I don't think that all compilations are at the same FRBR level. When
the major intellectual work is the act of compiling, e.g. when creating
a directory, the compilation is itself a work and the responsible person
is a compiler. When the major intellectual work is the creation of the
components, e.g. conference papers, and the compilation is a fairly
routine matter of assembling, checking, brief introduction and suchlike,
the components are works, the compiling is expression-level and the
responsible people are editors of compilations. The Appendix I
definitions favour this kind of distinction.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
*******************
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
*******************
-----Original Message-----
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C.J.
Carty
Sent: 24 October 2012 12:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
On this, there is a good outline of the instructions about how to decide
whether something is a collaboration (which has creators) or a
compilation (which only has contributors) in the BL WEMI workflow. It's
based on definitions in RDA 6.27.1.3 and 6.27.1.4.
While I'm reading it, it makes perfect sense. Then I'm faced with an
example and am unsure again...
Celine
On Oct 24 2012, Helen Williams wrote:
>I thought we were at the Work level because an aggregate work had been
>compiled which effectively resulted in the creation of a new work. What
>do others think?
>
>
>
>Also, although in MARC the editors would go in 700 fields, in the
>non-MARC format, do people see them fitting in 19.2 creator (which is
>where I ended up putting them) or 20.2 contributor?
>
>I was rather unsure about this.
>
>Helen
>
>
>
>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Freedman, Vanessa
>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:27
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>
>
>
>Or are the individual chapters "expressions" and the compilation a
>"manifestation" (still can't get my head round FRBR)?
>
>
>
>Vanessa
>
>
>
>Vanessa Freedman
>
>Hebrew & Jewish Studies Librarian
>
>UCL Library Services
>
>University College London
>
>Gower Street
>
>London WC1E 6BT
>
>
>
>Tel: +44 (0) 20 7679 2598 (Internal ext. 32598)
>
>Fax: +44 (0) 20 7679 7373
>
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/library
>
>
>
>**Please remember the environment and only print this if necessary**
>
>
>
>
>
>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Amies, Paul
>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:09
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>
>
>
>I used "compiler", although looking now at the definition of a compiler
>that doesn't seem quite right.
>
>I think I was determined to select something from I.2 (associated with
>work) as it didn't seem right to use something from I.3 (associated
>with an expression), as surely we are at the level of "work" here?
>
>
>
>
--
Céline Carty
English Cataloguing
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR
|