Renette,
I am sure you understand FRBR much better than I do. All of the
examples do reference specific items: 7.4.2.1.1a "the original of a
photographic image", 7.4.2.1.1b "item" and "fascimile of" and
7.4.2.1.1c "original letters in the collection of the Watkinson
Library" and "copy in the National Wetlands Research Center Library"
but I see your point about the changes in physical characteristics and
why they might be considered equivalent manifestations.
I did not get nearly as far as you did with this but I also found the
wording of 7.4.2.0.1 to be questionable. "An equivalent item is a
specific item reproduced by the resource being described". I kept
trying to think how a resource could reproduce an item? A paper item
in a specific library can't reproduce itself in electronic format.
Your proposed wording certainly makes more sense to me.
Jean
Renette Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hicago.edu> To
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
crcc-rda-bounce RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc
shington.edu
Subject
[CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2
07/16/2007
10:31 AM
I started this message on Friday afternoon and thought maybe my brain
was
just tired, but now on Monday morning the scope statement in 7.4.2.0.1
still doesn't make sense to me. "An equivalent item is a specific item
reproduced by the resource being described." It's the word "by" that
is
bothering me. Also the fact that the relationship appears to only go
one
way. I think what is meant is that an equivalent item is a specific
item
reproduced as or from the resource being described.
I'm also having problems with some of the examples in this section.
Most
them seem like equivalent manifestations instead of equivalent items
to me.
The explanation under the example in 7.4.2.1.1a.1 says it is a
"Resource
identifier for the original of a photographic image that has been
digitized
by the Museum of History and Industry." Wouldn't this be an equivalent
manifestation instead of an equivalent item since one is an original
photograph and the other is a digital image?
According to "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records",
section
5.3.6, Item-to-Item Relationships, p. 80, "The reproduction
relationship
states that one particular item has been derived in some way from
another
item. As with manifestation, there can be varying levels of fidelity
of the
reproduction to the original item. Unlike the replication of
manifestations, however, which in some cases will result in a change
in the
type of carrier, the replication of one item from another always
results in
an item of the same physical characteristics as the original."
The same is true for the 2nd example in 7.4.2.1.1c.1 - "Electronic
reproduction of the copy in the National Wetlands Research Center
Library".
If it's an electronic reproduction of a print resource, wouldn't it be
an
equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item?
If the first example in that section is in a record for photocopies of
the
original letters, that's probably ok as an equivalent item, but if
it's in
a record for an electronic reproduction, again I think that would be
an
equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item.
I am definitely no expert on FRBR, so if anyone disagrees with my
statements above, don't hesitate to say so! However, if I'm
understanding
this correctly, then maybe the scope statement should read something
like,
"An equivalent item is a specific item reproduced as or from the
resource
being described in the same physical format."
Renette
_______________________________________________
CRCC-RDA mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/crcc-rda
