Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" <b...@loc.gov>:
Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be
handled with a placefolder at the expression level.
Yes, of course. But I don't think that affects the issues here.
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.
I don't think that's accurate. I think whether systems can display it
will depend on how the bibliographic data is structured. It's data
that drives systems, not the other way around. What we're trying to
figure out is how to structure the data so that the user display will
make sense. It appears that if the data for aggregates is not
explicitly structured in some whole/part relationship it may not be
possible to make that clear to users. Plus, we don't seem to be able
to find a defined data structure that corresponds to the instructions
in RDA.
(I personally think that a contents note would be very useful for some
situations, like listing the chapter headings of a book by a single
author. I think this is useful information but it shouldn't have to be
structured like an embedded work in order to be included.)
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.
Yes, I'm familiar with their product. Deborah and I talked recently
about trying to create data for some aggregates, especially ones
having the same work appear both in an aggregate and separately. After
that, though, I think we need to find someone who can load the data
into a triple store so we can run some actual linked data processes on
it.
For a while I've been wishing we had a test suite of RDA data in RDF.
That would help us try out some of these ideas and see if the data
elements as defined can support the retrieval and displays that we
might want. It seems that it would really help if folks could see some
results. We may be getting closer to that.
kc
- 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
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
