Dear collegues,
since the beginning of April I checked www.rdaonline.org regurlarly for
the announced demo version. Today the start page reads as following:
RDA Demo
ALA Publishing is working through final changes to RDA content from the
Joint Steering Committee since its March meeting. We
Actually, I believe one of the reasons for the delay is that the screen
mockups were intended to be implemented via Generated Online Data
Operating Technology, a special software package which, as yet, has not
arrived.
Writing 23 days after the beginning of April,
Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different
works? Are they not different expressions of the same work, that is,
is the film not an adaptation of the novel? And if they are separate
works, why do they need to be linked to each other?
I'm still a novice in FRBR and don't
It's kind of arbitrary whether they are considered the same work or
different work. But the library community has decided to consider them
different works, for a bunch of reasons that are probably documented
somewhere or other
So if they're different works, why do they need to be linked?
Here is the relevant section from FRBR (3.2.1):
Thus paraphrases, rewritings, adaptations for children, parodies,
musical variations on a theme and free transcriptions of a musical
composition are considered to represent new works. Similarly,
adaptations of a work from one literary or art form to
Jonathan Leybovich wrote:
The link between the film work and novel work is intended to capture
an important relationship between the two distinct works that is
important to users. Given that there are so many fundamental
inter-work relationships, I've always thought it would make sense to
Mac's response here is right on! If the film Gone with the wind and the
novel were both the same work, they would be named the same way. Few
people would name the film as a being created by Mitchell (or, in AACR2
terms, the novel gets Mitchell as main entry, but the film does not).
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
On the other hand, while the film being a different work than the book makes
sense to me, the idea that an _audio book_ of the exact text of the book is a
different work (but a braille version is not? Or is a braille version a
different work too?)
Isn't saying that if the main entry changes, it's a different work
looking at it backwards? We choose a different main entry because we
(in the library community) have agreed (by custom) that a film is a
different work from the book it was based on. That why we have rules
like AACR2 21.9. FRBR
Although RDA may presuppose that an audiobook version of a book is an
expression, is not doing so an arbitrary judgment? Not only is the format
different, but it involves the participation of one or more readers or actors
to interpret the text. To take it one step further, how should we
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either way.
I think folks need to get used to this,and stop thinking that we are
actually somehow recording the Actual Universe 100% objectively in the
only way possible to do so.
It's just a model, just a representation.
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either way.
I would prefer to call
Dan, I agree. They represent the point of view of a particular
community, and are no less valid for that. The problem has been that
there has been some notion floating around that we all have to agree on
ONE point of view for record sharing to work under FRBR. I believe that
is not the
In article 387791fc3f8c1b4e98bf58481496c6f20281f...@hlsexch3.law.harvard.edu,
you wrote:
Isn't saying that if the main entry changes, it's a different work
looking at it backwards? We choose a different main entry because we
(in the library community) have agreed (by custom) that a film is a
Dan Matei wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either way.
I would
15 matches
Mail list logo
