I very much like the alternative at 6.4.1.2.1c.2 to record the elements of the original resouce in parallel with the corresponding elements for the reproduction and have been trying to think about how this might be extended to other types of relationships, as we were asked to do in the cover letter for the draft of chapters 6 & 7.
In this particular case, I think it is very useful when cataloging a reproduction to include the elements of the original in fields that are easily searched because I believe that people who are searching for resources don't really care when something was digitized or microfilmed. I think what they are interested in is the date that the original resource was published. Same for place of publication, publisher, standard numbers, etc. Actually, as I read this rule again, I realized it does not say "elements of the original resource" like I did in the first paragraph above, but rather it says "elements of the description of the resource from which the reproduction was made." I think there's a difference. If I am cataloging a resource which is a reproduction of a reproduction, and the original reproduction was cataloged according to AACR2 instead of the LCRIs for 1.11A and Chapter 11, I don't want to record the date of publication of the original reproduction along with the date of my reproduction. Instead, I want to record the date of the original resource along with the date of my reproduction. I don't really see how the alternative at 6.4.2.2.1c.2 would be used. This is talking about recording the place of publication, publisher, date, standard numbers, etc. of the reproduction on the record for the original resource in parallel with those elements of the original resource. I can't imagine that people who are searching for resources will want to pull up an original record if they are specifically searching for the place of publication, publisher, date, etc. of the reproduction. The only reason I can think of for wanting to search those elements of the reproduction is to find out everything that a particular agency has filmed or digitized. In that case, you would only be interested in the reproduction records, not the records for the original resources. In other words, for source / reproduction relationships, I only see this alternative as valuable for recording elements relating to the original resource on the record for the reproduction. I'm not sure how such an alternative would be used for aggregate / component relationships. I haven't really figured out how a multilevel description, as presented in RDA draft rule 1.2.3 and Appendix D.1.4.2, would work, but it seems like if this convention is followed, perhaps the elements could be recorded in parallel. However, I can't quite see how that would look. For component / component relationships, I don't really see how such an alternative would work unless you were cataloging the individual components on a single record instead of on individual records. The same is true for issued with relationships. I'm also not sure how such an alternative would be used for format / format relationships unless you are creating a single record for multiple formats. Even if you were creating a single record for multiple formats, this would be a different kind of situation than recording the elements for the original on the record for the reproduction. If a single record approach continues to be used by some groups, I think it would be confusing to use the same convention of recording elements for the multiple formats in the same manner as recording the elements for the original on the record for the reproduction because the latter is a separate record approach. For source / derivative relationships it might be useful to record elements of the source in parallel with the corresponding elements of the derivative, but again I can't quite see how this would work. I'm not sure there is really justification for it either. If someone is searching for the source will they want to automatically pull up records for the derivative? If they are searching for the derivative will they want to automatically pull up records for the source? I think for those cases a citation to the related resource is a better approach. I also think a citation to the related resource is a better approach for primary / adjunct relationships. I can't really see how recording elements of one in the record for the other would be helpful for anyone. Same is true for edition / edition relationships. Now comes my favorate relationship, predecessor / successor. I'm not sure how recording the elements of the earlier title in the record for the later title or vice versa would help anyone unless we are looking at some kind of super serial record. However, I wonder if a convention like this could help us with our minor change problems. We have been talking about the possibility of using a latest entry approach for minor changes so that the current title is the one that can be used for orders, claims, shelf labels, etc. The main problem with this approach seems to be the time involved in moving the existing title to a 247 field and changing the 245 to the current title, as well as changing the 260, etc. if needed. When this was discussed at the CONSER Operations meeting in April and at the Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee update forum at ALA Annual in June, the feeling seemed to be that we need some kind of systems approach rather than having to redescribe every time there is a minor change. A suggestion was made that perhaps there could be multiple 245s, with something to say which one is the current title. Multiple 260s have already been approved which could be used for new publication information. This sounds similar to the alternative for reproductions, except instead of being used for different records it would be used for minor changes on one record. However, my argument above about not using this convention for format / format relationships if you are doing a single record approach probably argues against using such a convention here. So where does this leave us? I think the only thing I can say with confidence is that I like the alternative at 6.4.1.2.1c.2. The rest is just thinking out loud about the possibility of using this convention for other types of relationships. Renette
