Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Of course there will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while allowing the structure to be complete in systems.
As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and parts will depend on systems. You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR. - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting JOHN C ATTIG <jx...@psu.edu>: > ----- Original Message ----- > > | Karen said: > > | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing > | >similar to the MARC 505. > > Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are > considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a > structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of > the parts of the resource. > > If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, > you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the > examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you > will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator > "Contains" used as a caption. Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties? RDA: http://rdvocab.info/ FRBR: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that support it. If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR must manifest an expression, not a work. It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also note that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no "related Work" property. It does have a work/work whole/part relationship. The RDA definition of related Work is: "A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an adaptation, commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work)." I read this as a set of work/work relationships. There are no Manifestation to Work relationships in FRBR. There is a whole/part relationship between manifestations in FRBR 5.3.4.1. While it might make logical sense to point from a manifestation to "related works" the underlying structure of FRBR does not support this as far as I can tell. Therefore, if the RDA properties are associated definitionally each with a FRBR entity, the instructions in 27.1 cannot be used to create valid data. this is why we MUST actually try to create data using the data definitions we have and see if we indeed CAN create RDA data. kc p.s. Back to the paper by Wiesenmuller, I think that the part/whole relationships are the only ones that are usable here, and they do require an Expression between the Manifestation and the Work. > > I see no reason why we cannot continue to formulate contents notes as > we currently do, and continue to tag them in MARC field 505. > > I do find the RDA documentation on structured descriptions of > relationships to be inadequate. There are in fact no instructions on > creating such descriptions. I have prepared a brief discussion paper > on this issue, which will be discussed at the meeting of the Committee > on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) at ALA Midwinter this > month. I hope that we can improve the instructions for describing > relationships in RDA. > > John Attig > ALA Representative to the JSC > jx...@psu.edu > -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
