Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu>:
Karen Coyle wrote:
I think the confusion is that I believe there are MORE THAN ONE
"wemi" element involved in an agregate.
Collected Works of John Doe (Work1)
expressed by: Collected Works of John Doe (first edition) (Expression1)
manifested by: Collected Works of John Doe PDF version
(manifestation1)
---> CONTAINS/AGGREGATES
Does and Deers by John Doe (Work2)
expressed by: Does and Deers by John Doe (only
edition that ever existed) (Expression2)
manifested by: Does and Deers by John Doe [as
included in the Collected Works (Work1)] (manifestation2)
Badgers by John Doe (Work3)
etc
Yes, absolutely. But what I see happening here is so very like what we
have today with a bib description of the manifestation and then "added
entries" -- in this case added relationships -- for the individual
works/expressions. And there's some logic to that view, although it
naturally favors the package over the contents. So we'll have some
works that are what users think of as works, and other works that
represent the publisher's package -- which sometimes will be something
that makes sense to the user, but at other times, as in many music
CDs, is bordering on the arbitrary. If we present these all as works
to the user, confusion will ensue.
In the RDA relationships (which I've summarized here
http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html) there seem to be two kinds:
intellectual relationships, and bibliographic relationships. "Is
adapted from" is an intellectual relationship; "Contains" is a
bibliographic relationship. They're all mixed together as if they are
the same thing. I think there's a big difference between describing a
publication and describing an intellectual universe. I would prefer
for there to be some line (perhaps not a bright line) between those
functions. Library cataloging is mainly about bibliographic
description. The intellectual relationships get very little attention
in that view -- perhaps a note ("Based on....") and an
undifferentiated added entry.
It could be that cataloging *should* limit itself to that
bibliographic description, and that some other function -- something
akin to the creation of subject bibliographies -- should be allowed to
create the intellectual connections between works. Where I think
library catalogs lose their users is in trying to do a little of the
latter, but not doing it well, and mixing the two functions in a way
that is confusing.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
