Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

I think what we may have here is an interesting example of the issue of aboutness vs. is-ness as it applies to people (or any Group 2 entity), rather than to resources. And we do seem to have conflated the two within Field of Activity. If one uses Study and teaching to try to make the

Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

Interesting conundrum. However, although it may be a text-centric view, the relative extent of images and text is not necessarily an indication of which content is primary. A case could be made that the text, however limited in extent, is primary, and the illustrative matter, however

Re: [RDA-L] How would you relate these two works?

Hi All, Maybe I will be pounced upon for the following thought, but I am offering it anyway. Given the statement that these are two different novels written about the same fictional event I am not convinced that there is any direct relationship at all *between* the two novels as two Group 1

Re: [RDA-L] eBooks Playaways

Maybe we need a new media type (or would it be an unmediated carrier type??) that is something like interactive?? In all the examples so far (Playaway, music box, Kindle), the user needs to do something to make it work, even though the user does not need an *additional* device to gain access.

Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR

Hi Liz and others, As it happens, I gave this exact problem a great deal of thought about 30 years ago. It was long before FRBR of course, but the issue itself has not changed. At the time I argued that reproductions were new works, and for describing the relationship between the original and

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

I agree with Kevin. But would you also need to add (Report) to the reciprocal 787? Sara (who doesn't yet catalog in RDA) Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center sla...@library.ucla.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access /

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

In the current infrastructure, adding a uniform title/preferred title for the work (with the qualifier included) to each record would make it possible (although not easy) for the computer to look up the work cited. Wouldn't it? Sara Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Karen, The intellectual work of determining the specific role(s) a person or corporate body has in relation to a work/expression/manifestation (RDA) is more difficult/complicated than the intellectual work of determining that a person or corporate body has *a* role in relation to a resource

Re: FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki)

With considerable trepidation, I'm going to venture into this discussion ... If all the collaborators belong at the work level, doesn't that mean that a change in *any* of the collaborators would mean that you then have a completely different work? I know this doesn't often happen with films

Re: Wrong model--RDF?

So ... with apologies in advance for asking a possibly ignorant question ... can you make the following statement in RDF? That is, can the same sort of entity be both a subject and an object? Work2 is a parody of Work1 And you would not need to make, in addition, a statement like