I got curious about RDA's use of identifiers when I discovered these two entries in the Glossary:
ISSN of Series ISSN of Subseries In themselves I see no problem, but there are no glossary entries for ISBN, ISMN, or any other identifier. There are the following entries: Identifier for... - the corporate body - the expression - the family - the item - the manifestation - the person - the work As an example, the definition of identifier for the manifestation is: "An identifier for the manifestation is an alphanumeric string associated with a manifestation that serves to differentiate that manifestation from other manifestations. Identifiers for manifestations include identifiers registered applying internationally recognized schemes (e.g., ISBN, ISSN, URN), as well as other identifiers assigned by publishers, distributors, government publications agencies, document clearinghouses, archives, etc., following internally devised schemes. Identifiers include identifiers registered in accordance with internationally recognized schemes (e.g., ISBN, ISSN, URN), as well as other identifiers assigned by publishers, distributors, government publications agencies, document clearinghouses, archives, etc., following internally devised schemes." Thus, it seems to me that in the series statement, what one has is an identifier for the series manifestation (which in most cases will be an ISSN). (Instructions on the ISSN of series are in 2.12.8.) In chapter 24 (24.4.1) you have general instructions on related works, expressions, manifestations and items (which I will refer to in the future as WEMI because it's way too much to type) that instruct you to use the relevant identifier. Examples here show ISSNs, ISBNs and URNs. Series is a related work, but the treatment of ISSNs in RDA series statements seems to be inconsistent with the treatment of identifiers in other related WEMI. I want to note that RDA does not refer to LCCNs, OCLC numbers, DOIs or other such identifiers. This seems right to me: some of these numbers identify the metadata, not the resource. Others, like the DOI, identify a location for services associated with a resource. RDA limits itself to identifiers for the resource, at the WEMI levels. Also, RDA does not mint any new identifiers, AFAIK. All of the identifiers in the list above are ones that RDA records, but does not create. Since RDA appears to be leaning in the direction of linked data, the issue of identifiers for WEMI entities will undoubtedly come up again. This is an area where moving from the RDA rules to a usable data structure will require some effort. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
