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
