Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

Schutt, Misha wrote: The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by multiple layers of derivativeness. True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one added a uniform title and a little,

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip Schutt, Misha wrote: The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by multiple layers of derivativeness. True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de: Schutt, Misha wrote: The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by multiple layers of derivativeness. True. snip RDA, however, asks for a more detailed inspection because it is a cornerstone of the FRBR model that

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

Quoting hec...@dml.vic.edu.au: See, for instance, the newly-formulated BIBCO standard record http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf -- a formula less than core in terms of content required -- where the prescription for the uniform title states (for 240, i.,e. uniform title

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

Karen Coyle wrote: What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger. Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a recordless view -- which would consist of short statements (Jane is author of Book)

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

I agree with Karen Coyle's argument, and I share the concern about FRBR concepts pushing catalogers away from the bibliographic detective work that they should be concentrating on, and into something else that they have neither the time nor, frankly, the training and inclination to do. I

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) (fwd)

Bernhard said regarding relationship terms: [snip] Practically, these terms will have to be coded, not recorded verbally, for otherwise international interoperability would suffer. And for codes, no URIs, please. [snip] Conferning relationship of persons to mantifestations, in our

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

Hal Cain said: Since the commonest relationship, and the most frequent application of 240, is translation, and not every document discloses the title of the work/expression/manifestation from which it was translated, I can only suppose that the guiding spirits of BIBCO are not serious about

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

James said: True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one added a uniform title and a little ... More common in our records are 600$a$t and/or 700$a$t, justified by notes, to express relationships between

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

But such instances where the WEMI for the library's copy collapse to a single thing, then the library catalog should similarly concatenate the record display to show it as the single item held. This is an implementation and display issue, not a FRBR or record issue. (And I am aware of the