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
John Attig schrieb:
If FRBR in fact models the item as associated with only one
manifestation, then this is an obvious oversimplification -- as many
have discovered when they learned that their systems have been designed
on this same premise and therefore are not capable of dealing with
At 11:12 AM 3/8/2010, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
If, in current practice, a multipart is described in just one record
with a long 505 for the parts, then what is the item? Specifically,
if the parts have their own titles and can be cited and looked upon
as manifestations of a work. Take Lord of
At 01:42 PM 3/5/2010, Karen Coyle wrote:
I made the mistake of using a term without identifying it, sorry. In
semantic web terms, this is a statement:
Herman Melville -- is author of -- Moby Dick
While library records today have that same information, it doesn't
make sense outside of the
Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu:
Thanks, John... a bit more discussion
Two comments:
1. You stress the independence of the statements, which I agree does
give them value in a semantic web context. However, for many of us,
the more important question is how we aggregate these
John, thanks once again. Great common-sense thinking here, and I
appreciate your candor.
Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu:
This doesn't address the aggregate question that Jonathan speaks to
here. I suspect that by some logic, aggregates are expressions... ?
True?
I would certainly
, 2010 3:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Quoting Stephen Hearn s-h...@umn.edu:
The web statements would presumably be derived from a large set of
records, not from an individual record. The bib record for Sturges'
Magnificent 7
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
I think the nature of the problem you identify in your examples is
not really with 'manifestation' as an entity, but with the lack of
fleshing out of how to model aggregations in FRBR, a somewhat
tricky problem.
I was informed off-list
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
About any particular book, there can be many statements out in the
open world of the Web. Provided there is a stable, reliable, unique,
universally used identifier, going with every suchj statement, you're
very nearly there. The ISBN and ISSN are not quite that
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
I have a feeling that when they say work they mean something more like (in FRBR-speak)
expression since I doubt there is much use in the world for a unique number for the
entirety of Homer's Odyssey (except strictly for librarians) and they are thinking of specific
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
I have a feeling that when they say work they mean something more like (in
FRBR-speak) expression since I doubt there is much use in the world for a
unique number for the entirety of Homer's Odyssey (except
In today's record, we would code this somewhat like:
100 $a Kurosawa, Akira $e director
245 $a Shichinin no samurai
246 $a Seven Samurai
500 $a Adapted as The Magnificent 7
730 $a Magnificent 7
Well I would change your 100 to a 700 to make this more like what we do in
a bibliographic record.
The web statements would presumably be derived from a large set of
records, not from an individual record. The bib record for Sturges'
Magnificent 7 if constructed the same way as the Kurosawa record would
inferentially provide the data needed to create the statement
establishing his
Quoting Stephen Hearn s-h...@umn.edu:
The web statements would presumably be derived from a large set of
records, not from an individual record. The bib record for Sturges'
Magnificent 7 if constructed the same way as the Kurosawa record
would inferentially provide the data needed to create the
Quoting Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu:
This is perhaps only tangentially RDA-related.
...
But if it was possible to convert MARC data into RDF-like
statements, we could move away from what I see as a lot of the
unnecessary work of thinking about and comparing *records*
Ben Abrahamse wrote:
For example, a library could decide to accept or ignore what MIT has to
say
about this particular work; or what MIT has to say about access points; or
what MIT has to say at all, and their catalog could be configured to
ignore
or accept that particular statement if it
: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
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
McGrath, Kelley C. wrote:
Karen,
... I find the idea of a recordless view intriguing and presumably much more
flexible.
Karen Coyle had said:
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
Daniel CannCasciato wrote:
snip
Hal Cain wrote:
I wonder how far OCLC will let participants go in supplying these kinds of
links:
And I agree. I am not allowed to update the pcc records at this time.
/snip
I will throw a spanner in the works here and say that in the new world of
shared
Quoting Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net:
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
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
snip
I raised this question at a FRBR pre-conference last summer in Chicago: Do we
really expect catalogers to spend their time establishing works? Or is the
question of workhood -- if indeed it needs to be answered -- something that
is better left to literary and
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
This is correct but I think we can illustrate it more clearly
using subjects (where the function is exactly the same) ...
That's why, some time ago, I suggested to go about work links
the same way as with subject headings. I mean, for many important
works that are
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Isn't that the way we use MARC 7XX$a$t now, with the relationship in a
5XX note? Field 740 has 2nd indicator 2 to distinguish an analytic
from a related work, but not 700 or 710 $a$t.
More or less, yes.
The relationship
subfield you suggest would be something new.
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,
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
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
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
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)
, February 18, 2010 8:58 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: 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
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
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
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
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
Several decades ago, as a teenager, I had a little life-lesson that I
think is relevant to the discussion, if not of Appendix J, then at least
to the relationships among derivative works.
One Friday, the movie Anna and the King of Siam (1946, Irene Dunn and
Rex Harrison) was shown on television.
I'm pondering the RDA relationships, as defined in Appendix J. I need
clarification ...
A relationship is between two things. FRBR has lists of Work-Work
relationships, Expression-Work relationships, etc. Appendix J lists
relationships as either Work, Expression, Manifestation or Item
36 matches
Mail list logo
