I don't think there really is an appropriate RDA relationship designator for this kind of relationship--at least not yet. I think this kind of relationship is best taken care of by a simple note, e.g. "Articles originally published in: ..." That could be in a 580, or in 787 with the note in $i and the title in $a. The 730 for access by the magazine title would not need to have any relationship designator.
Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Yuji Tosaka > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:03 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator between two aggregate > works > > I initially also thought that "contained in (work)" could be used in > this situation. But the more I thought about it, the more confusing it > became, since it seems that the compilation in question must be a > component part of the serial if the RDA relationship designator > "contained in (work)" can be used on its record to provide an access > point (730 field) for the serial. I'm not quite sure that such a > whole-part relationship exists between the two aggregates here. > > Let me illustrate this by using another title I have in hand right now. > I have a title "La cuisine et la table," a collection of articles on > gastronomy originally published in the French magazine "L'Histoire." Let > me call "L'Histoire" and "La cuisine et la table" aggregates A and B, > respectively. > > To use a simple formula, aggregate A (L'Histoire) would be: > > A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5,..., n}, where 1, 2, ..., n are individual articles > that are component elements of the magazine. > > Suppose that aggregate B (La cuisine et la table) includes additional > new elements like a substantive essay, etc. on top of selected articles > from the magazine. If we name such additional elements a, b, c, etc., > aggregate B could be: > > B = {a, b, c, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 25, 56, 78, 90, 192} > > I understand that individual articles contained in aggregate B (1, 3, 5, > 7, etc.) were also contained in (i.e., component parts of) aggregate A > (L'Histoire). But it does not seem that aggregate B itself is a proper > subset of aggregate A, although component parts do overlap between > the > two related aggregates. In other words, aggregate A does not contain > aggregate B. > > A related question would be, if we are cataloging an anthology of > articles originally published in two journals, what relationship > designator would be appropriate, if any, when we want to provide access > points for the two magazines? In this case, "contained in (work)" does > not seem to be accurate. > > -- > Yuji Tosaka > Cataloging/Metadata Librarian > The College of New Jersey > Ewing, NJ 08628-0718 > Phone: (609) 771-2156 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "M. E." <m.k.e.m...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:36:16 PM > Subject: Re: relationship designator between two aggregate works > > >>We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns > selected > >>from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point > >>for Science Scope in 730 field. > > I'm having difficulty picturing what Yuji is describing--maybe it's > the late hour. A designator for pointing from the > selection-of-articles record to the parent serial record? Wouldn't > that simply by the "contained in (work)" mentioned in the original > message? > > -- > Mark K. Ehlert > Minitex > <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
