Thanks, John. Some comments below:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM, John Attig <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 1) Although they are set out in different parts of RDA, my understanding is
> that the list of roles under contributor (RDA Appendix I.3.1) are in fact
> conceptually subproperties of the contributor relationships (RDA 20.2).
I think the relevant question is: will an RDA description ever have a
property "contributor" or will a specific contributor always be used?
I believe that with the former, you then have contributor and
subproperties of contributor; with the latter, contributor may be seen
as being abstract, and thus a class rather than a property.
In DC, "contributor" is a property that can be used alone in metadata
without any further subproperties.
> I can't disagree with any of this -- particularly because you will find both
> the RDA chapters on relationships (section 6, chapters 18-22) and the
> corresponding sections of Appendix I are divided into relationships to
> works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The owner or binder has a
> relationship to the item; the printer has a relationship to the
> manifestation, etc.
>
> Perhaps part of the hang-up is that you seem to be taking "contributor" in
> its DC sense; in RDA, the scope of Contributor is very restricted: a
> contributor is a person, family, or corporate body that has a role in
> realizing an expression. We do not use the term contributor for any other
> type of relationship; therefore the owner, binder, and printer are NOT
> contributors in RDA.
Thanks for clarifying this. Is there some "bucket" description that
would work for owner, binder, and printer, or are they kind of on
their own?
>
> It would be helpful to specify instruction numbers when citing definitions
> -- or are these from the glossary?
Sorry, I was looking at the glossary (since I'm trying to update the
elements in the registry with the current definitions, it's on my
desktop at all times). I haven't gotten back into the text for a
while, I admit. It's on my to-do list.
In any case, the definition of
> Publisher's Name is from 2.8.41, this is followed by an instruction on how
> to record the Publisher's Name that (eventually) takes you back to
> instructions that specify transcription from a specified source and provide
> details about what is meant by transcription. So, while you may be correct
> that the definition itself does not limit this element to a transcribed
> string, the instructions as a whole are very clear that it is exactly that.
OK, so we can treat Publisher's Name as transcribed data -- which
basically makes it a non-linking element (e.g. it won't have a URI for
the publisher in it).
>
> Your other definition is, I believe, taken from 21.3.1.1. This element is a
> relationship between the manifestation and the person or corporate body that
> acts as publisher. While there is a logical relationship between the
> Publisher's Name as an attribute of a manifestation, and the Publisher
> relationship, they are not identical; the latter is a relationship between
> two entities and may consist of the access point for the related entity;
> access points are normalized strings that apply to all instances of the
> entity, and are not necessarily the same as the Publisher's Name as it
> appears on any given manifestation.
So RDA describes both a transcribed publisher name and a Publisher
entity? That's good news. Now I need to read the "core" elements
section, I think.
kc
--
-- ---
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|