I'm afraid I remain as perplexed on what FRBR has to say about this as you
I continue to maintain that a reproduction of an item results in a manifestation (which of course includes one or more items), although I suppose you could talk about the relationship between item A, the source of the reproduction, and item B, one of the items in the manifestation resulting from the reproduction, but how is that really useful? It *is* useful to bring out the relationship between the new manifestation and the specific item it was reproduced from. As for the wording of Table 5.10 and its explanatory text, I think there are some real problems with it. I can certainly see the reconfiguration situation as an "item-to-item" relationship. E.g., things bound together (post-publication) are individual items that are physically related to each other. I suppose "split into" and "extracted from" would also be examples of this, as long as we mean physically split or extracted (e.g. the article is ripped out of the magazine). (This is NOT talking about serials splits or offprints [I presume].) Though with splits and extractions, what exactly are the two items being related to each other? In the case of ripping the article out of the magazine, is it the relationship between the ripped out article and the rest of the magazine that didn't get ripped? But as explained above I have real reservations about the second example in the table of an item-to-item relationship. I also think the explanatory text on p. 80 contradicts the example, claiming that "replication of one item from another always results in an item of the same physical characteristics as the original." Back to the table, how is a "microreproduction" or a "macroreproduction" "of the same physical characteristics as the original"? By definition each is either smaller or bigger than the original, and probably made of completely different materials (a different "carrier", which the text claims can only happen with an item to manifestation reproduction relationship). In the table, "reproduction" and "facsimile" could be anything, and most likely also do not have the same physical characteristics as the original, unless you have the most scrupulously created facsimile. Perhaps others might have comments on this. Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Jones > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:15 PM > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > > Hmmm. My exegesis of FRBR doesn't reach this depth. According to the > first paragraph under 5.10, "the replication of one item from another > always results in an item of the same physical characteristics as the > original." > > I'm perplexed. Perhaps Robert could explain it. He's just written a > book on FRBR for the perplexed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renette Davis > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:29 AM > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > > But FRBR 5.3.6 describes item-to-item relationships and one of the types > of > relationship in table 5.10 is reproduction. > > Renette > > > At 12:15 PM 7/17/2007, you wrote: > >This is true. By definition, there can be no such thing as an > >item-to-item reproduction. The product of a reproduction is always a > >manifestation of one or more items. > > > >Ed Jones > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell > >Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:56 AM > >To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > > > >This is still an item to manifestation relationship, not an item to > item > >relationship. When you make a reproduction of a specific item you are > >creating a new manifestation (which of course is a set of one or more > >items). > > > >Robert L. Maxwell > >Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian > >Genre/Form Authorities Librarian > >6728 Harold B. Lee Library > >Brigham Young University > >Provo, UT 84602 > >(801)422-5568 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > >Access > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Jones > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:32 AM > > > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > > > > > > I think 7.4.2.0.1 might be better worded as follows: > > > > > > An equivalent item is a specific item that was reproduced (e.g. > > > photographed, digitized) to make the resource being described. > > > > > > All photoreproductions (microform, photocopy, digital image, etc.) > are > > > the reproductions of specific items (though when no single complete > >item > > > exists, a reproduction may be made from multiple individually > >imperfect > > > items). > > > > > > Ed Jones > > > National University (San Diego) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > >Access > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Altschuler > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:21 AM > > > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > > > > > > Renette, > > > > > > I am sure you understand FRBR much better than I do. All of the > > > examples do reference specific items: 7.4.2.1.1a "the original of a > > > photographic image", 7.4.2.1.1b "item" and "fascimile of" and > > > 7.4.2.1.1c "original letters in the collection of the Watkinson > > > Library" and "copy in the National Wetlands Research Center Library" > > > but I see your point about the changes in physical characteristics > and > > > why they might be considered equivalent manifestations. > > > > > > I did not get nearly as far as you did with this but I also found > the > > > wording of 7.4.2.0.1 to be questionable. "An equivalent item is a > > > specific item reproduced by the resource being described". I kept > > > trying to think how a resource could reproduce an item? A paper item > > > in a specific library can't reproduce itself in electronic format. > > > Your proposed wording certainly makes more sense to me. > > > > > > Jean > > > > > > > > > > > > Renette Davis > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > hicago.edu> > To > > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > > crcc-rda-bounce RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc > > > shington.edu > > > > Subject > > > [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA > 7.4.2 > > > > > > 07/16/2007 > > > 10:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I started this message on Friday afternoon and thought maybe my > brain > > > was > > > just tired, but now on Monday morning the scope statement in > 7.4.2.0.1 > > > > > > still doesn't make sense to me. "An equivalent item is a specific > item > > > > > > reproduced by the resource being described." It's the word "by" that > > > is > > > bothering me. Also the fact that the relationship appears to only go > > > one > > > way. I think what is meant is that an equivalent item is a specific > > > item > > > reproduced as or from the resource being described. > > > > > > I'm also having problems with some of the examples in this section. > > > Most > > > them seem like equivalent manifestations instead of equivalent items > > > to me. > > > The explanation under the example in 7.4.2.1.1a.1 says it is a > > > "Resource > > > identifier for the original of a photographic image that has been > > > digitized > > > by the Museum of History and Industry." Wouldn't this be an > equivalent > > > > > > manifestation instead of an equivalent item since one is an original > > > photograph and the other is a digital image? > > > > > > According to "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records", > > > section > > > 5.3.6, Item-to-Item Relationships, p. 80, "The reproduction > > > relationship > > > states that one particular item has been derived in some way from > > > another > > > item. As with manifestation, there can be varying levels of fidelity > > > of the > > > reproduction to the original item. Unlike the replication of > > > manifestations, however, which in some cases will result in a change > > > in the > > > type of carrier, the replication of one item from another always > > > results in > > > an item of the same physical characteristics as the original." > > > > > > The same is true for the 2nd example in 7.4.2.1.1c.1 - "Electronic > > > reproduction of the copy in the National Wetlands Research Center > > > Library". > > > If it's an electronic reproduction of a print resource, wouldn't it > be > > > an > > > equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item? > > > > > > If the first example in that section is in a record for photocopies > of > > > the > > > original letters, that's probably ok as an equivalent item, but if > > > it's in > > > a record for an electronic reproduction, again I think that would be > > > an > > > equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item. > > > > > > I am definitely no expert on FRBR, so if anyone disagrees with my > > > statements above, don't hesitate to say so! However, if I'm > > > understanding > > > this correctly, then maybe the scope statement should read something > > > like, > > > "An equivalent item is a specific item reproduced as or from the > > > resource > > > being described in the same physical format." > > > > > > Renette > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CRCC-RDA mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/crcc-rda
