Karen Coyle said:
As long as the data elements are understood, it seems to me that workness
is something that can be defined differently by different systems for
the very same set of data.
Yes, as soon as the physical, bound volume is no longer the unit
and the indivisible object of the cataloging process but parts become
catalogable as such. This, however, has always been the case with
multipart monographs: some (AACR people) view(ed) the whole as the
unit and regarded the volumes as content, some others (e.g., RAK people)
viewed the volumes as catalogable units in their own right and came
up with two records instead of one (for whole plus part), linking the
subordinate to the container.
So, this situation is not new but has plagued us for a long time, when
converting MARC records for use in German systems. IMHO, this isn't
going to go away in actual practice, it only does in FRBR theory.
J. McRee Elrod replied:
CAtaloguing the item in hand, and then relating those records post
cataloguing seems the better route.
YES - you only have to say what's an "item" ...
The most effective way to do that
is to concentrate to OPAC interface and work authorities development.
Of course. Known at least since 1994 or 1997.
B.Eversberg
