Karen Coyle asked: > > 1) are all relationships in Appendix J between equivalent entities? > e.g. are they all Work-Work, Expression-Expression? > For me, obviously yes. App.J is an extensive collection of relationship designators that are applicable for these purposes. Practically, these terms will have to be coded, not recorded verbally, for otherwise international interoperability would suffer. And for codes, no URIs, please.
> 3) I don't find some relationships that seem to be key: > - Expression of > - Manifestation of > - Item of > - Translation of (Expression as translation of Work) > These are less difficult: one expression can be related only to one work (or so I think...), and doesn't need to be further specified if the new 336, 337 and 338 codes are properly applied. If, that is, scenario 1 is in effect. For 2 and 3, it is less clear what to do. However, in what fields and in what way those relationships are to be coded, seems an open question, see chap. 17.4: It says there will have to be identifier links between the entities (from expr. to work, from manif. to expr., from item to manif. - not the other way). Mere verbal relators, in notes fields or whatever, won't do, there will have to be identifiers to facilitate linked data. The examples in chap. 17.4 are much too vague, one will need a substantial R.I.
