Deborah Fritz said:
>A change in Expression data in a MARC Bib >record means a change in
>Expression when we get the data out of MARC and into ... whatever.
The only "whatever" on the horizon is Bibframe. Like MARC, Bibframe
has no expression record. I suspect expression data in Bibframe will
be divided between Work and Instance records, mainly instance ones,
unless "work" is more narrowly defined. "Thinking RDA" will make
"expression" relevant in neither MARC nor (without major revision)
Bibframe.
So let's stop talking about expressions for now. Apart from the
complicated arrangement of RDA, the concept is irrelevant to creating
recprds in MARC. unless greatly changed, in Bibframe..
Deborah, I suspect we differ less than this discussion implies. If
there is a difference between us, my guess is you are more wedded to
the letter of the rules, while I am more wedded to their spirit. No
finite set of rules and cover all possibilities, so we must fall back
on analogy. No work/expression/manifestation theory should impede our
records containing the data patrons need, in the most efficient way
possible. Field 520 is where we convey the nature and content of what
we have. That may differ amongst instances.
If/when we have Bibframe work/instance records, I assume abstract /
summary will be repeating, as 520 is now. If we can't change the
abstract / summary in the work record as displayed with instance data,
a second abstract / asummary might be in the instance record. For
use, it is better to have the data which began thhis discussion in zn
exact field, i.e.. repeating 520 in MARC, as opposed to 500, or
whatever the Bibframe equivalent of 500 may be.
There are also ;egacy records with 520s, which may apply to the work
or to the instance. That distinction can not be made by automted
means.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
