I have to apologize for posting to this group an internal message. I guess it is Monday!
Since I am writing now instead of being quiet, I want to send a huge Thank You to everyone that does participate because I learn so much from each of you. Thank you, Deborah _______________________________________________________________________________ Deborah Dauenheimer Catalog Librarian Jefferson County Public Library Library Service Center 10500 W. 38th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 deborah.dauenhei...@jeffcolibrary.org (303) 403-5182 (303)403-5195 fax Find us on the web: http://jeffcolibrary.org -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:51 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] "Work manifested" in new RDA examples I am mulling over the data element "work manifested" in the examples for RDA bibliographic records released by the JSC some time ago: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC_RDA_Complete_Examples_%28Bibliographic%29_Revised_2012.pdf For instance, look at the example for Arlene Taylor's "The organization of information" (book 1, p. 10): There, you'll not only find the data element "creator" (Taylor, Arlene G., 1941-), but also the data element "work manifested" (Taylor, Arlene G., 1941-. Organization of information). Note the beautiful footnote: "No equivalent encoding in MARC 21". In the earlier version of these examples wich accompanied the full draft of 2008, this data element wasn't there at all, and its appearance now strikes me as rather odd. Granted: "Work manifested" (17.8) is a core element in RDA (cf. 17.3: "When recording primary relationships, include as a minimum the work manifested."). But in 17.4.2, three conventions for recording primary relationships are outlined, and I believe that only the first and the second presuppose "work manifested" as a single data element: For these two methods, an identifier for the work (method 1) or the authorized access point representing the work (method 2), respectively, are used. The third method, however, does not seem to require one single data element "work manifested": "Prepare a composite description that combines one or more elements identifying the work and/or expression with the description of the manifestation." So, in this case, the identification of the work is achieved by one or more elements which really belong on work level, although in the record they are mixed together with information on manifestation level. Typically, these will be the data elements for the first "creator" and for the "preferred title of the work" (vulgo: uniform title). I'd argue that in cases where there's no need to determine a uniform title (e.g. if there is only one manifestation of the work in question), the title of the manifestation can be used instead. The RDA example for "book 1" mentioned earlier follows this third method for recording primary relationships, i.e. it is a "composite description", which basically looks like the conventional MARC record. Therefore, I find it hard to understand why the information about the work manifested is given _twice_ in the same record: Once _implicitly_ according to method 3 (by giving the data elements "creator" and "title proper" as part of the composite description) and a second time _explicitly_ according to method 2 (by giving the authorized access point representing the work). Shouldn't it be either the one (in a composite description) or the other (in a different implementation scenario for RDA, something closer to scenario 1)? As it stands now, the information given seems to be redundant. Any ideas? Heidrun -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
