Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" <tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca>:
The confusion seems to arise from the unique "many-to-many"
relationship of the expression to the manifestation. As soon as the
"many" kicks in for multiple expressions embodied in one
manifestation, the notion of the structural relationship of "parts"
unfortunately also kick in, but it shouldn't be necessary to invent
some new vertical whole-part relationship when this happens, as this
would convey the same information as the existing primary
relationship.
But the horizontal whole/part does exist. If the vertical
relationships are enough to convey that, why does FRBR/RDA have the
horizontal parts and what were they intended for? Maybe THAT's the
source of the confusion.
kc
The "many-to-many" set also includes a "many-to-one" notion--
multiple phantom manifestations don't need to be created for an
aggregating expression. Over time, each expression, and even the
aggregating expression, could be found in other manifestations over
time, fulfilling the "many-to-many" extent of the relationships, but
the "many-to-one" is valid for the specific examples discussed.
All of the established relationships are valid -- expression to
aggregating expression, work to aggregating work, expression(s) to
manifestation. There are even a range of
manifestation-to-manifestation relationships as well, including
whole-part ("bound with" is an item-to-item relationship though).
Numerous existing conventions pick up on one or the other
relationship, or collapse several together, and one might be able to
infer all the relationships from this information. Displays are a
problem, because the relationships may not be explicitly mapped
behind the scenes for the most flexible display manipulation.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
