Thank you, Kevin-- your response is most informative. I'll bring up the advisability of separate records at a future in-house meeting, but for the time being, seeing that we're wouldn't be "out of line" by what we're doing presently, we'll stay the course until a future decision reverses our current practice. Rick
-----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record Rick McRae wrote: > When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate > manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two > bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and > that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid > records are still acceptable? RDA doesn't really deal with "records" per se. It deals with data intended to describe resources and provide access to those resources. This is probably a difficult thing for people to get used to. It's a different way of thinking. So it would seem that it should be possible to create a MARC record with elements describing all of the various formats that a particular expression was manifested in, and be fully following the spirit and intent of RDA in doing so. HOWEVER, one of the objectives of RDA is Continuity: "The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards)." (RDA 0.4.2.4) Our tradition has been, generally, to create separate records (initially they were cards, then they were MARC records), each containing the description for only one manifestation of an expression. Therefore I think it's advisable to follow the same practice and create a separate record for each manifestation. That being said, if you put the URL for a digitized version into field 856 of the record for the hardcopy version, and give it 2nd indicator "1" (Version of resource), you would not at all be out of line, in my opinion. This field both describes the relationship between manifestations, and allows the user to obtain the online manifestation. This is considered to be a valid (if not the most desirable) approach for serials, per 31.2.3A in the CONSER Cataloging Manual. In the future, I think (hope) we'll likely only be creating *data*, not records. The data will be associated with the appropriate FRBR Group 1 entities based on the element labels assigned to the data and the identifiers of the specific instances of those Group 1 entities. The data will be able to be collected into records if that's how a system needs it to operate. Hope this helps. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
