Quoting Bernhard Eversberg <e...@biblio.tu-bs.de>:
Is the part-whole relationship, for example, even being considered? It wasn't under AACR2 although it would have been possible.
Bernard, I'm not sure what you mean by "even being considered" (by whom?) but FRBR and RDA do define all of the conceptual structure necessary for whole/part (and a host of other relationships). This is relatively easy to accomplish in a data format based on entity-relationship or linked data models. Even if we have such a model for our data, though, there is the question of practice in the level of description.
For example, in a good linked data interface, it would be possible to state that the resource you are describing (a monograph in a series) is a member of a series that has its own record. That would be a fairly simple matter of creating a "is member of" link from the monograph to the series (and could replace the series statement). That's a very different scenario from creating a description for every story in a book of short stories -- which would be added work compared to what we do today.
However, in the same way that libraries today can purchase tables of contents to add to their records, or can do copy cataloging off of records that have ToC's, I can imagine that we could begin to share these "analytic" entries including the whole/part relationship. So a proper data format could encourage the creation of this level of detail as long as the cataloger effort required remains low.
One of the advantages of linked data is that it is more dynamic than our current record-based data. With a catalog record, adding new fields is somewhat onerous, and adding new TYPES of fields is a huge change. With linked data, additions to the data do not require re-indexing of whole records because the database consists of individual data elements, not records. Adding a relationship doesn't *change* anything, it simply adds information. (I will try to isolate my PPT slides related to this issue and make a short document out of them. It's an important point, best understood through a few visuals.)
kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
