Weinheimer Jim wrote:
In my experience, the one area of bibliographic control
> that has the least amount of agreement is in the analytics: > each bibliographic agency has its own idea of precisely > what belongs to precisely what and how to describe it. Exactly. In my previous posting, I mixed things up. I should have referred to 5.3.1.1 Whole/Part Relationships at the Work Level There, the model very clearly demands that "Independent parts" (like monographs in a series or multivolume work) be separately described and linked to the (separately described) whole on the work level. (We've been doing that all the time.)
I think we should rather explore ways of bringing all of these
> different views of works and expressions together ... Yes, finally, and put the 505 to rest. If nothing can be done on a grand scale, if RDA/FRBR ends up a pipedream and MARC lives on forever, one might at least extend the 700 $a$t and the 600 $a$t a little bit to accomodate URIs and codes or designations for various types of relationships to the cited work, "isPartOf ..." or whatever, but not "hasPart...". And there's no reason why something could'nt be a part of more than one wholes. B.Eversberg
