is no need for main entry. However, we 
still obviously care most about the novel contained in this resource 
(and less so about the introduction). So, we link this manifestation to 
the expression of Nabokov's work and call it a day. Just because there 
is an augmenting work and an aggregating work out there in the ether 
doesn't mean one is required to identify it in the data. If someone 
wished to come back later and identify the introduction as a work in its 
own right, they could do that.As Karen pointed out, this can seem 
devilish, but only when trying to envision it in a MARC environment.


The Aggregates report makes it clear that there may exist entities in 
the FRBR model which are not worthy of bibliographic identification.


As for Karen's other question:
snip


Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C


something else occurs to me about this model: there is no place for a 
title proper for each of the expressions -- If A is the whole, and B and 
C are individual works in A, then where are the titles proper for B and C?

/snip

Title Proper is a Manifestation attribute. Expressions have no titles, 
per se. I would say that if an augmenting Work (like a preface) didn't 
have a title, that's all the more reason to forego identifying it. If 
you did, you'd need to devise one in RDA. As for the aggregate Work, I 
think the Title Proper for the Manifestation is the title of the 
aggregate Work, even if it is also the title of the main Work. The 
redundancy resulting from identifying both is yet another reason to 
forego identifying the aggregate in the data, IMO.


Thanks,
Casey Alan Mullin

On 1/7/2012 7:28 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:

Quoting Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.edu:


But regardless of whether the aggregate work and constituent work are 
directly related, or related by virtue of a common manifestation, W/E 
2 and 3 need not be identified for the user in this example. As I 
stated previously, we may construe their existence, but the user need 
only be presented with W/E 1 and the three M's that embody it.


I don't see how this could be done, algorithmically if the parts have 
been given a relationship of embodied in/expressed/ from the M to 
the W. Note that each W could be expressed and manifested in a number 
of different instances, so this is not a property of the work nor of 
the expression. Nor, in the case of a main work and a secondary work, 
is there any visible difference in the coding of this primary 
relationship.


If 1, 2 and 3 are all coded identically, there is no way to know which 
one is the aggregate and which are the individual works.


I need to back up here and say that we are talking about a linked data 
model, not a fixed record, so the idea of marking a W as secondary 
simply doesn't exist. Any such information needs to be in the 
relationship of the W to the M. That was the example that I gave with 
this:


w1
  e1
   m1 (the aggregate work)

w2
 e2
   m2 (one of the essays)

w3
  e3
m3 (another essay)

m1
 has part m2
m1
  has part m3

I believe this is the only way to convey the information such that it 
can be displayed as you wish to the user.


kc



I hope that makes sense.

Casey

On 1/6/2012 1:52 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

Quoting Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.edu:




Manifestation 1 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 2 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 3 (embodies E 1,2,3)


Is embodies a part/whole relationship? Because you only have one 
option:


Manifestation expresses Expression

So this would be:

Manifestation 3 (expresses E1)
Manifestation 3 (expresses E2)
Manifestation 3 (expresses E3)

and each of those is a separate declaration of a relationship. 
Without a whole/part relationship in there somewhere there is 
nothing that says that one of them includes the others. They are all 
equal. The M - E relationship is not a whole/part relationship. 
That might be ok, but again I ask about the user view - would all 
three of these be displayed to the user if a search retrieved them 
all? And would there be anything to indicate to the user that one of

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:




I think you need to just create an identifier for the manifestation  
or expression that doesn't yet exist (if it doesn't), and make the  
relationship M-M to E-E.  The 'extra' M or E you created doens't  
need to have any other metadata recorded about it -- just it's M/E  
relationship, and the whole/part relationship you want to record.


I need to diagram this.

So now you have a WE with an empty M. Let's say

W title: Some Essay
  author: John Smith

E (expresses that W)
  language: English

M1 (empty) -- part of -- M2
M3 title: Some Essay by John Smith (this one is stand-alone)

M2 title: Essays on whatever

When someone retrieves that W using the title, the system would  
display all of the M1-3 information. It would find no M1 title, but  
would display the relevant data from M2, the containing item. (Bonus  
question: could M3 ever be part of another M? Given that M's are  
publications, I would say no. An M can include E's, but not other  
M's, except perhaps in the case of bound with.)


I don't think that M1 would ever be filled in. That manifestation of  
the essay is in fact non-existent as a stand-alone entity.


I believe this is exactly the kind of thing that Heilbrun is  
attempting to structure with her models, only her models create a  
part at a work and expression level that are expressly parts.  
However, they are equivalent to the initial W and E here, their coding  
as parts is just more specific.





But now the 'extra' M or E is identified in case someone later DOES  
want to assert things about it.


Are there problems with this approach?  Whether or not M/E  
'contained in' relationships might conceivably be conceptually  
logical, a model is just a model, in the end. If the FRBR model says  
make 'contained in' relatinoships only M-M or E-E (or conceivably  
W-W) -- what are the actual practical or theoretical problems, if  
any, of just doing so, creating identifiers for intermediate M's or  
E's as neccesary?   I think there are some benefits to this  
approach, in clarity and parsimony.


I honestly can't think it through far enough to know if this creates  
problems in a large data store. We keep postulating individual  
records while the fact is that this will take place on a  
catalog-level scale. That's the part that's hard to think through. but  
I think you've got a testable hypothesis, Jonathan.


kc



Jonathan



If you want to say that Essay1 is a part of ManifestationX, and you  
want the whole/part aspect to be clear, that is different from a  
structural relationship using embodied. For this to be a  
manifestation-to-manifestation whole/part, then you need a  
manifestation for Essay1. But say there isn't a separate  
manifestation for Essay1, and it doesn't seem to make sense to say  
that Essay1 in ManifestationX is a part of ManifestationX. What one  
seems to want to be able to say is that the Expression of Essay1 is  
manifested in ManifestationX as a *part* of ManifestationX.


If you can see a way out of this one, shout it out!

kc


- Barbara Tillett

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen  
Coyle

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR  
Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Tillett, Barbara b...@loc.gov:


Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be
handled with a placefolder at the expression level.


Yes, but what is the relationship? to isn't a valid  
relationship. As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to  
be between Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a  
whole/part from a Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can  
simply have


Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is  
embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of  
Expression C


This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but  
perhaps it is sufficient.


The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams)

w1
  e1
   m1 (the aggregate work)

w2
 e2
   m2 (one of the essays)

w3
  e3
m3 (another essay)

m1
 has part m2
m1
  has part m3

Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users  
would see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data.


kc


  Of course there

will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not
to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it
can be added.  This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon
Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry,
and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while
allowing the structure to be complete in systems.

As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is
covered in RDA.  Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.edu:
[I'm behind on this thread, which raced forth over the weekend.  
Still catching up...]


In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To  
be clear,  I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be  
flagged as primary or secondary. What I'm referring to is the idea  
that certain works/expressions
  need not even be identified in the data. According to FRBR, we may  
know they
 exist, but identifying them (whether through access points,  
identifiers, etc.) is of marginal utility in a case like this.



kc: Right, none of what we're talking about relates to parts or  
secondary works that are not identified as such in the cataloging. We  
are concerned about what to do if you *do* wish to bring them out in  
the description.



If someone wished to come back
later and identify the introduction as a work in its own right, they  
could do that.As Karen pointed out, this can seem devilish, but only  
when trying to

  envision it in a MARC environment.

kc: Nothing devilish at all in MARC: you add a 7xx for it. It's only  
devilish in a FRBR-based environment.



[Hide Quoted Text]

As for Karen's other question:
snip

Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C
something else occurs to me about this model: there is no place for a  
title proper for each of the expressions -- If A is the whole, and B  
and C are individual works in A, then where are the titles proper for  
B and C?

/snip

Title Proper is a Manifestation attribute. Expressions have no  
titles, per se. I would say that if an augmenting Work (like a  
preface) didn't have a title, that's all the more reason to forego  
identifying it. If you did, you'd need to devise one in RDA.



kc: Exactly. So how to you do this? that's the question we are asking.  
A title proper can only be defined within a FRBR manifestation entity.  
In this case, what does your FRBR manifestation contain, given that  
the the part exists physically only within that aggregate  
manifestation? You would end up with two manifestation entities for  
the same physical manifestation: one with the title proper of the  
part, and one for the actual item in hand. Honestly, I'd like to see  
what this looks like. It's ok for it to be a bit sketchy, but use, if  
you can, the RDA properties (from http://rdvocab.info). That would  
really help! (You don't need to use the URIs -- the element names will  
be fine.)


kc

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-09 Thread Casey A Mullin

kc: Nothing devilish at all in MARC: you add a 7xx for it. It's only 
devilish in a FRBR-based environment. 


And here's where our perspectives differ. I'm not talking about just 
adding an analytic for a preface. That's easy. I'm talking about 
treating a novel published with a preface as an aggregate Work with two 
components, and trying to account for all three in MARC. THAT'S devilish.


In a linked-data environment, it seems much more straight-forward, as 
any work/expression related to a manifestation would be given equal 
weighting, and would be related using the same exact method (as opposed 
to the main-/added-entry dichotomy in MARC).


kc: Exactly. So how to you do this? that's the question we are asking. 
A title proper can only be defined within a FRBR manifestation entity. 
In this case, what does your FRBR manifestation contain, given that the 
the part exists physically only within that aggregate manifestation? You 
would end up with two manifestation entities for the same physical 
manifestation: one with the title proper of the part, and one for the 
actual item in hand. Honestly, I'd like to see what this looks like. 
It's ok for it to be a bit sketchy, but use, if you can, the RDA 
properties (from http://rdvocab.info). That would really help! (You 
don't need to use the URIs -- the element names will be fine.) 


There's no need for a second manifestation. We only have one. Title 
proper is a manifestation attribute, but Preferred title is a work 
attribute, and you can relate as many works as you need. How's this...


(I'm ignoring the aggregate w/e here, as it's not useful to identify)

m1 (novel published with preface)
Title proper: Bend sinister
embodies e1 (novel in English)
realizes w1
   Preferred title: Bend sinister
embodies e2 (preface in English)
realizes w2
   Preferred title: [Title given or devised title]

This doesn't seem devilish to me at all. Am I missing something?

Does this clarify what I'm getting at, or are we still talking past each 
other? ;)


Casey

--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results 
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather 
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority 
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is 
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might 
enable the enlargement of that minority.
-Martha Yee

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

Thomas said:

Yet a finite resource is not a serial-- it's a multipart monograph. The same 
goes for finite multi-part series -- they are treated as monographs, and get 
the same main entry treatment as monographs. A multi-part series in 
one library might be a multi-part monograph in another.

All resources are finite.  Any serial may cease publishing at any
time.  Our catalogues contains many dead serials.  Shall we convert
them to monograph records?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

From AACR2 Glossary:



Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a finite 
number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbered.



Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, 
usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion.



In series authority records, 008/12 has the values for monographic series vs. 
multipart item. If the series is coded for multipart item, the heading is 
formulated under main entry rules for monographs





Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library







 -Original Message-

 From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]

 Sent: January 9, 2012 1:04 PM

 To: Brenndorfer, Thomas

 Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca

 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working

 Group on Aggregates





 Thomas said:



 Yet a finite resource is not a serial-- it's a multipart monograph. The same

 goes for finite multi-part series -- they are treated as monographs, and get

 the same main entry treatment as monographs. A multi-part series in

 one library might be a multi-part monograph in another.



 All resources are finite.





Not according to AACR2.



From AACR2 Glossary:



Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a finite 
number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbered.



Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, 
usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion.



In series authority records, 008/12 has the values for monographic series vs. 
multipart item. If the series is coded for multipart item, the heading is 
formulated under main entry rules for monographs.



Example from MARC for multipart item series, 008/12=b :


b - Multipart item
1XX field contains an established heading for a collective title that applies 
to a multipart monographic publication.

008/12

b

008/16

a
[heading may be used as a series added entry]

100

1#$aGreaves, Margaret.$tLittle box of ballet stories








Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.edu:



(I'm ignoring the aggregate w/e here, as it's not useful to identify)


Actually, we might need it.



m1 (novel published with preface)
Title proper: Bend sinister
embodies e1 (novel in English)
realizes w1
   Preferred title: Bend sinister
embodies e2 (preface in English)
realizes w2
   Preferred title: [Title given or devised title]

This doesn't seem devilish to me at all. Am I missing something?


Casey, What will you display to the user? Assume that display has to  
be algorithmic (it's going to be done by dumb machines), so you have  
to follow rules for display (e.g. always display work title And  
Expression title And Manifestation title... or whatever you think your  
rules will be.) Create those rules, and display something like:


1.
Voyna i Mir (Work title)
Title of expression: War and Peace
Manifestation title: War and Peace, by Tolstoy, with an essay by Jane Smith.
  date: 2007

includes

2.
Essay by Jane Smith, Those crazy Russians. 1958.

3. (separate case but in the same database)

work title: Tolstoy's War and Peace (a book about the work)
  creator: Professor John
  Expression title: Tolsoy's War and Peace
  Manifestation title: Tolstoy's War and Peace
date: 2008


***

I think you are assuming that the display will be:

Work title:
  Expression title:
 Manifestation title:

So in the case of the essay in the book, its Work title would  
substitute for the Manifestation title. I'm not convinced that's a  
valid assumption, but it's worth trying out.


(btw, although YOU might not create an expression title that is the  
same as the work title, unless we discover that that is illegal in  
FRBR then you cannot assume that someone has not done it.)



kc




Does this clarify what I'm getting at, or are we still talking past  
each other? ;)


Casey

--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

Those who need structured and granular data and the precise  
retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship  
may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of  
the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an  
important one for the cultural and technological advancement of  
humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of  
providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of  
that minority.

-Martha Yee






--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca:


The confusion seems to arise from the unique many-to-many  
relationship of the expression to the manifestation. As soon as the  
many kicks in for multiple expressions embodied in one  
manifestation, the notion of the structural relationship of parts  
unfortunately also kick in, but it shouldn't be necessary to invent  
some new vertical whole-part relationship when this happens, as this  
would convey the same information as the existing primary  
relationship.


But the horizontal whole/part does exist. If the vertical  
relationships are enough to convey that, why does FRBR/RDA have the  
horizontal parts and what were they intended for? Maybe THAT's the  
source of the confusion.


kc



The many-to-many set also includes a many-to-one notion--  
multiple phantom manifestations don't need to be created for an  
aggregating expression. Over time, each expression, and even the  
aggregating expression, could be found in other manifestations over  
time, fulfilling the many-to-many extent of the relationships, but  
the many-to-one is valid for the specific examples discussed.


All of the established relationships are valid -- expression to  
aggregating expression, work to aggregating work, expression(s) to  
manifestation. There are even a range of  
manifestation-to-manifestation relationships as well, including  
whole-part (bound with is an item-to-item relationship though).


Numerous existing conventions pick up on one or the other  
relationship, or collapse several together, and one might be able to  
infer all the relationships from this information. Displays are a  
problem, because the relationships may not be explicitly mapped  
behind the scenes for the most flexible display manipulation.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
 Sent: January 9, 2012 1:42 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
 Group on Aggregates

 Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca:

  The confusion seems to arise from the unique many-to-many
  relationship of the expression to the manifestation. As soon as the
  many kicks in for multiple expressions embodied in one
  manifestation, the notion of the structural relationship of parts
  unfortunately also kick in, but it shouldn't be necessary to invent
  some new vertical whole-part relationship when this happens, as this
  would convey the same information as the existing primary
  relationship.

 But the horizontal whole/part does exist. If the vertical
 relationships are enough to convey that, why does FRBR/RDA have the
 horizontal parts and what were they intended for? Maybe THAT's the
 source of the confusion.

Because there are many-to-many relationships that are horizontal as well as the 
many-to-many primary relationship unique to expressions and manifestations.

For the case of the aggregating expression, going over it again ...

An expression may be embodied in a manifestation. That expression could be 
accompanied by other expressions embodied in the same manifestation. That's a 
vertical many-to-one scenario-- expression(s) to manifestation. One doesn't 
need a special whole/part relationship for this, because the primary 
relationship (a vertical relationship) establishes this.

The resulting aggregating expression has whole-part relationships to each 
constituent expression. That's a horizontal many-to-one scenario. That 
aggregating expression also has vertical relationship to the manifestation. It 
could have another vertical relationship to another manifestation (an 
e-resource version of a print publication for example). The two types of 
relationships (horizontal and vertical) are like check-off lists for all the 
possible bibliographic relationships.

Going further ...

That original single expression may also have been published in a different 
set of expressions in another manifestation (creating a different aggregating 
expression). That original expression may have other structural or content 
relationships to yet other expressions (different horizontal relationships, 
such as 'adaptation of' or 'revised as' or 'translation of'). More many-to-many 
relationships are being fulfilled.

That original expression could also be published in different manifestations 
(different vertical relationships -- now we're in that vertical many-to-many 
territory). But that original expression will only ever realize one and only 
work (and inherit its attributes). So horizontally and vertically, that 
original expression can have multiple relationships, except upwards to the one 
work that it realizes.

From a display point of view, there are a lot of variables to consider.

In browse lists currently, analytical title entries are confusing. In author 
browses, name-title headings juxtapose with the titles found under the author's 
name. Title browses can be a bit better, but the nature of the relationship of 
one title to another is not clear until each record is examined in more detail. 
Keyword searches will bring up brief record displays where the analytical 
titles in the Content notes or added entries are obscured.

The LibraryThing approach is what I favor -- have a web page for each entity, 
and populate that web page with all the attributes and relationships associated 
with that entity. If it's the work, show the available expressions (and 
manifestations), but also show the horizontal structural and content 
relationships, so one can navigate both vertically and horizontally. There is 
some redundancy in navigating horizontally to the aggregating work and then 
down to the same manifestation, but then one would be able to see all the other 
associated works in the aggregating work, and explore outwards from them.

Smarter systems may even highlight these kinds of whole-part and vertical 
relationships, and perhaps go beyond LibraryThing by tackling manifestation and 
item records. In my system, availability information at the item level already 
influences screen display-- the user is directed to the available copies first. 
Our NoveList widget alerts users to similar titles based upon presence in the 
catalog (this is at the manifestation level). If all the FRBR relationships 
were present, the system could alert the presence of associated works at the 
highest level and direct users to particular combinations of relationships, 
with appropriate deduplication. (Some of the FRBR-lite utilities like 
LibraryThing for Libraries already do some of this).

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

But the horizontal whole/part does exist.

As I've said earlier, there seems to me to be a fallacy in calling the
whole/part relationship horizontal, particularly for secondary parts
such as a preface, a bibliography, illustrations or an index, which
may be in one manifestation but not in another.  Diagonal?
 
We are doing records for those parts (although I question the value of
some of them).  If the parts have their own URLs, a separate record is
required in distributing through ebrary (only one 856 allowed per
record).  Some electronic publishers wish to offer mix and match
packages; but of what use is an index apart from what it indexes?
 
A paper given at a continuing education symposia, or the portion of a
website, hardly seem to me to have a horizontal relationship to the
proceedings or the website as a whole.  (I do see the value of those
records.)

Other editions and translations do seem horizontal.  To me that term
implies equality.

But we seem to be in an Alice in Wonderland world, in which words
mean what we say they mean.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

Thomas quoted:

Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a fi=
nite number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbere=
d.

Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, us=
ually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion.


Whether a series is a monographic series or mutlipart item is at best
a guess.  As I said, what is a serial in one library is a series in
another.  What is coded as multipart item may be a standing order and
checked in as a serial.
 
When a serial or series ceases (as all do) is it then a multipart
item?  I think not.  If issued in successive parts, whether an
expected end is stated or not (e.g., the 50 states of the US, the
members of the UN, X number or world faiths), the aggregate should be
treated as a series in part records, and established follow serial
main entry rules.  The distinction does not reflect bibliographic
reality, nor patron needs and expectations.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates





 -Original Message-

 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

 Sent: January 9, 2012 5:26 PM

 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working

 Group on Aggregates



 Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca:





  Because there are many-to-many relationships that are horizontal as

  well as the many-to-many primary relationship unique to expressions

  and manifestations.

 

  For the case of the aggregating expression, going over it again ...

 

  An expression may be embodied in a manifestation. That expression

  could be accompanied by other expressions embodied in the same

  manifestation. That's a vertical many-to-one scenario--

  expression(s) to manifestation. One doesn't need a special

  whole/part relationship for this, because the primary relationship

  (a vertical relationship) establishes this.

 

  The resulting aggregating expression has whole-part relationships to

  each constituent expression. That's a horizontal many-to-one scenario.



 Following this logic, I doubt there would be a

 manifestation/manifestation whole/part, except in perhaps a bound

 with situation. Do you agree?







I think that manifestation scenario is a red herring.



The several titles involved -- the collective title and the titles of the 
contents -- are covered by RDA 2.3.2.6 which says to use the titles of the 
contents as titles of the related works (in this case, the contained works 
within the aggregating work).



The sections of the manifestation with their own title don’t become 
manifestations in their own right by virtue of being separately titled [it is 
more of a problem though when there really are different physical pieces, 
perhaps different carriers, and linking those to specific expressions is 
desired].



Those content titles can be values for structured descriptions (i.e. 505 
content notes, 740 analytical titles) or used for the Preferred Title of the 
Work and the basis of an authorized access point (which the Expression can 
inherit). I do see problems when the title varies, as it becomes difficult when 
the Preferred Title of the Work is not the actual title on the manifestation-- 
but that’s a whole different set of problems.









 And it also seems that in your scenario, aggregates link whole/part

 between expressions but not between works? Is there a reason why they

 would not link at the work?





The original report covers this. Catalogers have in the past declared the 
whole-part relationships at the aggregating work level or the aggregating 
expression level to the respective constituent entities. That doesn’t stop by 
delineating the primary (i.e. vertical) relationships. The two kinds of 
relationship can co-exist. The report does say the scope for traditional 
cataloging has been too vague on whole-part relationships, and its own scope is 
only on the many-to-many relationships of expressions to manifestations. But by 
putting all the pieces together one can now diagram the relationships out more 
fully, and this can be captured in systems.



Quote..

As for the Group 1 entities, libraries for many years have recognized 
aggregates of content and aggregates of physical carriers. We know these 
aggregates through the specific items we collect for our libraries, just as we 
know the works and expressions through the manifestations and specific items 
that embody those works and expressions. However, sometimes a library may 
choose to treat an aggregate entity as an integral unit and ignore the 
individual components in the bibliographic description. The FRBR conceptual 
model allows for these different treatments. Specific applications of FRBR for 
specific systems or business rules may choose to either 
declare/identify/describe the specific component entities or ignore them.



In other words, we may choose to recognize a whole entity as an integral unit 
(e.g., a work treated as one unit although it may consist of the collaborative 
work of several creators), or we may choose to recognize the whole entity and 
its component parts (e.g., an aggregate work/whole, such as a trilogy of 
stories, with the parts being the component works, that is, each of the 
individual stories in the trilogy) in a whole/part relationship. In 
applications we may choose to specifically identify the component entities 
(with such devices as separate bibliographic records or analytics of individual 
works/expressions or listings of the components in a contents note or 
analytical added entries), or not (such as not specifically identifying the 
illustrations to a text or a preface or index components, which are commonly 
ignored in bibliographic description, unless they have particular usefulness or 
meaning to a given institution for which the cataloging is done). Regardless of 
which

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-09 Thread Bernhard Eversberg


09.01.2012 23:25, Karen Coyle:


And it also seems that in your scenario, aggregates link whole/part
between expressions but not between works? Is there a reason why they
would not link at the work?

I did a very ugly diagram of this...

http://kcoyle.net/temp/frbragg.pdf

If it's too ugly I can try a do-over.


It is nice enough to convince me (but maybe just me) that chances
to get this implemented AND working well, and then chances to
get catalogers/agencies to produce decent data following this
model, on a grand scale, are not any fraction above zero. Not even
talking of the legacy.

But the job all this is supposed to do, or most of it and as much
as will be needed, can be done (again, maybe no one else but me
is convinced here) by some minor extensions of the 7xx and 6xx
fields, based on LCSH work records, to turn them into work headings and
work+expression headings, then index these cleverly enough to assist
some helpful display arrangements. Any record then might carry this
kind of 6xx and 7xx fields to allow for all conceivable linkings to
works and expressions and manifestations, whether covered by the theory
or, in exceptions, not. Legacy data might be upgraded, where need is
felt, gradually, with no big effort.
It may be felt as utterly pedestrian, it would fall short of the
sublime FRBR theory, but let's explore what users may need and expect,
and what they get already from other sources that are not based on any
comparably sophisticated theory. And what we can afford.

But OK, go ahead, implement it, demonstrate it, prove its viablity and
value and you win me over. Surely I'm not bold enough, after quite some
time in this business...


B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

Barbara,

1. Naming the parts - by having the relationship/link to the whole, you alleviate the necessity of having to
provide a title for the parts that includes the title of the whole. There may continue to be a
need for a default display form to name the work, but I hope we can eventually get away from the need for a
heading or authorized access point (other than a default used for displays), so the
display context could govern what additions are needed for naming an entity. Of course, if the title of the
part coincidentally does include the title of the whole, then that should be given as found. For display
purposes both titles (whole and part) can be displayed when needed depending on the context.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was a bit worried about having two
entities with basically the same attributes, but now I see that the
different relationships would be enough to distinguish between them.
It's easier to see if one thinks of both attributes and relationships as
data elements (in the RDA sense). Then it doesn't matter whether the
entities differ on attributes or relationships.

2. Yes, and FRBR already provides for the whole/part relationships and the
inherent relationships as you describe.

The whole/part is obvious, but after looking through the work-work
relationships in FRBR I still wonder which could be used for the
individual/aggregate relationship. Could you give me a hint?

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Casey A Mullin wrote:



In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To be 
clear, I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be flagged as 
primary or secondary. What I'm referring to is the idea that certain 
works/expressions need not even be identified in the data. According 
to FRBR, we may know they exist, but identifying them (whether through 
access points, identifiers, etc.) is of marginal utility in a case 
like this.


I do understand your point.  However, I'm still brooding about the 
question of flagging the main component and the accompanying works 
(like an introduction) in an aggregate work. This certainly would be 
useful in the cases where you decide something like an introduction is 
so important that it should come out in the data as well.


I had originally thought the flagging could be done by using a new 
attribute in the work part entity, and then Karen had quite rightly 
pointed out that a part of a work is a work in its own right and cannot 
be primary or secondary per se. And of course indeed I don't want to 
mark it as primary or secondary per se, but just in the context of an 
aggregate work.


Now it occured to me that this is similar to the sequence of parts in an 
ordinary work. E.g., The fellowship of the rings is the _first_ part 
of the Lord of the rings, and not the second. As with the 
primary/secondary aspect, the information first only makes sense in 
connection to the work as a whole. How would that be modelled? There 
doesn't seem to be a fitting attribute on the work level in FRBR or 
FRAD. But perhaps it could be done using relationships between the 
parts; has a successor/is a successor might do the trick.


Then something similar could be used to catch the primary/secondary 
aspect in augmentations, e.g. by viewing the introduction as a 
supplement. So the relationship would be:


[work: novel] - has a supplement/supplements - [work: introduction]

Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-08 Thread Heidrun Wiesenmüller


Karen Coyle wrote:


What type of entity would be part be? I'm thinking that there is no 
such entity as part but that a work can be a is part of another 
work. Taking into account that the work is a single entity that may be 
related to any number of expression/manifestations it cannot be 
secondary since that is what it is only in relation to the 
manifestation being cataloged. Primary and secondary, therefore, have 
to be relationships.


In a sense, a Work is always whole, even if it is part of another 
work. If it didn't have wholeness it couldn't be a work.


(...)



Yes, that is how I imagine the graph to grow. But I guess I'm not 
sure what the part box is in your model -- it appears to be a Work 
that has the characteristic of being a part of the aggregate.


Good point.

I think you're right that my parts also must by necessity be works (in 
the same sense that, say, The fellowship of the ring is a work in 
itself, which at the same time is placed in a whole/part relationship 
with The lord of the rings). So in the Nabokov example I don't have 
only three works (the two individual works plus the aggregate work, 
which has two parts), as I claimed before, but rather five works: the 
two individual works, the aggregate work and the two part works.


I know that having W1 and W: Part 1 of Aggregate Work as two 
different boxes next to each other somehow looks redundant, but I still 
think this complexity is necessary. Let's look as some more diagrams 
which I have just drawn: 
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/
(among the working papers again, called Additional diagrams #2, or 
directly:

http://tinyurl.com/6o2sh3k
(sorry, it's more than 3 MB; next time I'll compress the graphics more).

The new example illustrates the (fictitious) case of two Selected 
works editions of Jane Austen’s novels. Both contain the same two works 
Pride and prejudice and Sense and sensibility, but one of them 
contains the English expressions, whereas the other contains the German 
expressions. The two aggregate works were created by

two different persons, completely independently of each other.

Now if you first look at figure 2, which illustrates a straightforward 
work-of-works approach, you'll notice that starting e.g. with the 
Aggregate Work 2 and going downwards to the work Sense and 
sensibility, you then have no way of knowing which of the two 
expressions to take (the English or the German one), and consequently, 
there is no way of telling which of the aggregate manifestations shown 
at the bottom belongs to this aggregate work.


Compare this to figure 3, which gives the same thing in the alternative 
model. I admit that this is much more complicated, but at least it seems 
to work: Starting with the Aggregate Work 2 and going downwards you 
first reach the two part works. These are unambiguously connected to 
the expressions which the creator of the Aggregate Work 2 really used 
for his collection (the German versions), and this brings you to the 
right manifestation. So I think we need to have this doubling of 
works, if we want to capture things like that.


Now where are the differences between e.g. W1: Pride and prejudice, 
Part 1 of Aggr. Work 1 and Part 2 of Aggr. Work 2? It is as you 
thought: Most of the attributes will be the same, and also some of the 
relationships (e.g. the relationship to Jane Austen as the creator).


I think there should be an additional attribute aggregate 
distinguishing between the individual work (W1) and the part works. 
This would have to be newly introduced to FRBR, and it certainly needs 
some further thinking to sort out the details (e.g. do only the part 
works get this attribute, or also the aggregate work? How can we bring 
out the difference between Part 1 of Aggr. Work 1 and Part 1 of Aggr. 
Work 2, if both get the same attribute aggregate)?


Another difference - and probably the vital one - between the individual 
works and the part works is how they are integrated in the network of 
FRBR relationships. One difference is, of course, that only the part 
works have a whole/part relationship with an aggregating work. Another 
is that whereas, on principle, all existing expressions of Pride and 
prejudice are connected with the box for the individual work, only the 
expression (or expressions) really used for the aggregate work is/are 
connected to the part work. A case where the part work boxes would 
be connected with more than one expression would be a collection of 
essays, which is republished in a revised version (including revised 
versions of the essays). Then each part work for an essay would be 
connected with two expressions.


One thing I don't like about the diagrams of the alternative model is 
that there is, as yet, no direct line between the box for an individual 
work and the corresponding part work boxes. I feel there should be a 
relationship there of some kinde but am uncertain what it might be. 
There doesn't seem to be

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-08 Thread Heidrun Wiesenmüller

Here are some more issues with the model of the Working Group, now 
centering on the concept of an aggregating expression. The more I 
think about this, the less I understand what this entity is supposed to 
be in the first place, and what might be the point of having it at all.


In the main body of the Final Report, the aggregating work is defined as 
something which happens when expressions are aggregated: In the
process of creating the aggregate manifestation, the aggregator produces 
an aggregating work. This type of work has also been referred to as the 
glue, binding, or the mortar that transforms a set of
individual expressions into an aggregation. (p. 5). I've already 
pointed out that the aggregating work has really nothing to due with the 
individual works in a collection. It is something much more abstract, 
which I find difficult to put: Perhaps the idea of aggregating certain 
things. But at least, an aggregating work can have some of the 
attributes which ordinary works have: certainly a title, a date, and the 
intended termination; probably also things like intended audience and 
context for the work. I'm not so sure about form of the work (the 
examples in FRBR are novel, play, poem, essay a.s.o., which do not fit 
here; but perhaps one could have collection as a form of work). The 
aggregating work also has, of course, a relationship to its creator. So 
there is some information connected with this entity which can be worth 
recording.


But now let's look at the aggregating expression. The Report does (as so 
often) not say much about it, only this: Although every aggregate 
manifestation also embodies an aggregating expression of the aggregating 
work, these aggregating expressions may, or may not, be considered 
significant enough to warrant distinct bibliographic identification. 
(p. 5).


Now looking through the list of attributes for an expression, I wonder 
which of them could be applied to an aggregating expression at all: 
Certainly not form and language, which in other cases are probably the 
most important attributes of expressions. But even if all expressions in 
the aggregate manifestation were, e.g., in French, this doesn't mean 
that the aggregating expression itself is French as well. Remember that 
the aggregating expression does have no connection at all to the 
expressions of the individual works (apart from the fact that it is 
embodied together with them in the aggregate manifestation). So an 
aggregating expression could not be used for e.g. distinguishing between 
different language versions.


I also think that it would be impossible to apply the FRBR attributes 
extensibility, revisability and extent as they all have something to do 
with the intellectual content. I wonder what the intellectual content of 
the aggregating expression might be? Again, it cannot have anything to 
do with the intellectual content of the expressions of the individual 
works. It seems it would have to be a realization of the glue but I 
find that rather abstract and very hard to imagine. Some attributes 
still seem possible, e.g. context and use restrictions, if one feels 
that this is worth recording. I'm also wondering if an aggregating 
expression could have a relationship to a person or corporate body which 
is not the creator of the aggregating work... Anyhow this makes me feel 
that the aggregating expression is rather an empty concept. Perhaps it's 
only there in order to adhere to the basic WEMI principle.


Also, what happens if, say, there is a second edition of a collection 
with the same essays but in a revised form? I assume that there would 
still be the same aggregating work involved. But would there be a new 
aggregating expression? I feel this can't be, as the aggregating 
expression is - as I said before - not really connected to the 
expressions of the individual works. So perhaps the correct modeling 
would have to have _one_ aggregating work and _one_ aggregating 
expression which is embodied in two different manifestations. If this is 
the right picture (and it may be not as the report doesn't say). I don't 
quite see in what way an entity such as this could be at all useful.


Another point open to debate are boundaries between one aggregating work 
and another. Think of textbooks which are sold over a long period of 
time. The compilers (creators) may change over time, and the chapters 
(by individual authors) may not only be continuously revised, but there 
may be new chapters added, old ones abandoned, new authors introduced. 
Now is all of this still the same aggregating work (I feel it should be) 
or not? And how would that have to be modeled - one aggregating work and 
one aggregating expression again? Would that be helpful for real life 
cataloging?


Sorry about this longish and slightly confused mail which has probably 
screwed up the minds of those who have actually followed my train of 
thoughts. The bottom line is: These things are far from obvious,

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-08 Thread J. McRee Elrod

In article 4f093f5d.4070...@hdm-stuttgart.de, you wrote:

Actually, the thing Mac and I disagree about (but haven't had time to go 
into more deeply yet) is the question of main entry as such.
 
Main entry under creator seems a tradition worth keeping:

-in order to maintain consistency with scholarly citation (including
 returning to compiler main entry);

-in order to colocate by author (particularly literary authors) in
 single entry bibliographies; 
  
-to maintain correlation between main entry and Cutter to colocate 
 authors' works on the shelf of the same literary genre or on the same 
 topic (apart from criticism and biography); 
 
-out of consideration for technology have not libraries, who will not 
 have the linkages proposed to allow meaningful displays.

Moving to title main entry for series seems a good idea to me.  A
series under author duplicates the main entry for the single issue,
and authors of series do change.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-08 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: January-08-12 11:53 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working 
Group on Aggregates

Moving to title main entry for series seems a good idea to me.  A
series under author duplicates the main entry for the single issue,
and authors of series do change.

One of the first epiphanies I had when learning to catalog was in realizing 
that there are no specific rules for main entry for series ... because ALL the 
main entry rules apply for series.

If the series is a monographic series, then the main entry rules for serials 
apply.

If the series is a multipart item, then the main entry rules for monographs 
(those consisting of more than one volume) apply.

One can build a main entry-based catalog out of RDA. But the difference is that 
RDA allows that convention to arise from the elements, leaving room for other 
and newer conventions. RDA doesn't pre-empt decisions about output conventions, 
and this is done by following an element set approach, and where the underlying 
entities that have always been talked about are consistently abstracted, and 
where there is a thorough accounting of all the possible relationships between 
those entities.

For example, series are defined in RDA as work-to-work relationships, 
specifically whole-part relationships, and even more precisely through 
reciprocal designators in series and series contains. The encoding system 
(MARC, 8XX fields) and the flat-file main entry conventions (authorized access 
point using main entry rules for series heading) are separate constructs that 
can be built out of the underlying logic that RDA enumerates. RDA starts by 
saying what something actually is, and then the conventions to use follow from 
this. By doing this one can see much better the strengths and weaknesses of any 
convention or system-- past, present, and future.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-08 Thread J. McRee Elrod

Thomas said:

A collection of short stories would get the 650 heading, Short stories ...

In our shop, a collection of short stories would have that heading in a
655; only criticism of short stories would have that heading in 650.  
Having it in 650 would exclude it from a genre index.  

Many LCSH needed as genre headings are not yet established in LCGFT,
and until quite recently, that list did not exist.  The subject/genre
distinction has existed much longer, and should be observed.  IMNSHO
many music cataloguers continuing to code music genre headings as 650
(which we were required to do for one client) was a mistake, and will
complicate flipping them to new forms.  The 655 0 vs. 655 7 is
distinction enough between LCSH and LCGFT.

RDA's subject heading section has not yet been written, but I hope the
*is*/*about* distinction will be clear.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-08 Thread Bernhard Eversberg


08.01.2012 15:24, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:

Here are some more issues with the model of the Working Group, now
centering on the concept of an aggregating expression. The more I
think about this, the less I understand what this entity is supposed to
be in the first place, and what might be the point of having it at all.
...
... The bottom line is: These things are far from obvious, and
should have been addressed in the Final Report.



Holy cow, what a productive weekend and thread this has
become!
Considering that the issues as such are not new at all, for example
look at this 1998 paper for the Part-Whole relationship:
  http://www.allegro-c.de/formate/reusep.htm
But back then, the impact of this was negligible.

One must by now be very brave indeed to expect a workable and
satisfying and timely result from the Framework Initiative, and a
practicable post-MARC, fully FRBR-compliant data model in particular.

On the other hand, work records need not be invented, modeled,
specified, programmed, and then painstakingly inputted from scratch.
They exist right now, and in large numbers. Here are two of them:

Text work
  http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no97079452.html
Motion picture work
  http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no97080965.html

After all this to and fro, I tend to look at the authorized work
title as much like a subject term. After all, names of persons
and bodies are being used for creators and subject headings alike,
why not work titles in the same way? In a 700, the name is augmented
with numerous subfields that - potentially - allow for a strucured
citation listing displayed under the person's name. And there are all
those 700 $a $t entries already. Create a new indicator for the 700,
saying this is a reference to a work, add $0 for the identifier,
add a few new subfields (use capital letters if running out of
small ones) for language, edition, type of expression, genre, and
whatever necessary for meaningful groupings of entries under the work
title. And all of that will cover a lot, if not everything, that may be
expected from work records, like linkings with editions and versions
(if you want, expressions and manifestation). This method is all
you need, I believe, to bring together what belongs together and
display it in meaningful ways as well as allowing for meaningful
navigation in online catalogs. AND it wouldn't be a lot of work to
upgrade existing 700s and turn them into work headings.
We might also have new fields  605 and 705 instead of a new
indicator for the 600 and 700. Therein, use $a *and* $0 or just one
of these, depending on whether or not an authority record is
available.

And the aggregations? Simply use its authorized title as work
title, after cataloging the thing itself like any monographic
publication as it's being done now.

You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this,
as this thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such
approach will be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates
that we use what we have more extensively and in better ways.
Sure, it is nice to have a complete theory, as it is fine to
have a Theory of Everything for the elementary particles, but
that's largely for the textbooks! A few particles are so elusive
and hard to nail down that they are of no practical use as in
electronic devices, for instance,

Furthermore, others have already passed us by, inventing devices
that do the job we expect work records to do, and not in very
complicated ways either:

  http://www.librarything.com/work/1386651

note their canonical title, original title, ...

B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Karen,

My concern is about examples like the one I gave, although it may have 
been imperfect. Assume that the preface is one that is considered 
important enough to be noted in the catalog record, one that is 
written by someone famous. You want to include an entry for that 
preface under the name of Ms. Famous. It's a Work, so you need a Work 
entry. (Also, you can't indicate a creator without having a Work 
entity.) You want to indicate that the Work is a part of the 
Manifestation along with the main text. Adding a new Expression-Work 
unit is not a clear part/whole relationship (which is what Heidrun is 
pointing out). And again I'm interested in how this would be displayed 
to a user, how this set of relationships will be brought together in a 
display. Perhaps one could treat this secondary Work as a related 
manifestation? However, in FRBR structural terms, all Works are Works, 
there are no lesser Works, so there would be no difference between 
this preface and an essay in a set of essays.


I don't see any problems here which couldn't be solved by sound 
underlying data structures on the one hand and a proper design of the 
display on the other.


Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an aggregate 
work and an ordinary work. The whole/part relationship (from my 
approach) would not be enough as ordinary works can have parts as well. 
So there should be some sort of flag for an aggregate work, perhaps a 
new attribute (aggregate / non-aggregate). By the way, if one were to 
transform AACR/MARC data into FRBR/RDA data by means of algorithms, I 
think there would be lots of indicators in the records (like 505 or 
490/8XX) pointing out whether something is an aggregate or not. 
Augmentations are different in that respect (you'd have a hard time 
analyzing them mechanically, as probably the only information which 
could be used are things like edited with an introduction and notes by 
...). Therefore, for something like the augmented edition of Nabokov's 
novel the flagging would be something which has to be done by the 
cataloger who has decided to treat it as an aggregate work in the first 
place.


The aggregate work, as it is a work, needs -among other things - a 
preferred title of its own (core element in RDA). This might be 
something like Bend sinister (With additional materials) (perhaps 
also: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With 
additional materials), taking into account which expression of the 
novel has been used of the aggreagte work. I'll have to think on that 
some more).


There may be also a way to record the title of the introduction not 
simply as Introduction, but perhaps in a more meaningful way as 
Introduction [to Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister] or some 
such like. This would not be imperative, thpugh, as it can be made clear 
in a different way as well: The environment of the work Introduction 
(i.e. the aggregate work and/or the other works) can be displayed to the 
user.


So, assuming the introduction in question is by a Ms Famous, and that's 
why we want to bring it out in the catalog in the first place (by the 
way, I'd rather like to think of catalogers as not using criteria like 
this), and somebody is looking for all the works of Ms Famous, they 
might get:


Famous Work #1
Famous Work #2
Introduction, in: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With 
additional materials)

Famous Work #3

In the case of augmentations, it might be useful to flag the predominant 
work in the aggregate work somehow (Casey A. Mullin suggested that in 
one of her posts in this thread). Then we'd also have the possibility to 
present non-predominant works at the end of such a list, or perhaps 
present them to the user only via a separate link (e.g. saying: There 
are also minor works of Ms Famous, such as: Introduction, in: Nabokov, 
Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials). Show 
minor works as well?


Now if somebody looks for the work Bend sinister in an English 
version, the system would look for the English expression (in my 
diagram: E (W1)) and show all three manifestations linked to this. The 
system would also note that one of the manifestations is an aggregate 
one (there would not have to be an attribute aggregate on this level, 
I believe, as the aggregation is obvious from the fact that more than 
one expression is embodied). In this case, it would display further 
information about its environment. The display might look somewhat like this


English version of: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister
- Published: New York : Vintage International, 1990
- Published: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981, c1947. Together 
with: Ms Famous: Introduction. In: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend 
sinister (With additional materials)

- Published: New York : H. Holt, [1947]

Would that be an answer to your concerns or have I misunderstood the 
problem?


Heidrun

--
-
Prof.

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Diane Hillmann wrote:

I keep hearing a couple of threads in this conversation that I think 
need further examination. The first is that there needs to be 
'agreement' on how to handle these situations, before anyone can do 
anything. This implies that we need to retain the notion that it's 
critically important that we minimize the impact of those who stray 
from the 'true path' because they make our jobs harder.  I really 
think this idea needs to hit the dumpster now, if not yesterday. If 
we're entering a world where the FRBR model is used to help us link 
together information at a number of levels of description, it seems to 
me that we all benefit from those who add important detail to the 
shared environment. That old straightjacket 'granularity consensus' is 
one of the things that marginalize us in the world where the old 
boundaries around what we do and don't do gets in our way.


We certainly should think of FRBR as a dynamic system which is not 
finished and closed once and for all, but will have to evolve and 
expand. It also should be flexible enough to provide a variety of 
approaches, so there is certainly nothing wrong with having modeling 
variants.


Still, I believe it would be a good thing to have those variants moving 
within certain boundaries marked out by the FRBR system, so that they 
adhere to the FRBR basics. If an application does not completely 
follow the FRBR basics this would not be something inherently bad. 
It might be absolutely useful and fitting for the application in 
question, and, of course it might still be possible to provide 
meaningful connections between this application and other applications 
which move fully within the FRBR boundaries. Perhaps the discrepancies 
can also point to aspects where the FRBR basics should be improved, 
and in this case the community might want to incorporate them. But as 
long as this hasn't happened, the application should be openly called a 
non-completely FRBR application.


To my mind, aggregates are such an important thing that the modeling of 
them should be included in the FRBR basics. This does certainly not mean 
there can only be one way of doing it; we might accept more than 
solution as being within the boundaries of FRBR.





I should also point out that the DCMI/RDA Task Group built a number of 
cataloger scenarios, including one that included a festschrift 
(http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Cataloger_Scenarios#Scenario_2:_A_collected_work). 
 The TG name has been changed to the DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task 
Group, but the wiki data from the old group has been moved (is in the 
process of being moved anyway, but the Cataloger Scenarios are all 
moved).  I'd be happy to entertain discussion on whether or not this 
scenario makes sense (leaving aside the question of whether anyone 
will do it), but suggest that maybe a new subject line would make sense.


Thanks for pointing that out. If I understand the scenario correctly, it 
shows an aggregate as work-of-work approach, making use of whole/part 
relationships. This is, I find, an entirely plausible and intuitively 
reasonable way of looking at something like a festschrift (by the way: 
my students always find it quite hilarious when I tell them about this 
beautiful Germanism). My alternative model is rather similar (but not 
identical) to this. But what bothers me is that this approach is the one 
_not_ presented in the Final Report for the modeling of aggregates: The 
Working Group's general model does not have a part/whole relationship at 
any stage which seems counterintuitive. Note that there is mentioning of 
part/whole relationships in Appendix B, reflecting the view of some 
members of the Working Group.


Looking at the proposed FRBR amendment on p. 6-7 of the report, I'm at a 
loss to decide whether a modeling using whole/part relationships would 
be acceptable (in the sense of: being within the boundaries of FRBR 
basics) as an alternative to the main model of the Working Group, or 
not. One of the things I dislike about the report is that it very often 
doesn't spell out things clearly. So when trying to find out what they 
_really_ mean, there is a lot of speculation and exegesis involved. This 
is not only my own impression but that of some of my German colleagues, 
as well.


Sorry about putting this criticsm so plainly. It is not meant in a 
personal way at all. Of course I understand that the problem is a 
devilish one indeed, as Karen put it, and I'm also sure that the 
members of the Working Group did their very best in a difficult 
situation when, obviously, a consensus was hard to reach. Still, the 
result is not something I can be comfortable with.


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.edu:


But regardless of whether the aggregate work and constituent work  
are directly related, or related by virtue of a common  
manifestation, W/E 2 and 3 need not be identified for the user in  
this example. As I stated previously, we may construe their  
existence, but the user need only be presented with W/E 1 and the  
three M's that embody it.


I don't see how this could be done, algorithmically if the parts have  
been given a relationship of embodied in/expressed/ from the M to  
the W. Note that each W could be expressed and manifested in a number  
of different instances, so this is not a property of the work nor of  
the expression. Nor, in the case of a main work and a secondary work,  
is there any visible difference in the coding of this primary  
relationship.


If 1, 2 and 3 are all coded identically, there is no way to know which  
one is the aggregate and which are the individual works.


I need to back up here and say that we are talking about a linked data  
model, not a fixed record, so the idea of marking a W as secondary  
simply doesn't exist. Any such information needs to be in the  
relationship of the W to the M. That was the example that I gave with  
this:


w1
  e1
   m1 (the aggregate work)

w2
 e2
   m2 (one of the essays)

w3
  e3
m3 (another essay)

m1
 has part m2
m1
  has part m3

I believe this is the only way to convey the information such that it  
can be displayed as you wish to the user.


kc



I hope that makes sense.

Casey

On 1/6/2012 1:52 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

Quoting Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.edu:




Manifestation 1 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 2 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 3 (embodies E 1,2,3)


Is embodies a part/whole relationship? Because you only have one option:

Manifestation expresses Expression

So this would be:

Manifestation 3 (expresses E1)
Manifestation 3 (expresses E2)
Manifestation 3 (expresses E3)

and each of those is a separate declaration of a relationship.  
Without a whole/part relationship in there somewhere there is  
nothing that says that one of them includes the others. They are  
all equal. The M - E relationship is not a whole/part  
relationship. That might be ok, but again I ask about the user view  
- would all three of these be displayed to the user if a search  
retrieved them all? And would there be anything to indicate to the  
user that one of them is a larger package for the other two?


kc



Entities we IDENTIFY (that is, fully so, beyond oblique mention in  
statement of responsibility or other notes):


Work 1
Expression 1

Work/Expression 2-3 definitely exist, but their existence is  
implied, and need not be identified using RDA's methods (access  
points, identifiers)


Manifestations 1-3

The use case would be thus: User is presented with Work/Expression  
1, then the 3 Manifestations embodying it. (Presumably, W/E 1 are  
the primary entities of interest.) If the user wanted to probe  
deeper, they could learn about the existence of W/E 2 (the  
supplemental material) through its oblique mention in the  
description for M 3.


As for how RDA turns this model into practice, the answer lies in  
Chapter 17. Whatever the nature of a resource (aggregate or not),  
RDA only requires at a minimum that the predominant or  
first-named work/expression be identified. This language ought to  
be clarified in light of this expanded understanding of  
aggregates; that is, what is predominant or first-named in an  
aggregate resource? For example, in a compilation, the aggregate  
W/E is favored in our current MARC implementation scenario  
(resulting in title main entry), but it needn't be. Rather, the  
encoding should be agnostic as to which entities are selected as  
the most salient for identification. It is not that FRBR is  
incompatible with our needs going forward, it is that MARC is  
inadequate to encode FRBRized data (which is probably why LC is  
ignoring Chapter 17 in the current implementation scenario; it  
just can't be applied correctly).


Casey


On 1/5/2012 5:36 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Maybe what we need to do is develop some use cases and see how  
they would turn out. I'm less concerned about the cataloger view  
than the user view. You've probably run into some description of  
looking at FRBR from bottom-up vs. top down. Some folks  
consider the cataloger view to be bottom-up (from the thing in  
hand to the Work) while the user view is top down (from the Work  
to the item on the shelf).


Here are three items. I don't know if they are enough to  
illustrate what worries me:


1.
LC control no.: 47003534
LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/47003534
Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal name: Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899-1977.
Main title: Bend sinister [by] Vladimir Nabokov.
Published/Created: New York, H. Holt [1947]
Description: 242 p. 21 cm.

2.
LC control no.: 89040559

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Karen Coyle wrote:



I need to back up here and say that we are talking about a linked data 
model, not a fixed record, so the idea of marking a W as secondary 
simply doesn't exist.


Just noting that in my alternative model, I think this could be done 
after all. If you look at figure 2 in my additional diagrams paper, 
the place to record an attribute secondary would be the entity marked 
Part 2 of Aggr. Work. Actually, I believe this may be a good argument 
for having the model like this (although it looks a bit complicated by 
having Work 2 and Part 2 of Aggr. Work together at the same time), 
and not simply having a simpler arrangement like this:


Aggregate work
Part 1: Work 1
Part 2: Work 2

Indeed Work 2 couldn't then be marked secondary as it is not secondary 
as such. It is secondary only with regard to the part it plays in the 
aggregate work - and this can be captured, I think, in my model.


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net:



Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C


something else occurs to me about this model: there is no place for a  
title proper for each of the expressions -- If A is the whole, and B  
and C are individual works in A, then where are the titles proper for  
B and C?


Casey, you might be able to answer this one since this seems to be a  
common situation in music data.


kc



This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps  
it is sufficient.


The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams)

w1
  e1
   m1 (the aggregate work)

w2
 e2
   m2 (one of the essays)

w3
  e3
m3 (another essay)

m1
 has part m2
m1
  has part m3

Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would  
see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data.


kc


  Of course there
will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose  
not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it  
later, it can be added.  This has been discussed by the JSC and  
with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open  
Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that  
enables practice while allowing the structure to be complete in  
systems.


As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also  
is covered in RDA.  Whether it would be displayed as a note as now  
with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the  
whole and parts will depend on systems.  You may be interested in  
seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah  
and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday)  
which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment  
- I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon  
thereafter.  It would show you how all of your questions in this  
thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR.

- Barbara Tillett (personal opinion)

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR  
Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu:


- Original Message -

| Karen said:

| RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing
| similar to the MARC 505.

Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are
considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a
structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of
the parts of the resource.

If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit,
you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the
examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you
will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator
Contains used as a caption.


Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data  
creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question

is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties?

RDA:  http://rdvocab.info/
FRBR:  http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html

John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In  
that I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore,  
nothing that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It  
might seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data  
definitions that support it.


If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you  
were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work  
relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship  
between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a  
manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR  
must manifest an expression, not a work.


It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a  
manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also  
note that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no  
related Work property. It does have a work/work whole/part  
relationship.


The RDA definition of related Work is:

A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a  
preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an adaptation,  
commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work).


I read this as a set of work/work relationships.

There are no Manifestation to Work relationships in FRBR. There is  
a whole/part relationship between manifestations in FRBR 5.3.4.1.


While it might make logical sense to point from a manifestation to  
related works the underlying structure of FRBR does not support  
this as far as I can tell. Therefore, if the RDA properties are  
associated definitionally

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-07 Thread J. McRee Elrod

Heidrun said:

I don't see any problems here which couldn't be solved by sound
underlying data structures on the one hand and a proper design of the=20
display on the other.

How nice to have Heidrun join Bernhard as a voice of reason from
Europe. Germany may save more than the euro zone!

Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an aggregate
work and an ordinary work.
 
In MARC, adding a code for aggregate to LDR/06 should do it.  Code
c, I assume, means a collection of separate items, as opposed to
bound withs.  We use it for, as an example, a collection of manuscript
letters or sermons.
 
The whole/part relationship (from my approach) would not be enough as 
ordinary works can have parts as well.

YES.  We do chapter level records, including records for prefaces and
bibliographies, for some electronic publishers.  They offer parts of
their works in mix and match packages.  It is so refreshing to read a
post from someone who seems to occupy the same bibliographic world as
SLC.  In offlist correspondence with this brilliant woman, I've found
only one thing with which to disagree.

Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With
additional materials),

So nice to see the preferred title include main entry.  I do think
preferred title is misleading as a term, when it includes more than
a title.  Preferred citation would make more sense, as well as being
in accord with scholarly practice.  On the other hand, series citation
should only include series title.  We know who wrote the past issues
of a series, but not who will write the next one.

There may be also a way to record the title of the introduction not
simply as Introduction, but perhaps in a more meaningful way as
Introduction [to Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister]

When we prepare part records for electronic monographs, and the part
title is not distinctive, we use 245 10 $aTitle of work.$pTitle of
part, e.g., $pIntroduction, Preface, Bibliography.   It seems better
to me to gather by title the nondistinctive parts of a monograph,
rather than to gather all the prefaces, introductions, and
bibliographies.

In this thread, the WEMI relationship has been spoken of as vertical,
and the whole part one as horizontal.  It seems to me we need a third
term for the whole part relationship; the whole part relationship is
not horizontal; as Heidrun has pointed out in other posts, the part is
secondary to the whole.  Translations and editions are horizontal, not
parts.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de:


Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an  
aggregate work and an ordinary work. The whole/part relationship  
(from my approach) would not be enough as ordinary works can have  
parts as well. So there should be some sort of flag for an aggregate  
work, perhaps a new attribute (aggregate / non-aggregate).


This would require a new FRBR concept, I believe.





The aggregate work, as it is a work, needs -among other things - a  
preferred title of its own (core element in RDA). This might be  
something like Bend sinister (With additional materials) (perhaps  
also: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With  
additional materials), taking into account which expression of the  
novel has been used of the aggreagte work. I'll have to think on  
that some more).


I don't think it can have the language in it, since language is an  
Expression-level concept. That makes this quite complex, though,  
because now I don't see a clear relationship between the translation  
and the original.





In the case of augmentations, it might be useful to flag the  
predominant work in the aggregate work somehow (Casey A. Mullin  
suggested that in one of her posts in this thread). Then we'd also  
have the possibility to present non-predominant works at the end of  
such a list, or perhaps present them to the user only via a separate  
link (e.g. saying: There are also minor works of Ms Famous, such  
as: Introduction, in: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister  
(With additional materials). Show minor works as well?


Predominant and non-predominant would need to be relationships between  
the expression and the manifestation. It's not a characteristic of the  
work or the expression.




Now if somebody looks for the work Bend sinister in an English  
version, the system would look for the English expression (in my  
diagram: E (W1)) and show all three manifestations linked to this.  
The system would also note that one of the manifestations is an  
aggregate one (there would not have to be an attribute aggregate  
on this level, I believe, as the aggregation is obvious from the  
fact that more than one expression is embodied). In this case, it  
would display further information about its environment. The display  
might look somewhat like this


English version of: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister
- Published: New York : Vintage International, 1990
- Published: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981, c1947.  
Together with: Ms Famous: Introduction. In: Nabokov, Vladimir,  
1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials)

- Published: New York : H. Holt, [1947]

Would that be an answer to your concerns or have I misunderstood the problem?


I think your example works if there is a whole/part relationship  
between Bend sinister and the introduction, but not if the  
introduction is coded as embodied in the manifestation. In the  
latter case you have:


W Nabokov.Bend sinister
E Bend sinister. English
M Bend sinister. NY, vintage, 1990
M Bend sinister. Alexandria, T-L. 1981
M Bend sinister. NY, Holt, 1947

W Ms Famous. Introduction
E English
M Bend sinister. Alexandria, T-L. 1981

Do a title search on Bend sinister and you retrieve the introduction  
if it has been coded in this way. Even if you can find an efficient  
way to de-duplicate at this point, the information does not exist to  
determine that the Introduction is a minor work, because every work  
is a work, and major and minor depend on the context. I believe that  
at this moment we do not have a way to make that distinction using FRBR.


In the end I think I am agreeing with you that we need a whole/part  
relationship that connects the contents of manifestations to the  
manifestation. The current whole/part relationships in FRBR may not be  
sufficient, or it might be that we aren't clear about how they work in  
RDA.


kc



Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-07 Thread James Weinheimer

On 06/01/2012 20:34, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip

James Weinheimer said:

Probably, the issue of aggregates is also more related to physical materials
than to virtual resources.

Absolutely not. While we first encountered the aggregate work problem with
papers given at continuing education symposia, we now encounter
it with constituent parts of websites.

Many electronic publishers have parts of their websites for particular series,
subjects, types of users, etc.

/snip

But if it is just the conference papers etc., everything can be handled
as they have always been done, as you point out.

What I meant was that with physical materials, it is much easier to know
what actually is the aggregating entity because you are looking at a
book with lots of conference papers, the journal issue with different
articles, and so on. From my experience, it is much more difficult for
the cataloger to discover precisely what is, or is not, part of the same
website, especially if you are looking at specific parts. The webmaster
of the specific site knows this much better than anyone else.

I am still trying to find better examples, but here are a couple that
should illustrate it. You may catalog an electronic document such as
this
http://library.usask.ca/theses/available/etd-09192010-154127/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf,
but you remain completely unaware that it is actually part of this:
http://library.usask.ca/theses/available/etd-09192010-154127/. Many
times because of the structure of the site, you are looking at a
specific article or section, and there is no indication that the item is
part of a series.

Here's another example: http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000281.txt,
is actually part of The Spunk Library http://www.spunk.org/, but you
would not know it except through creatively playing with the URL.

Frame sites (i.e. using the frameset or iframe coding) can be
especially confusing, since it can turn out that you are only looking at
one part of a whole. Here is an example. You see this page and
everything looks OK
http://www.gooddocuments.com/philosophy/skimming_m.htm, but it is
actually designed to be seen in this way:
http://www.gooddocuments.com/philosophy/skimming.htm.

With printed materials, the aggregating entity will almost always be
much more obvious but online, can easily be hidden. And, to return to
dynamically-created mashups, while it may be theoretically possible to
catalog them according to FRBR, to do so in reality would be more
tedious than finding needles in a haystack and probably not worth the
effort.

So, in a case of an online conference with multiple papers (all
virtual), the current methods can be used. But the methods can fall
apart for many materials online.

--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca:



In MARC, adding a code for aggregate to LDR/06 should do it.  Code
c, I assume, means a collection of separate items, as opposed to
bound withs.  We use it for, as an example, a collection of manuscript
letters or sermons.


We have to consider that we may not be creating records in the sense  
of MARC, but graphs that bring together data entities. The Work  
will be used in a lot of different contexts. So there is no code that  
will cover the whole graph. That information must be carried in the  
relationships between things.




In this thread, the WEMI relationship has been spoken of as vertical,
and the whole part one as horizontal.  It seems to me we need a third
term for the whole part relationship; the whole part relationship is
not horizontal; as Heidrun has pointed out in other posts, the part is
secondary to the whole.  Translations and editions are horizontal, not
parts.


Absolutely! Thanks, Mac, for teasing this out.

kc




   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-07 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
 Sent: January 7, 2012 11:12 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
 Group on Aggregates

...
 So nice to see the preferred title include main entry.  I do think
 preferred title is misleading as a term, when it includes more than
 a title.

Preferred title only includes the title element. Additional elements can be 
added to construct the authorized access point for the work, which is what the 
entire string as a heading, including the creator prepended, is called.

The authorized access point itself is only one method for identifying an 
entity. It carries the baggage of all the old main entry rules, which apply to 
works (series included).

The lack of an authorized access point doesn't mean the entity disappears or 
can't be accounted for. Control numbers and identifiers, as well as the 
collection of associated elements (including title by itself), can be used to 
point to an entity. For example, RDA envisions scenarios in which one is not 
forced to create a name-title heading for a series as the only means of 
identification.

 In this thread, the WEMI relationship has been spoken of as vertical,
 and the whole part one as horizontal.  It seems to me we need a third
 term for the whole part relationship; the whole part relationship is
 not horizontal; as Heidrun has pointed out in other posts, the part is
 secondary to the whole.

Relationships are reciprocal and can convey this meaning of main and secondary.

For example:
Contains and Contained in convey very well the nature of the relationship 
as to which is whole and which is part.

In addition, Numbering of Part is an RDA relationship element that can be added 
to qualify even further the relationship with a numeric designation, which only 
adds to the clarification of what is whole and what is secondary.

 Translations and editions are horizontal, not
 parts.

They can be, but only as expressions to their expression counterparts. All 
cataloging conventions to date have assumed a primary relationship from the 
work down to the different language translations and editions.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates

2012-01-07 Thread J. McRee Elrod

Thomas said:


The lack of an authorized access point doesn't mean the entity
disappears or can't be accounted for. Control numbers and
identifiers, as well as the collection of associated elements
(including title by itself), can be used to point to an entity.

I'm trying to picture this in a footnote or bibliography.  I thought
one goal of RDA was to play with others.  This turns our back on
centuries of scholarly practice.

Codes and\or title by itself would not work in the larger world.

And why all the new terminology?  What's wrong with edition,
citation, main entry, subject and added entries, etc.?  Are we
using new jargon to make ourselves feel important?  Mystify the
uninitiated?

I don't suppose reverting to known terms is part of the mandate of the
RDA rewrite?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Karen Coyle wrote:

Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de:


Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an 
aggregate work and an ordinary work. The whole/part relationship 
(from my approach) would not be enough as ordinary works can have 
parts as well. So there should be some sort of flag for an aggregate 
work, perhaps a new attribute (aggregate / non-aggregate).


This would require a new FRBR concept, I believe.


It would require a new attribute for the work entity. This would 
certainly have to be approved by the FRBR Review Group. I don't think it 
would upset the FRBR universe in any dramatic way, though.








The aggregate work, as it is a work, needs -among other things - a 
preferred title of its own (core element in RDA). This might be 
something like Bend sinister (With additional materials) (perhaps 
also: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With 
additional materials), taking into account which expression of the 
novel has been used of the aggreagte work. I'll have to think on that 
some more).


I don't think it can have the language in it, since language is an 
Expression-level concept. That makes this quite complex, though, 
because now I don't see a clear relationship between the translation 
and the original.


Yes, that got me thinking as well. It seems somehow wrong to have a 
typical attribute on expression level like the language in the name of 
the aggregate work. On the other hand, the alternative model 
deliberately does _without_ an aggregate expression (there are only 
expressions of parts of the aggregate work). The language could be 
deduced from the expression which is embodied in the aggregate 
manifestation, though. I grant that there is a complexity here which 
needs to be explored some more.



In the case of augmentations, it might be useful to flag the 
predominant work in the aggregate work somehow (Casey A. Mullin 
suggested that in one of her posts in this thread). Then we'd also 
have the possibility to present non-predominant works at the end of 
such a list, or perhaps present them to the user only via a separate 
link (e.g. saying: There are also minor works of Ms Famous, such as: 
Introduction, in: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With 
additional materials). Show minor works as well?


Predominant and non-predominant would need to be relationships between 
the expression and the manifestation. It's not a characteristic of the 
work or the expression.


This may be true for different ways of modeling aggregates. In my model 
I'd have an aggregate work with two parts; I don't see why it shouldn't 
be possible to give these parts of works attributes like main component 
of aggregate work or secondary component of aggregate work (I admit 
this would be a new attribute to FRBR, something which could only be 
applied to aggregate works). Note that this would not affect the work 
Introduction as such, but only in its role as part of the aggregate 
work. The supposedly clever thing in my model (it may turn out not be 
that, of course) is that the Introduction is wearing, so to speak, two 
hats at the same time: One for its role as an individual work and one 
for its role as a part of the aggregate work. If the introduction were 
to be published independently later on, this would give you an ordinary 
FRBR tree of a work (the introduction), an expression, and a 
non-aggregate manifestation. In my diagram, this would mean another 
arrow from the node E (W2) to a new manifestation which would only 
embody this single expression.


Of course my model might turn out not be feasible at all. It's certainly 
still at an experimental stage, and new aspects are bound to come up. 
But up to now I haven't seen an argument in this thread convincing me 
that I'm on a completely wrong track.




Now if somebody looks for the work Bend sinister in an English 
version, the system would look for the English expression (in my 
diagram: E (W1)) and show all three manifestations linked to this. 
The system would also note that one of the manifestations is an 
aggregate one (there would not have to be an attribute aggregate on 
this level, I believe, as the aggregation is obvious from the fact 
that more than one expression is embodied). In this case, it would 
display further information about its environment. The display might 
look somewhat like this


English version of: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister
- Published: New York : Vintage International, 1990
- Published: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981, c1947. Together 
with: Ms Famous: Introduction. In: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend 
sinister (With additional materials)

- Published: New York : H. Holt, [1947]

Would that be an answer to your concerns or have I misunderstood the 
problem?


I think your example works if there is a whole/part relationship 
between Bend sinister and the introduction, but not if the 
introduction is coded as

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de:


Predominant and non-predominant would need to be relationships  
between the expression and the manifestation. It's not a  
characteristic of the work or the expression.


This may be true for different ways of modeling aggregates. In my  
model I'd have an aggregate work with two parts; I don't see why it  
shouldn't be possible to give these parts of works attributes like  
main component of aggregate work or secondary component of  
aggregate work (I admit this would be a new attribute to FRBR,  
something which could only be applied to aggregate works).


What type of entity would be part be? I'm thinking that there is no  
such entity as part but that a work can be a is part of another  
work. Taking into account that the work is a single entity that may be  
related to any number of expression/manifestations it cannot be  
secondary since that is what it is only in relation to the  
manifestation being cataloged. Primary and secondary, therefore, have  
to be relationships.


In a sense, a Work is always whole, even if it is part of another  
work. If it didn't have wholeness it couldn't be a work.



Note that this would not affect the work Introduction as such, but  
only in its role as part of the aggregate work. The supposedly  
clever thing in my model (it may turn out not be that, of course) is  
that the Introduction is wearing, so to speak, two hats at the  
same time: One for its role as an individual work and one for its  
role as a part of the aggregate work. If the introduction were to be  
published independently later on, this would give you an ordinary  
FRBR tree of a work (the introduction), an expression, and a  
non-aggregate manifestation. In my diagram, this would mean another  
arrow from the node E (W2) to a new manifestation which would only  
embody this single expression.


Yes, that is how I imagine the graph to grow. But I guess I'm not  
sure what the part box is in your model -- it appears to be a Work  
that has the characteristic of being a part of the aggregate. I also  
note now that your Fig. 3 has an expression that realizes more than  
one work, which I believe is problematic. It definitely violates the  
current FRBR model, but then you are advocating for change in that  
model.




Of course my model might turn out not be feasible at all. It's  
certainly still at an experimental stage, and new aspects are bound  
to come up. But up to now I haven't seen an argument in this thread  
convincing me that I'm on a completely wrong track.


Would the Work part have the same properties as the work described  
on its own?


W1
type: Work
editor: Jones, Jane
work title: Ecology collection
subject: trees
subject: streams

W2
type: Work
author: Smith, John
work title: Essay on trees
subject: trees

WP7
type: Work part
part of: W1
author: Smith, John
work title: Essay on trees
subject: trees

Is this what you were thinking of?

I'm not sure what you mean with title search here. Do you perhaps  
mean a title search on manifestation level? That's not what I have  
in mind. I rather imagine a system like OCLC's FictionFinder (by the  
way: will that ever go online again?), which at the first step  
presents not manifestations, but only works.


But I believe it searches on all titles. Otherwise, one would have to  
know the original language title in order to retrieve the work.  
Unfortunately Fiction Finder doesn't seem to be running at the moment  
so I can't check that. The other option is that all manifestation  
titles would need to be alternate titles in the work.


However, I don't think we can design for a single system structure.  
Surely some systems will provide a full keyword access on any entities.





Sorry I can't follow your argument any better than this (which has  
probably not been satisfactory). We must have got our wires crossed  
somehow.


No, I actually think we're getting very close. It would be useful to  
have examples, so if you can mock up examples of your ideas I think  
that would help. Then we can refer to specifics. What I really want is  
a real time white board for drawing diagrams... this kind of thing is  
very hard to do in email. (And I greatly appreciate your excellent  
command of English, as there would be no communication at all without  
it.)


kc





In the end I think I am agreeing with you that we need a whole/part  
relationship that connects the contents of manifestations to the  
manifestation. The current whole/part relationships in FRBR may not  
be sufficient, or it might be that we aren't clear about how they  
work in RDA.


Yes, I think it's obvious that we can't do without a whole/part  
relationship _somewhere_. The question of where is still open to  
debate, I think. My proposal is to have it neither on manifestation  
nor on expression level, but modeled as an aggregate work with  
separate parts.


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting Tillett, Barbara b...@loc.gov:

Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be  
handled with a placefolder at the expression level.


Yes, of course. But I don't think that affects the issues here.



As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is  
covered in RDA.  Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with  
MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole  
and parts will depend on systems.


I don't think that's accurate. I think whether systems can display it  
will depend on how the bibliographic data is structured. It's data  
that drives systems, not the other way around. What we're trying to  
figure out is how to structure the data so that the user display will  
make sense. It appears that if the data for aggregates is not  
explicitly structured in some whole/part relationship it may not be  
possible to make that clear to users. Plus, we don't seem to be able  
to find a defined data structure that corresponds to the instructions  
in RDA.


(I personally think that a contents note would be very useful for some  
situations, like listing the chapter headings of a book by a single  
author. I think this is useful information but it shouldn't have to be  
structured like an embedded work in order to be included.)


You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of  
Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here  
at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a  
non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at  
ALA or soon thereafter.  It would show you how all of your  
questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR.


Yes, I'm familiar with their product. Deborah and I talked recently  
about trying to create data for some aggregates, especially ones  
having the same work appear both in an aggregate and separately. After  
that, though, I think we need to find someone who can load the data  
into a triple store so we can run some actual linked data processes on  
it.


For a while I've been wishing we had a test suite of RDA data in RDF.  
That would help us try out some of these ideas and see if the data  
elements as defined can support the retrieval and displays that we  
might want. It seems that it would really help if folks could see some  
results. We may be getting closer to that.


kc



 - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion)

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR  
Working Group on Aggregates


Quoting JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu:


- Original Message -

| Karen said:

| RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing
| similar to the MARC 505.

Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are
considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a
structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of
the parts of the resource.

If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit,
you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the
examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you
will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator
Contains used as a caption.


Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data  
creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question

is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties?

RDA:  http://rdvocab.info/
FRBR:  http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html

John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that  
I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing  
that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might  
seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data  
definitions that support it.


If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you  
were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work  
relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship  
between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a  
manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR  
must manifest an expression, not a work.


It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a  
manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also note  
that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no related  
Work property. It does have a work/work whole/part relationship.


The RDA definition of related Work is:

A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a  
preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an adaptation,  
commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work).


I read this as a set of

Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates