Barbara,
1. Naming the parts - by having the relationship/link to the whole, you alleviate the necessity of having to provide a "title" for the parts that includes the title of the whole. There may continue to be a need for a default display form to name the work, but I hope we can eventually get away from the need for a "heading" or "authorized access point" (other than a default used for displays), so the display context could govern what additions are needed for naming an entity. Of course, if the title of the part coincidentally does include the title of the whole, then that should be given as found. For display purposes both titles (whole and part) can be displayed when needed depending on the context.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was a bit worried about having two entities with basically the same attributes, but now I see that the different relationships would be enough to distinguish between them. It's easier to see if one thinks of both attributes and relationships as data elements (in the RDA sense). Then it doesn't matter whether the entities differ on attributes or relationships.
2. Yes, and FRBR already provides for the whole/part relationships and the inherent relationships as you describe.
The whole/part is obvious, but after looking through the work-work relationships in FRBR I still wonder which could be used for the individual/aggregate relationship. Could you give me a hint?
Heidrun -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
