Casey A Mullin wrote:
In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To be
clear, I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be "flagged" as
primary or secondary. What I'm referring to is the idea that certain
works/expressions need not even be identified in the data. Acco
Barbara,
1. Naming the parts - by having the relationship/link to the whole, you alleviate the necessity of having to
provide a "title" for the parts that includes the title of the whole. There may continue to be a
need for a default display form to name the work, but I hope we can eventually
09.01.2012 23:25, Karen Coyle:
And it also seems that in your scenario, aggregates link whole/part
between expressions but not between works? Is there a reason why they
would not link at the work?
I did a very ugly diagram of this...
http://kcoyle.net/temp/frbragg.pdf
If it's too ugly I can t
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: January 9, 2012 5:26 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Repor
Thomas said:
>In series authority records, 008/12 has the values for "monographic
>series" vs. "multipart item". If the series is coded for multipart
>item, the headi= >ng is formulated under main entry rules for
>monographs
The division is not so neat. Literary series which continue
indefinite
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" :
Because there are many-to-many relationships that are horizontal as
well as the many-to-many primary relationship unique to expressions
and manifestations.
For the case of the aggregating expression, going over it again ...
An expression may be embodied in
Thomas quoted:
>"Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a fi=
>nite number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbere=
>d."
>
>"Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, us=
>ually bearing numbering, that has no pred
>But the horizontal whole/part does exist.
As I've said earlier, there seems to me to be a fallacy in calling the
whole/part relationship horizontal, particularly for secondary parts
such as a preface, a bibliography, illustrations or an index, which
may be in one manifestation but not in another.
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: January 9, 2012 1:42 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of th
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" :
The confusion seems to arise from the unique "many-to-many"
relationship of the expression to the manifestation. As soon as the
"many" kicks in for multiple expressions embodied in one
manifestation, the notion of the structural relationship of "parts"
unf
Quoting Casey A Mullin :
(I'm ignoring the aggregate w/e here, as it's not useful to identify)
Actually, we might need it.
m1 (novel published with preface)
Title proper: Bend sinister
embodies e1 (novel in English)
realizes w1
Preferred title: Bend sinister
>From AACR2 Glossary:
"Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a finite
number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbered."
"Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts,
usually bearing numbering, that has no pre
Thomas said:
>Yet a finite resource is not a serial-- it's a multipart monograph. The same
>goes for finite multi-part series -- they are treated as monographs, and get
>the same main entry treatment as monographs. A multi-part series in
one library might be a multi-part monograph in another.
"kc: Nothing devilish at all in MARC: you add a 7xx for it. It's only
devilish in a FRBR-based environment. "
And here's where our perspectives differ. I'm not talking about just
adding an analytic for a preface. That's easy. I'm talking about
treating a novel published with a preface as an ag
*** With apologies for cross-posting ***
The LITA/ALCTS Linked Library Data Interest Group (LLD-IG) will be
meeting from 10:30-12 on Sunday, January 22 in the Lone Star Ballroom
C2 of the Sheraton Dallas. The agenada is below, and online at:
http://connect.ala.org/node/165005.
We're hoping for a
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: January 9, 2012 11:31 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Repor
Quoting Casey A Mullin :
[I'm behind on this thread, which raced forth over the weekend.
Still catching up...]
In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To
be clear, > I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be
"flagged" as primary or secondary. What I'm referrin
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind :
I think you need to just create an identifier for the manifestation
or expression that doesn't yet exist (if it doesn't), and make the
relationship M-M to E-E. The 'extra' M or E you created doens't
need to have any other metadata recorded about it -- just it
[I'm behind on this thread, which raced forth over the weekend. Still
catching up...]
In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To be
clear, I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be "flagged" as
primary or secondary. What I'm referring to is the idea that certain
> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: January 9, 2012 11:46 AM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
> Group on Aggregates
>
>
> Thomas said:
>
> >One of
Thomas said:
>One of the first epiphanies I had when learning to catalog was in
>realizing that there are no specific rules for main entry for series
The same rules should apply to both series and serials, because what
is a series in one library is a serial in another.
__ __ J. McRee
On 1/9/2012 11:23 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
The difficulty is that there appears to be a desire to create a
whole/part from, say, a Manifestation to an Expression, which does not
seem to be valid in the FRBR model, even though it is conceptually
logical.
I'm not sure it's conceptually logical
Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" :
FRBR includes whole/part relationships for all of the Group 1 entities (see
5.3.1.1 - work level
5.3.2.1 - expression level
5.3.4.1 - manifesation level
5.3.6.1 - item level.
The relationships between the group 1 entities are the
*inherent relationships (i.e., is re
Apologies for cross posting.
I hope you plan to attend.
The Cataloging and Metadata Management Section (CaMMS) and the RDA Conference
Forums and Programs Task Force (TF) are co-sponsoring the ALA Midwinter RDA
Update Forum, Sunday, January 22, 2011 1:30-3:30pm at the Dallas Convention
Cente
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: January 9, 2012 10:28 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the
FRBR includes whole/part relationships for all of the Group 1 entities (see
5.3.1.1 - work level
5.3.2.1 - expression level
5.3.4.1 - manifesation level
5.3.6.1 - item level.
The relationships between the group 1 entities are the
*inherent relationships (i.e., is realized through/realizes or exp
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" :
If we want a collective entity related to
individual entities, then we will make one. But in the process of
doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good to avoid
unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the
efficiency of systems bu
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
> Sent: January 9, 2012 9:43 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Repor
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg :
Furthermore, others have already passed us by, inventing devices
that do the job we expect work records to do, and not in very
complicated ways either:
http://www.librarything.com/work/1386651
note their canonical title, original title, ...
Librarything has do
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
This problem also appears in the use of 655 genre/form headings. A
GSAFD genre/form heading like "Short stories" (despite the plural
form) is applied to an "individual work" -- in effect, a single short
story. A collection of short stories would get the 650 heading, "
Heidrun - You may have seen some of my presentations about FRBR that explain
this "point of view" approach to show that the theoretical, conceptual model is
indeed describing what we already have as entities since the beginning of
catalogs and bibliographic information (e.g., in the British Muse
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this,
as this thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such
approach will be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates
that we use what we have more extensively and in better ways.
Sure, it is nice t
distinction has existed much longer, and should be observed. IMNSHO
many music cataloguers continuing to code music genre headings as 650
(which we were required to do for one client) was a mistake, and will
complicate flipping them to new forms. The 655 0 vs. 655 7 is
distinction enough between
33 matches
Mail list logo
