But FRBR 5.3.6 describes item-to-item relationships and one of the types of relationship in table 5.10 is reproduction.
Renette At 12:15 PM 7/17/2007, you wrote:
This is true. By definition, there can be no such thing as an item-to-item reproduction. The product of a reproduction is always a manifestation of one or more items. Ed Jones -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:56 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 This is still an item to manifestation relationship, not an item to item relationship. When you make a reproduction of a specific item you are creating a new manifestation (which of course is a set of one or more items). Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Jones > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:32 AM > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [CRCC-RDA] Comments on RDA 7.4.2 > > 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
