Maybe the scope section could at least include a separate sentence that says this is talking about a manifestation to item relationship.
If it's a two-way relationship, will the reproduction manifestation be described on the record for the original item? If so, where are the instructions for doing that? Renette At 11:55 AM 7/17/2007, you wrote:
That would be clearer, but RDA seems to have a preference for referring in all cases to "the resource being described" (the phrase occurs 61 times just in draft chapters 6-7), so arguing for clarity might have ramifications throughout RDA. Having said that, it would still be a two-way relationship, as described in FRBR 5.3.5. Item --> has a reproduction --> Manifestation Item <-- is a reproduction of <-- Manifestation Ed -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renette Davis Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:26 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 So is 7.4.2 talking about a manifestation to item relationship (i.e., FRBR 5.3.5)? "A manifestation-to-item relationship indicates that a given manifestation is the result of reproducing a particular item. The reproduction relationship will be stated at this level when it is useful to indicate the specific item used, as opposed to stating the relationship at the more general level of manifestation-to-manifestation." If that's the case, maybe the scope statement should say something like "An equivalent item is a specific item that was reproduced (e.g. photographed, digitized) to make the manifestation being described." In this case, I guess it would be a one-way relationship. Renette At 11:08 AM 7/17/2007, Ed Jones wrote: >I suppose if you were cataloging a unique item (say a preservation >microfilm master negative), it might be an item-to-item equivalency, but >typically you're cataloging a manifestation, so the equivalency is >between an original item--the copy photographed/digitized at the >University of Chicago--and the manifestation described in the >bibliographic record, representing multiple photographic/digital copies >reproduced from that original item. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renette Davis >Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:59 AM >To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > >But aren't they both equivalent items (i.e., the original item is >equivalent to the reproduction and the reproduction is equivalent to the >original item)? According to your definition, only the original is >called >the equivalent item. What is the reproduction called? > >I have been thinking of these equivalence relationships as two-way >relationships, but I might be wrong. I looked at the scope statement for >equivalent manifestation under 7.4.1.0.1 and it says, "An equivalent >manifestation is a manifestation that embodies the same expression of a >work as the resource being described." > >That makes me think that the equivalent manifestation is either the >original manifestation or the reproduction. The examples in that section >also go both ways. Some of them describe the original manifestation and >some of them describe the reproduction. Wouldn't an equivalent item be >the >same? It could be a description of the original item on the record for >the >reproduction or a description of the reproduction on the record for the >original item? > >If the reproduction is a digital image that was made from a print >resource, >wouldn't that be an equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item >(according to FRBR 5.3.6)? If the reproduction results in a change in >the >type of carrier, then it's an equivalent manifestation instead of >equivalent item? > >Renette > >At 10:32 AM 7/17/2007, Ed Jones wrote: > >I think 7.4.2.0.1 might be better worded as follows: > > > >An equivalent item is a specific item that was reproduced (e.g. > >photographed, digitized) to make the resource being described. > > > >All photoreproductions (microform, photocopy, digital image, etc.) are > >the reproductions of specific items (though when no single complete >item > >exists, a reproduction may be made from multiple individually imperfect > >items). > > > >Ed Jones > >National University (San Diego) > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jean Altschuler > >Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:21 AM > >To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > > > >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
