From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: January-06-12 6:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final R
Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" :
Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be
handled with a placefolder at the expression level.
Yes, but what is the relationship? "to" isn't a valid relationship. As
I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between
Manifestations
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" :
Is "embodies" a part/whole relationship? Because you only have one option:
This is a primary relationship-- a manifestation has an "expression
manifested" as an inherent aspect of the resource. The expression is
"embodied" in the manifestation. [Note also B
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: January 6, 2012 5:06 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Repor
Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a
placefolder at the expression level. Of course there will always actually be
an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons,
and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has b
I think "embodies" and "expresses" mean the same thing here. One term is
taken from FRBR and the other from RDA. Karen's right that the three
expressions are "equal" in this example, in that there is no whole/part
relationship that binds them, at least in strict FRBR. Rather, they are
bound by
Quoting Casey A Mullin :
Manifestation 1 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 2 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 3 (embodies E 1,2,3)
Is "embodies" a part/whole relationship? Because you only have one option:
Manifestation expresses Expression
So this would be:
Manifestation 3 (expresses E1)
Manifesta
Quoting JOHN C ATTIG :
- Original Message -
| Karen said:
| >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing
| >similar
| >to the MARC 505.
Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are
considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note
- Original Message -
| Karen said:
| >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing
| >similar
| >to the MARC 505.
Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are considered
Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a structured descriptio
> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: January 6, 2012 2:35 PM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
> Group on Aggregates
>
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer said:
Karen said:
>RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing similar
>to the MARC 505.
We first ran into this problem with papers given at continuing legal
education symposia. The terrible solution we have is putting the
paper titles in 695 for keyword searching. Our index is
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
>Probably, the issue of aggregates is also more related to physical
>materials than to virtual resources.
Absolutely not. While we first encountered the aggregate work problem
with papers given at continuing education symposia, we now encounter
it with constituent parts
Hello,
First, to respond to Karen's more recent posting:
""Pure" aggregates (a book of essays, e.g.) are also somewhat easy, or
at least they were: the record is for the book as a whole, and, if
possible, a table of contents note is created. Where that model "fails"
is that is often isn't eas
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Diane Hillmann
Sent: January 6, 2012 11:31 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
Group on Aggr
Bernhard said:
>What else should we assume end users to be interested in if not the
>individual works?
They might be interested in the aggregate output of a particular
author, artist or composer. They might be interested in the results
of a particular conference (anything to report from EURIG Be
I've been reading with great interest this thread and in conjunction with what
James just wrote I'd like to offer a bare bones mantra my cataloging professor
taught me when I would attempt to decline a Dewey # to the 14th level:
"Remember, Mike: it's only an address."
I love the "elegance" of
On 06/01/2012 15:41, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
The entities exist whether they're brought out in the cataloging as
significant or not. In RDA, many such entities and their relationships
are captured in unstructured descriptions or transcribed elements,
without any mechanism for identifiers (s
All:
I keep hearing a couple of threads in this conversation that I think need
further examination. The first is that there needs to be 'agreement' on how
to handle these situations, before anyone can do anything. This implies
that we need to retain the notion that it's critically important that w
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller :
Karen,
If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate
Expression, and each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work
well, then we have a one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions
and Works. We're back to ISBD or MARC in that case.
I'm
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: January 6, 2012 8:21 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
Group on Aggregates
A few thoughts of my own concerning this issue:
First, I suspect this issue is of relatively little interest or use to
the public, so this is probably more related to internal management of
the collection. Cutter implies as much in the Appendix to his Rules
http://www.archive.org/details/publi
Am 06.01.2012 10:05, schrieb Bernhard Eversberg:
Exactly. The Bibliographic Universe does not follow FRBR as its
blueprint but FRBR tries to draw a model of the universe that fits a
number of observable characteristics considered important. As any
model, it has blind spots, there are matters outs
Karen,
If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate Expression,
and each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work well, then we
have a one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions and Works. We're
back to ISBD or MARC in that case.
I'm not sure whether that description fi
05.01.2012 23:06, Karen Coyle:
this is a really devilish problem, but I think the solution is not going
to be found within FRBR. That is because FRBR creates a tight coupling
between W, E, and M that (IMO) does not fit the reality of publishing.
Exactly. The Bibliographic Universe does not fol
24 matches
Mail list logo
