Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
John Attig wrote:
I don't believe that FRBR deals explicitly with multiparts;
Well, the section
5.3.6.1 Whole/Part Relationships at the Item Level
explicitly addresses the issue. Without, admittedly, giving
much guidance for dealing with it.
in FRBR
terms, the
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
In my experience, the one area of bibliographic control
that has the least amount of agreement is in the analytics:
each bibliographic agency has its own idea of precisely
what belongs to precisely what and how to describe it.
Exactly.
In my previous posting, I mixed
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:
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
17 matches
Mail list logo
