How can the system magically create what the cataloger never recorded
in the first place? Asking the system to create expression and
manifestation, but telling the cataloger to ignore the fact that such
things exist is just asking for trouble.
On the one hand, we have Martha saying that the ca
Jonathan Rochkind said:
>How can the system magically create what the cataloger never recorded
>in the first place?
At the time of first cataloguing of an item which is a new
work/manifestation/expression/item. relationships among these abstract
concepts don't exist to be recorded. Whether or
Martha M. Yee said:
>The fundamental assumption behind this mapping project, as explained in the
>first paragraph, is an incorrect assumption. The elements of the
>bibliographic description cannot logically be mapped to one and only one
>FRBR entity.
Which points up the basic falicy of the FRBR
I am a reviewer of RDA and report my comments to a liaison; at first I was
enthusiastic about RDA, with a few caveats. But now I am beginning to feel
that whoever started this whole thing just put AACR2 over a landmine just to
blow it up and discover where all the parts landed.
Gene Fieg
Cata
The statement on p. 7 that RDF specifications indicate that identifying
more than one domain for an element is to be interpreted using a Boolean AND
(i.e. that all instances of the element must be members of both domains)
seems to me to hint that the FRBR tables are logically incompatible with R
5 matches
Mail list logo
