Mac said:
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?
Questions I have been asking since this whole process began. Thank you Mac!
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Annette Nielsen
[aniel...@softlinkint.com]
Sent: January-31-12 7:36 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments
John,
I guess I did not read the Final Report that carefully, since I'm not
sure what the difference is between aggregating expressions/works and
aggregate expressions/works.
I'm not surprised. We had a long and difficult time on this list working
out the difference. Have a look at these
It is not as clear as in some later presentations, but section 3.2, what
we call Reverse Tree searching, is an illustration of a short story
collection where the individual short stories are also in the system as
individual works.
John
On 1/16/2012 10:12 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
It
Simon,
I think what is meant is not work in the sense of sweat-of-the-brow
labor, but instead refers to the conceptualisations that are
considered to form a separately copyrightable work (for example,
selection and arrangement).
Works are conceptual/intentional in nature, made up of sets of
Quoting Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca:
What appears to be missing is the ability to add the horizontal
relationships-- the Whole-Part relationships from an individual
expression to an aggregate expression, or to other related
expressions. The split in MARC
Karen:
I agree, and these horizontal relationships are represented in MARC
records, if there at all, as textual notes. This means that we can't rely
on legacy data as it exists now to be much help. But the relationships
represented in this empty horizontal space are probably the best thing RDA
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de:
When I started this discussion, I already had a strong feeling that
the theory presented in the final report was somehow weird. Looking
back now, I find that I had only noticed the tip of the iceberg of
the wrongness then. Now
Not sure what to say about is there a way that is right (I have my
private opinion about that, which I'm sure most of you can guess what
it is :-), but in regards to whether we can implement a system, VTLS has
implemented a RDA/FRBR Implementation Scenario One in our Virtua ILS.
Our system
John, I'm dying to see how this displays. I assume this will be
available for viewing at ALA?
But of course I now have another question :-) for the list. FRBR
appears to have been designed on presumed database management
principles, in particular relational databases. A relational database
John Espley wrote:
the system is also in line with the Final Report of the FRBR Working
Group on Aggregates. That is, Virtua can have an aggregating
Manifestation which is linked to its aggregating Expression to the
Expressions aggregating Work as well as to the individual
Work/Expressions
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Heidrun said:
Sure, but these are plain simple _aggregate_ works, and not _aggregating_
works in the sense of the Working Group. Remember their claim: The process
of aggregating the expressions itself is an intellectual
Yes, see it at booth 729. Also there are two special demo's on Sunday
at Hyatt Regency, Room Bryan-Beeman A on our RDA/FRBR Implementation
Scenario One. I will be presenting the first one at 8:00 AM, and Robert
Pillow will be doing the one at 1:30 PM.
John
On 1/15/2012 10:49 AM, Karen
I guess I did not read the Final Report that carefully, since I'm not
sure what the difference is between aggregating expressions/works and
aggregate expressions/works. What we do in Virtua is allow you to have
a Manifestation, which contains separate Works, linked to multiple
Thomas wrote:
Somewhere in this mix there is the notion of the primary work (a phrase found in RDA at
20.2.1.1.). Some of the RDA expression attributes and relationship elements settle around an idea that there
are supplementary works being expressed as augmentations to a primary work. RDA
Heidrun said:
Now I even wonder: Can an aggregating work have a title?
Certainly they can:
Shakespeare's Bonnets
Tennessee William's Plays
Faulkner's Short Stories
Conference on Biophysics
Equal Marriage Rights Symposium
Papers on Fracking
These are make up examples, but represent the
Mac:
Heidrun said:
Now I even wonder: Can an aggregating work have a title?
Certainly they can:
Shakespeare's Bonnets
Tennessee William's Plays
Faulkner's Short Stories
Conference on Biophysics
Equal Marriage Rights Symposium
Papers on Fracking
Sure, but these are plain simple
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: January-14-12 11:28 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L]
Heidrun said:
Sure, but these are plain simple _aggregate_ works, and not
_aggregating_ works in the sense of the Working Group. Remember their
claim: The process of aggregating the expressions itself is an
intellectual or artistic effort ...
It seems to me work is being used in two ways
Mac said:
It seems to me work is being used in two ways here, the effort of
creating the aggregate, and the resulting aggregate.
The aggragating effort has no title, apart from editor, compiler,
etc. in the statement of responsibility. and as some would like, $e
relator terms.
But the
11.01.2012 21:14, Gene Fieg:
Somewhere in this thread, there was statement FRBR and RDA, whose
English was muddy, to say the least. One of the most important things
that can be done to RDA is to rewrite it--in the understanding that a
sentence should be subject, verb, object.
As it stands now,
On 12/01/2012 12:12, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
No matter, however, how excellent Ms Oliver's product will turn out, the
major roadblock on RDA's way to success will remain its closedness as a
subscription product. So, under the circumstances given, how big is the
chance of RDA succeeding
Thomas,
lots of stimulating thought in your latest post. I'll just comment on
some bits.
These are contributor relationship designators between persons (or corporate
bodies or families) and expressions.
But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: January-12-12 3:26 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L]
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
That's an excellent point, and I see the difference better now. I had
begun mulling over the comparison of an aggregate -- a collection in
the conventional sense -- and aggregating, a new concept referring
to the effort to bring things together. The aggregating work
I would note that the recommendation is not unanimous, and a concurrence in
part and dissent in part is included as an appendix to the report.
[I'm slowly writing a fuller analysis of this issue, as well as some of the
comments made in this thread suggest some confusion over some theoretical
Somewhere in this thread, there was statement FRBR and RDA, whose English
was muddy, to say the least. One of the most important things that can be
done to RDA is to rewrite it--in the understanding that a sentence should
be subject, verb, object.
As it stands now, who knows what anything means
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: January-11-12 3:53 AM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Cc: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
Thomas,
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
One addendum to my last mail:
Thanks to Thomas Berger again, I've noted that it says on p. 5 of the
report: An aggregating work is not a discrete section or even
necessarily an identifiable part of the resulting manifestation and does
not contain the aggregated works themselves.
I think the
Am 10.01.2012 09:52, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
I think the last part of this sentence is ample proof that there cannot
be a whole/part relationship between the aggregating work (in the glue
sense of the Working Group) and the individual works.
So if we now turn our attention to the item
-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 10, 2012 3:52 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de:
By the way, I find it rather absurd to have to speculate about the
true meaning of the report in this way. It's not a theological
tract from the Middle Ages, is it?
If it were, we could just pretend to believe and go on about
Heidrun said:
Then something similar could be used to catch the primary/secondary
aspect in augmentations ...
Are we using primary/secondary in two ways? That is, to refer to the
aggregate (e.g., conference proceedings vs. a paper in the
proceedings), and to a basic work and its added bits
Heidrun said:
an aggregate is defined as a manifestation embodying multiple distinct
expressions. (p. 3). This means that the only aggregate entity they
accept is a _manifestation_. There is no room for an aggregate _work_ i
Aren't conference proceedings and continuing education symposia to be
Mac wrote:
Heidrun said:
Then something similar could be used to catch the primary/secondary
aspect in augmentations ...
Are we using primary/secondary in two ways? That is, to refer to the
aggregate (e.g., conference proceedings vs. a paper in the
proceedings), and to a basic work and its
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
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
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,
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, ...
-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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
-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
[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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
-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
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.
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
-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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
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!
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
How nice to have Heidrun join Bernhard as a voice of reason from
Europe. Germany may save more than the euro zone!
Mac had me blushing violently here... I'm not so sure about the euro
zone, but I believe it is a very helpful experience to find out that
there is more
Karen,
If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate Expression,
and each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work well, then we
have a one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions and Works. We're
back to ISBD or MARC in that case.
I'm not sure whether that description
A few thoughts of my own concerning this issue:
First, I suspect this issue is of relatively little interest or use to
the public, so this is probably more related to internal management of
the collection. Cutter implies as much in the Appendix to his Rules
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: January 6, 2012 8:21 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
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de:
Karen,
If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate
Expression, and each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work
well, then we have a one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions
and Works. We're back to
All:
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
On 06/01/2012 15:41, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
The entities exist whether they're brought out in the cataloging as
significant or not. In RDA, many such entities and their relationships
are captured in unstructured descriptions or transcribed elements,
without any mechanism for
I've been reading with great interest this thread and in conjunction with what
James just wrote I'd like to offer a bare bones mantra my cataloging professor
taught me when I would attempt to decline a Dewey # to the 14th level:
Remember, Mike: it's only an address.
I love the elegance of
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Diane Hillmann
Sent: January 6, 2012 11:31 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
Hello,
First, to respond to Karen's more recent posting:
Pure aggregates (a book of essays, e.g.) are also somewhat easy, or
at least they were: the record is for the book as a whole, and, if
possible, a table of contents note is created. Where that model fails
is that is often isn't easy to
Thomas Brenndorfer 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
Karen said:
RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing similar
to the MARC 505.
We first ran into this problem with papers given at continuing legal
education symposia. The terrible solution we have is putting the
paper titles in 695 for keyword searching. Our index is
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: January 6, 2012 2:35 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 Brenndorfer said:
- 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
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
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
I think embodies and expresses mean the same thing here. One term is
taken from FRBR and the other from RDA. Karen's right that the three
expressions are equal in this example, in that there is no whole/part
relationship that binds them, at least in strict FRBR. Rather, they are
bound by
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
