Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Karen Coyle wrote: snip Quoting Laurence Creider lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu: Is their a technical reason for your statement MARC is not up to providing the appropriate subfields? MARC21 certainly allows for indication of the thesaurus from which subject terms are taken, and presumably that could be extended to other fields as well. There are a number of reasons. Here are a few: 1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many fields, there are none or at most one left to use /snip This assumes we are stuck forever with ISO2709 records transferred using Z39.50. The moment we change to almost any other format, we have an infinite number of fields and subfields. For example, here is part of a MARCXML record (totally made up): datafield tag=700 ind1=1 ind2= subfield code=aJones, John/subfield subfield code=t The tree frogs of Texas /subfield We can add a subfield: subfield code=relationb/subfield (b is a code defined as: Has part or earlier version or based on or whatever you want. If we want natural language text, we can do that too.) subfield code=relationHasPart/subfield /datafield We can't do this in our current MARC format since we are stuck with single digit subfield codes because of the limitations of ISO2709: 700 1\ $aJones, John$tThe tree frogs of Texas$relationHasPart [theoretically, today we could add the entire UNICODE character set, but I doubt if a lot of people would want to add a subfield lambda λ or shin ש! In any case, there is little sense to expand an obsolete format] In fact, once we move beyond ISO2709, we could even do things that can interoperate with other formats, e.g. Dublin Core (for an analytic): DC.Relation.hasPart datafield tag=100 ind1=1 ind2= subfield code=aJones, John/subfield /datafield datafield tag=245 ind1=1 ind2=4 subfield code=aThe tree frogs of Texas/subfield subfield code=cJohn Jones/subfield /datafield datafield tag=300 ind1= ind2= subfield code=ap. 34-85/subfield subfield code=bill./subfield /datafield ... /DC.Relation.hasPart This is just as easy with RDF or almost any other modern format. The number of codes and relationships will be endless and we can gain a lot of freedom once we dump that outmoded, obsolete ISO2709 format, which has fulfilled its function but is now holding us back. This does *not* mean that we must abandon MARC. Each bibliographic agency can add on its own sets of fields and subfields, so long as the XML is correctly defined. Whether we need an endless number of codes, fields and subfields I do not want to discuss here. But I think people can understand why non-librarians see that ISO2709 is a kind of straight-jacket in today's world. A lot of those same non-librarians also conclude that MARC format is just as obsolete, but I disagree and believe that MARC can survive so long as we rethink it. James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Hal Cain Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also to designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible subfields. I have suggested that at MARBI meetings and was met with looks of horror. It seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me, but for some reason it is entirely unacceptable. For some reason?? In such matters, there sometimes appears to be an irritating rigidity bordering on the irrational, esp. if the reasons are nowhere pronounced. Gives you the creeps, this Little House of Horror. But be that as it may, this just adds to the heap of proof that MARC will be with us for another eon and many, if not most systems will have to go on living with it, to fall back on it for lack of viable alternatives, or at least to cope with it as in legacy data+software and in exchange. There's no way round providing some additions to MARC or RDA will be a flop. But there need not be a whole alphabet soup of new subfields either! Maybe it is a blessing they cannot proliferate ever further, coming to think of it... After all, isn't brevity the soul of wit? Or, as Goethe would have it, It is in working within limits that the master reveals himself (in his Wilhelm Meister) XML, as an aside, can claim many things; not, however, brevity. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Karen has delineated the problem very well, but we should all just admit that *any solution* on these analytic-type records will definitely *not* be followed by everyone. I don't think that lots of libraries outside the Anglo-American bibliographic world would ever agree to use a 505 (although I personally like them!). The best we can do is to decide to help one another as much as possible. This is why I think the solution lies much more in terms of open data. Someone on one of the lists suggested the TED talk of Berners-Lee (thank you, whoever you are!). I finally saw it last night available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_the_year_open_data_went_worldwide.html and I suggest that everyone watch this. (TED talks are very short. This one is less than 6 minutes, so it shouldn't take too much time) What he demonstrates is something absolutely amazing, and it happened only because some agencies put their data in a place for others to take and share in different ways! I found it quite inspiring. How could this work with our data? If there were an open way of sharing data, I can imagine that, e.g. Mac in Canada makes a record with a 505 note. It is placed into something like the Internet Archive. Bernhard in Germany is working, finds the record with the 505 and runs a very clever macro that he and his friends have made and turns the record into something more suitable for his purposes. Maybe it's not 100%, but even 70% will save a lot of manual editing. He places his version somewhere, so now there are two versions. We can probably see that there could be multiple versions rather quickly. Some other person, perhaps a non-librarian, wants to take all of these versions and merge them in another incredibly clever way and this person adds his/her own information. What would this be? Right off, I can think of a public, cooperative effort to input tables of contents, with links if possible. This would definitely be appreciated by everyone in the world. Now we are getting something absolutely new. At this stage, there will be a real desire for genuine cooperation since everyone can see how they can all benefit if they work together. Plus, it all happens while everyone is still helping one another in very concrete ways that everyone can point to. Is this pie-in-the-sky? Definitely not. It is happening *right now* in other information communities, as Berners-Lee shows. And it has happened very, very quickly. The problem is deciding to take the leap and let our information--now seen in proprietary terms--into the world. James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Karen Coyle wrote: What John Myers and Judith Kuhagen pointed out was different -- it was something that looks very much like the 505 Contents note, with multiple resources, and not necessarily authority controlled. It's quite a different beast, and in AACR was considered a note, not a controlled access field. It appears that in RDA the related work relationship can take this uncontrolled note form. Yeah, I hear you. My understanding of the RDA/MARC/MARBI conglomerate, is that the 'related work' relationship _can_ be an uncontrolled phrase describing the relationship, but also CAN be a value from a coded list. I agree that the second is far superior. I _think_, based on an earlier thread, that at least MARC/MARBI will support that. I find the RDA text somewhat impenetrable, so I'm not sure what RDA says about allowing/suggesting this.
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
On 3/9/2010 5:21 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: We just had a discussion about 'role designators' for 'related works' in a 700, on this list I think? There's no way to input such a thing in current MARC. But (in response to RDA?) MARBI is adding subfields to 700 for expressing the nature of the relationship. I recall in the previous thread that there is a subfield for a coded value from a controlled list,with that coded list being new too. That's the new $i in 7XX fields. Here's a link for more info: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx00.html I don't think a controlled list of codes has been devised yet for 7XX $i. (Is MARBI working on this?) I did hear some time ago--and this might be the controlled list you're referring to--that MARBI's expanding the relator code list* to include those terms in RDA's Appendix I that aren't presently available. * http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota Bibliographic Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Program 222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Ah, I see, and the same subfield for uncontrolled entry vs entry from a controlled list. That is unfortunate. I see allowing for uncontrolled entry but would be much much better if controlled entry was in a separate subfield, so a machine reader could know if it was supposed to be controlled entry or uncontrolled entry. Similar to the 7xx$e vs 7xx$4. Really too bad that MARBI didn't respond to this need by making controlled and uncontrolled entry discoverable. REALLY it would be best if not only were an entry designated as controlled, but if there were a way to specify WHAT controlled list it comes from. But Marc isn't really up to providing that. Jonathan Mark Ehlert wrote: On 3/9/2010 5:21 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: We just had a discussion about 'role designators' for 'related works' in a 700, on this list I think? There's no way to input such a thing in current MARC. But (in response to RDA?) MARBI is adding subfields to 700 for expressing the nature of the relationship. I recall in the previous thread that there is a subfield for a coded value from a controlled list,with that coded list being new too. That's the new $i in 7XX fields. Here's a link for more info: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx00.html I don't think a controlled list of codes has been devised yet for 7XX $i. (Is MARBI working on this?) I did hear some time ago--and this might be the controlled list you're referring to--that MARBI's expanding the relator code list* to include those terms in RDA's Appendix I that aren't presently available. * http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Quoting Laurence Creider lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu: Is their a technical reason for your statement MARC is not up to providing the appropriate subfields? MARC21 certainly allows for indication of the thesaurus from which subject terms are taken, and presumably that could be extended to other fields as well. There are a number of reasons. Here are a few: 1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many fields, there are none or at most one left to use 2) the fields are often a combination of many different data elements. In the inclusion of URI subfields the MARC standards committee struggled with the fact that there is no way to indicate that a URI subfield relates to one or more subfields within the tag. You can read through the papers on this topic at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/development.html You have to look in both Proposals and Discussion Papers to find the ones relating to RDA. kc Thanks, Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Ah, I see, and the same subfield for uncontrolled entry vs entry from a controlled list. That is unfortunate. I see allowing for uncontrolled entry but would be much much better if controlled entry was in a separate subfield, so a machine reader could know if it was supposed to be controlled entry or uncontrolled entry. Similar to the 7xx$e vs 7xx$4. Really too bad that MARBI didn't respond to this need by making controlled and uncontrolled entry discoverable. REALLY it would be best if not only were an entry designated as controlled, but if there were a way to specify WHAT controlled list it comes from. But Marc isn't really up to providing that. Jonathan Mark Ehlert wrote: On 3/9/2010 5:21 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: We just had a discussion about 'role designators' for 'related works' in a 700, on this list I think? There's no way to input such a thing in current MARC. But (in response to RDA?) MARBI is adding subfields to 700 for expressing the nature of the relationship. I recall in the previous thread that there is a subfield for a coded value from a controlled list,with that coded list being new too. That's the new $i in 7XX fields. Here's a link for more info: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx00.html I don't think a controlled list of codes has been devised yet for 7XX $i. (Is MARBI working on this?) I did hear some time ago--and this might be the controlled list you're referring to--that MARBI's expanding the relator code list* to include those terms in RDA's Appendix I that aren't presently available. * http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Karen Coyle wrote: 1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many fields, there are none or at most one left to use Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also to designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible subfields. Needs must when the devil drives, maybe? Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Quoting Hal Cain hec...@dml.vic.edu.au: Karen Coyle wrote: 1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many fields, there are none or at most one left to use Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also to designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible subfields. I have suggested that at MARBI meetings and was met with looks of horror. It seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me, but for some reason it is entirely unacceptable. kc Needs must when the devil drives, maybe? Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Way too easy to make a mistake and enter upper-case when you meant lower-case. That would be my guess for why they don't want to double up that way. Deborah -- Deborah Fritz MARC Database Consultant The MARC of Quality www.marcofquality.com Voice/Fax: (321) 676-1904 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations Quoting Hal Cain hec...@dml.vic.edu.au: Karen Coyle wrote: 1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many fields, there are none or at most one left to use Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also to designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible subfields. I have suggested that at MARBI meetings and was met with looks of horror. It seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me, but for some reason it is entirely unacceptable. kc Needs must when the devil drives, maybe? Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4932 (20100310) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4932 (20100310) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4932 (20100310) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4932 (20100310) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4932 (20100310) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Great drawings! You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines of where in RDA are the rules for contents?, I am as yet unconvinced it is workable. The differences between the two diagrams illustrate a point that I think John Attig was making, and I hope that I am not misrepresenting by paraphrasing as, one can take the FRBR model a little too far. Conceptually, yes, each manifestation with separate augmenting material can be viewed as a manifestation of a new expression that incorporates that material, and the augmenting materials themselves can be viewed as works in their own rights. And I might add that the illustrative matter could be folded into that view, so where Karen has included the illustrations in the primary expression, they might just as well be treated as she did the various appendices. I am not, however, convinced that this is not an overly pedantic application of the model. Nor am I convinced that is one that yields any effective or productive results. But it gets very deep into considerations of whole/part that I admittedly have not explored in great depth. I can see the merit of treating an aggregation of resources of equal weight (e.g. a collection of short stories or a music album of songs) both as an aggregate-work in and of itself, and as an aggregate of the separate works within it. In opposition to that treatment, I would be perfectly happy treating the addition of ancillary bits to a primary work as merely variations between manifestations. But I realize that 1) this is not in strict compliance with the FRBR model, 2) ancillary may be in the eye of the beholder, and 3) these are strictly my gut feelings that may not be born out in more considered practice (either by myself or the cataloging community at large). John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- From: Karen Coyle This is a bit experimental, but I have created two livescribe (livescribe.com) audio-visual bits attempting to diagram and explain the expression/manifestation issue that we have been discussing. I apologize for the crudeness of the presentations. You can view them here: http://tiny.cc/V3hKu http://tiny.cc/AAK6D
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
I think that FRBR-oo, with its focus on the messy reality of the creation and production processes, does a much better job of modeling this sort of thing. While it is obviously complex, and seems pedantic within any given context, I think that in the broader context of the web, with its competing specific contexts, FRBR-oo may be the most successful model for managing the crosswalks, etc., between those contexts. Ed Jones -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:26 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations Great drawings! You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines of where in RDA are the rules for contents?, I am as yet unconvinced it is workable. The differences between the two diagrams illustrate a point that I think John Attig was making, and I hope that I am not misrepresenting by paraphrasing as, one can take the FRBR model a little too far. Conceptually, yes, each manifestation with separate augmenting material can be viewed as a manifestation of a new expression that incorporates that material, and the augmenting materials themselves can be viewed as works in their own rights. And I might add that the illustrative matter could be folded into that view, so where Karen has included the illustrations in the primary expression, they might just as well be treated as she did the various appendices. I am not, however, convinced that this is not an overly pedantic application of the model. Nor am I convinced that is one that yields any effective or productive results. But it gets very deep into considerations of whole/part that I admittedly have not explored in great depth. I can see the merit of treating an aggregation of resources of equal weight (e.g. a collection of short stories or a music album of songs) both as an aggregate-work in and of itself, and as an aggregate of the separate works within it. In opposition to that treatment, I would be perfectly happy treating the addition of ancillary bits to a primary work as merely variations between manifestations. But I realize that 1) this is not in strict compliance with the FRBR model, 2) ancillary may be in the eye of the beholder, and 3) these are strictly my gut feelings that may not be born out in more considered practice (either by myself or the cataloging community at large). John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- From: Karen Coyle This is a bit experimental, but I have created two livescribe (livescribe.com) audio-visual bits attempting to diagram and explain the expression/manifestation issue that we have been discussing. I apologize for the crudeness of the presentations. You can view them here: http://tiny.cc/V3hKu http://tiny.cc/AAK6D
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu: Great drawings! You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines of where in RDA are the rules for contents?, I am as yet unconvinced it is workable. There are lots of tables of contents that I don't think of as related or contained works -- simple chapters in a book that are not expected to stand alone as works in their own right. (Think fiction more than non-fiction, but it's probably true for both.) It would be very awkward to have to create a Work and Expression in order to provide a chapter view. In this case, table of contents is a kind of description, not a listing of works contained in the manifestation. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Seems like in general whether you have to create a new 'entity' for something should depend on whether it serves your needs to do so. I see this an answer to the 'aggregation' question too. There's a new edition with the same 'main text', but a new 'preface'. Under my interpretation of aggregation in FRBR (not sure if my interpretation has won out these days), you _could_ model that book in hand as a manifestation of a new expression, and that new expression aggregates a new manifestation of an existing expression (the 'main text'), along with a new manifestation of a new work (the new preface). But you could also say, for our purposes we don't care about the new preface, we only care about the 'main text', and since the main text is the same 'expression', we're just going to model this as a new manifestation of the existing expression already established for the 'main text'. This seems perfectly reasonable each way. The model shouldn't be a straightjacket, it should instead provide for flexible use Will our systems be able to handle different people/communities making different decisions at different times? And by 'systems', I mean both our local software, and the 'system' composed of various individuals, organizations, and software participating in our collective cooperative cataloging environment (as it exists at present, and as we'd like it to be). Hard to say. Even before we get to 'aggregations', there are similar issues in different communities making different decisions about entity boundaries. (Is a typo being fixed a new expression? Do you even analyze the text enough to realize if a typo is fixed? Normally not, but if you're a rare books scholar, maybe.) That the FRBR model (or at least my interpretatio of it with regard to aggregations, not sure if this is consensus) can handle this flexibly depending on your context, resources, and user-needs --- is in my opinion a STRENGTH of the model. That's what a good model should provide for. For that example above, I can imagine that an initial cataloger ignores the new prefatory material and considers it a manifestation of an existing expression. Later, someone else comes along with the same book in hand, and they find this established record in the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky, but they'd really like to model it as an aggregation to draw out meaning that their user community needs. And they send their changes back to the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky, and the first cataloger's system automatically gets them. Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu: Great drawings! You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines of where in RDA are the rules for contents?, I am as yet unconvinced it is workable. There are lots of tables of contents that I don't think of as related or contained works -- simple chapters in a book that are not expected to stand alone as works in their own right. (Think fiction more than non-fiction, but it's probably true for both.) It would be very awkward to have to create a Work and Expression in order to provide a chapter view. In this case, table of contents is a kind of description, not a listing of works contained in the manifestation. kc
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
For that example above, I can imagine that an initial cataloger ignores the new prefatory material and considers it a manifestation of an existing expression. Later, someone else comes along with the same book in hand, and they find this established record in the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky, but they'd really like to model it as an aggregation to draw out meaning that their user community needs. And they send their changes back to the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky, and the first cataloger's system automatically gets them. And if the changes are not a fit for what the first cataloger's user community needs? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Adding more detail and granularity should be ignorable by our software systems. Our systems can't magically add information where none was before, but should be able to eliminate information that is more than the user community needs. So if those changes to add information are recorded in a way that properly records sufficient information about the extra information, the first cataloger's system can ignore it. Perhaps the first catalogers system knows to always treat the same 'main text' as the same expression, and ignore any prefatory material, even if information on the prefatory material is present in the data gotten from the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky. Now, creating a system (in the large sense, composed of people, organizations, various software) that works is this way is some work ahead of us, for sure. Another option is that the library community, guided by our own guidelines like RDA, simply never treats prefatory material as important, and will always call the same main text with new prefatory material to be the same expression. That may or may not be what RDA says now, if I could understand it. That's sort of what we've tried to do in the past, have everyone doing the exact same thing. I'm not sure how well it's served us even so far -- because if RDA says, okay, ignore the prefatory material, then you're going to have a rare books cataloger saying But I can't ignore it for my users!. And we already have this to some extent, with many of our local corpuses for instance including records that are not AACR2 (or it's predecessors), but are prepared according to rare books standards. And somehow we have to combine them all. It doesn't always go so well. Moving forward, hoping to share data with communities even more diverse than those _within_ the realm of 'libraries' (rare books vs the rest of us), it will be even more difficult -- either way, it's an engineering challenge. Creating these standards and practices to all work together is an act of engineering. Jonathan Mike Tribby wrote: For that example above, I can imagine that an initial cataloger ignores the new prefatory material and considers it a manifestation of an existing expression. Later, someone else comes along with the same book in hand, and they find this established record in the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky, but they'd really like to model it as an aggregation to draw out meaning that their user community needs. And they send their changes back to the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky, and the first cataloger's system automatically gets them. And if the changes are not a fit for what the first cataloger's user community needs? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
I'm not sure that we should continue to hold on to the idea of typing in tables of contents (or buying them from vendors who then refuse to let us share them). In a world where digital versions of books are taking hold, and Amazon has made Look Inside the Book their way of letting customers make a purchase decision, can't we make quick scans of tables of contents and add a link to them? Granted, they won't be indexed as if they were text but I'm not so sure we'll have the same need for that if we have more robust ways of providing access to our data. And for the ones where we can and should use the FRBR relationship and aggregation capabilities--collected short stories, festschrift, etc.-- let's do that instead. In all this we'll have to pay close attention to return on investment, and I just don't think that chapters in fiction pass that value test. Diane On 3/9/10 2:13 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu: Great drawings! You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines of where in RDA are the rules for contents?, I am as yet unconvinced it is workable. There are lots of tables of contents that I don't think of as related or contained works -- simple chapters in a book that are not expected to stand alone as works in their own right. (Think fiction more than non-fiction, but it's probably true for both.) It would be very awkward to have to create a Work and Expression in order to provide a chapter view. In this case, table of contents is a kind of description, not a listing of works contained in the manifestation. kc
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Not that I disagree with Karen's observation about applying the model. But in terms of RDA, a contents note of the kind we are used to seeing generated from AACR2 1.7B18, appears in the Oct. 31, 2008 RDA full draft on p.10 of Ch.25 in the examples labeled Structured Description of the Related Work. The rules in Ch.25 refer back to those in Ch.24 addressing the general guidelines on recording relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, and items. Those rules afford various options amongst formal access points for the works and expressions (i.e. formal identification at the work and expression level), structured descriptions (i.e. a structured contents note), or unstructured descriptions (i.e. an unstructured note). FWIW, I find the specific rule under which the example in question appears, 25.1.1.3, to be one of the more uselessly vague instructions in the new draft code. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- From: Karen Coyle Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu: You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an RDA context. This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between works. Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines of where in RDA are the rules for contents?, I am as yet unconvinced it is workable. There are lots of tables of contents that I don't think of as related or contained works -- simple chapters in a book that are not expected to stand alone as works in their own right. (Think fiction more than non-fiction, but it's probably true for both.) It would be very awkward to have to create a Work and Expression in order to provide a chapter view. In this case, table of contents is a kind of description, not a listing of works contained in the manifestation. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Diane Hillmann wrote: I'm not sure that we should continue to hold on to the idea of typing in tables of contents (or buying them from vendors who then refuse to let us share them). In a world where digital versions of books are taking hold, and Amazon has made Look Inside the Book their way of letting customers make a purchase decision, can't we make quick scans of tables of contents and add a link to them? So where is the scanned table of contents stored? Many libraries have found the long practice of linking to an offsite TOC inefficient. People do want at least key word search access to the TOC for both non-fiction and fiction (as a public library). Will each library have to go to this linked site to download the TOC so they can always have access locally or are you suggesting that each library scan the TOC themselves? What are these more robust ways of providing access to our data? There has been a lot of talk of harvesting publisher data, which in theory sounds more efficient; however, it won't be free. We currently use publisher data to enhance customers records but publishers often have some type of use-restriction and cost that must be followed and paid. If we cannot get the data free now and allow unlimited sharing of it, what makes us think it will be free and unrestricted in the future? Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com
Re: [RDA-L] Expressions and manifestations
Katen Coyle said:
There are lots of tables of contents that I don't think of as related
or contained works -- simple chapters in a book ...
That's what I used to think.
Now we have two electronic publisher clients whose works have
individual chapters used with other individual chapters from other
works to create courses of study, so they want individual MARC records
as metadata for the individual mix and match chapters.
(Kits havw some of the same problems, but not quite so bad; the UK
uses repeating 300, and UTLAS had 021 for analytic ISBNs, which MARC21
lacks. How would a kit be catalogued in RDA?)
For the whole item record, we are doing repeating 505s, one for each
chapter (there are often three levels of subheads), so that one 505
can be kept in the chapter level record.
As I say over nd over and over - would that we had UKMARC's 248. We
need some form of what UTLAS called nesting. Field 776 is not
popular.
The idea of work/expression/manifestation records for each of the 38
chapters in a fairly short work seems overkill to me! We ain't gwine
do dat.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
***
AUTOCAT quoting guide: http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/copyright.html
E-mail AUTOCAT listowners: autocat-requ...@listserv.syr.edu
Search AUTOCAT archives: http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html
By posting messages to AUTOCAT, the author does not cede copyright
***
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Quoting Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu: Not that I disagree with Karen's observation about applying the model. But in terms of RDA, a contents note of the kind we are used to seeing generated from AACR2 1.7B18, appears in the Oct. 31, 2008 RDA full draft on p.10 of Ch.25 in the examples labeled Structured Description of the Related Work. Interesting, thanks. I can't find the RDA data element for that, however. Does anyone know what it is called? I'm just adding the Group 1 relationships, which should cover Chapter 25, to http://kcoyle.net/rda/ -- give me a minute. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
We just had a discussion about 'role designators' for 'related works' in a 700, on this list I think? There's no way to input such a thing in current MARC. But (in response to RDA?) MARBI is adding subfields to 700 for expressing the nature of the relationship. I recall in the previous thread that there is a subfield for a coded value from a controlled list,with that coded list being new too. I do not recall if there is a subfield for a free-entry relationship to be specified. I forget where you find info on this, but if you look back in the previous thread. In AACR2, and in RDA too I believe, a related work can be related just about any way the cataloger's discretion desires. In AACR2 (I think) and marc-as-it-is-today (I am confident), there is no way to record the nature of that relationship. Jonathan Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Judith A Kuhagen j...@loc.gov: The element is related work. The possible conventions for showing that relationship are identifier, authorized access point, or structured/unstructured description. Also, for those who may not have looked at the RDA element analysis table (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5rda-elementanalysisrev3.pdf), the FRBR/FRAD entity is given if appropriate in the domain column of that table. Thanks, Judith - Hopefully someone can clear this up, but the definition of related work is given (in the metadata registry and the ERDs) as: 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). Chapter 25 gives examples of Structured Description of the Related Work and includes both Contained in: and Contains relationships (which seem to be to be very different). And although it clearly says Work in the singular, one of the examples is: Contains: ?Til death do us plots / by Julianne Bernstein ? Class act / by Michael Elkin ? Where?s your stuff? / by Daniel Brenner ? Foot peddler / by Vivian Green ? Smoke / by Louis Greenstein ? Single Jewish female / by Julianne Bernstein ? In spite of everything / by Hindi Brooks ? Ger (the convert) / by Leslie B. Gold and Louis Greenstein ? Golden opportunity / by Julianne Bernstein ? Interview with a scapegoat / by Louis Greenstein There is also Contained in (Work) which has its definition as A larger work of which a part is a discrete component. (Which I must admit I'm having trouble grasping -- I can't quite figure out what points to what.) And also Contained in (Manifestation) which reads A larger manifestation of which a part is a discrete component. It was clearer to me before I read these... but it does look like one can have a textual description (that is, not an identified entity) that has these relationships. Now I need to think about what that does to my diagrams, if anything. kc
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: In AACR2, and in RDA too I believe, a related work can be related just about any way the cataloger's discretion desires. In AACR2 (I think) and marc-as-it-is-today (I am confident), there is no way to record the nature of that relationship. Except by making a note (500, or more specific tag if available) -- which of course separates the information from the access point (or whatever) where the citation or ID is given. I have encountered one or two specialised catalogues where $e was used to convey such information. In theory terms in $e are supposed to be from the AACR2 list (21.0D1) but that list does not suit specialized purposes even now. Hal Cain hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Jonathan said:
and marc-as-it-is-today (I am confident), there is no way to record the
nature of that relationship.
MARC fields 700$a$t, 730, and 740 all have 2nd indicator 2 for
analytical entry; blank indicating some other relationship. To define
that relationship further, one needs a note. With 700 and 710, one
can use $e. We've only had one client who wished that.
I think it makes discussion more difficult to have related works
include analytics, just as it does to have added entries include
subjects.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
