For the "Work manifested" example in http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC_RDA_Complete_Examples_%28Bibliographic%29_Revised_2012.pdf there are some useful distinctions that can be made to facilitate a discussion of this topic.
It is correct that one Creator element and one Title proper element can duplicate the Work Manifested element if the form used is the authorized access point for the work (name + title form), as opposed to an identifier (such as a URI). But there can be multiple Creators for the one work... Creator: Person K Creator: Person R Creator: Person Z If the first name person on the resource is Person R, then the authorized access point is formed: Person R. Preferred title. Essentially, this is the AACR2 main entry rule, minus the Rule of Three. In RDA though, just pointing to a Creator element is not sufficient -- there is no order being specified if there is more than one Creator. The idea of a "first named" appears only in the construction of the authorized access point for the work, and that alone mimics the 100 + 245 construction and order of fields. The idea of the "composite record" is a grandfathering convention, in that many records just have a jumble of sufficient identifying elements that can point out a "work manifested" or "expression of work" and so on. In the examples in RDA these identifying elements can appear anywhere in the record. With regard to the Title proper being the same as the Preferred title, RDA 6.2.2.4 has an example that accounts for the idea that many works have only one expression and one manifestation, and that the Preferred title is often the same as the Title proper: Little acorn Preferred title for work by Christa Kauble that has only one expression and only one manifestation. The manifestation was published under the title: The little acorn But there are some new conventions that sweep away the often contorted way AACR2 handled two or more works within a resource. Instead of having work 1 title in a 240 and work 2 title in an analytical 700 name-title added entry, RDA has this idea of having the entities a little more clearly identified in consistent conventions: 100 $a Miller, Arthur, $d 1915-2005 240 $a Plays. $k Selections 245 $a Two plays / $c Arthur Miller. 505 $a The Archbishop’s ceiling -- The American clock. 700 $a Miller, Arthur, $d 1915-2005. $t Archbishop’s ceiling. 700 $a Miller, Arthur, $d 1915-2005. $t American clock. So here the compilation is Work 1, the Archbishop's ceiling is Work 2, and American clock is Work 3. If these titles were also collaborative works, each with multiple Creators, then the clumsy mess can be untangled best with authority records and references. Ideally though, it would be easier to do a Scenario 1 rendering on all of this, with the works all clearly delineated, and each work with clear relationships to its Creators, and the Manifestation record with its identifying information informing the construction of the authorized access points for the works, but kept apart from the records for the work entities. And authorized access points may not need to be made at all in Scenario 1-- it could be just identifiers and a compilation of the various elements for each entity, followed by the relationship elements to the Creators or Others associated with the Works. The composite record approach allows us to just stick with the bibliographic record fields (such as the Contents note) without using identifiers or authorized access points to convey the same idea of the primary relationships. But the ultimate point here is that these primary relationships were always implicit in traditional bibliographic records. The key to understanding RDA is that what was implicit is made explicit in such a way that the logic of what is happening in the resource is captured in the instructions-- but there is room for different conventions to carry that logic. One doesn't have to wait for a post-MARC environment to establish the primary relationships, but perhaps a post-MARC environment can be more efficient at processing and displaying those relationships. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: June-03-12 10:51 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
