I'll respond to some of Karen's comments.
Rebecca
> Ignoring the whole question of whether this is valid DC, here are my votes
> and some comments interspersed:
>
> >***************************BALLOT*************************
> >Vote for or against each Relation Element Qualifier AND each Relation
> >Element Qualifier definition. Indicate vote by marking with and X.
> >1. IsPartOf
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >2. Definition/Usage: The described resource is a physical or logical part
> >of the referenced resource.
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >3. HasPart
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >4. Definition/Usage: The described resource comprises the referenced
> >resource either physically or logically.
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >5. IsVersionOf
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >6. Definition/Usage: The described resource is a version, edition, or
> >adaptation of the referenced resource.
> >[x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >7. HasVersion
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
> >
>
> I vote no on this one because I think linking to versions has to go from
> most recent back, and will not be bi-directional. It's that
> bi-directionality that causes us such problems for serials.
I absolutely agree with this. There was this need of some people in this
discussion to have these complementary relationships, even if they didn't
make sense in the world of real resources. However, I would vote yes on
"OtherVersion" rather than "HasVersion" because then people wouldn't
expect that complementary part (in other cases in Relation qualifiers,
"has" always seems to have an "is"). But as far as I'm concerned,
OtherVersion or HasVersion mean the same thing (and the important thing is
not to have an IsVersionOf because we don't know what it means and
shouldn't have to choose which came first).
> >8. Definition/Usage: The described resource has a version, edition, or
> >adaptation, namely, the referenced resource.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >9. OtherVersion
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
>
> I think this is covered with IsVersionOf --it doesn't say which precedes.
>
> >
> >10. Definition/Usage: The described resource has a versional relationship
> >with the referenced resource, but the precedence of the two resources is
> >unknown.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >11. Replaces
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >12. Definition/Usage: The described resource supplants, displaces, or
> >supercedes the referenced resource.
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >13. IsReplacedBy
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
>
> Same problem of b-diretionality, which will NOT be kept up to date.
>
> >
> >14. Definition/Usage: The described resource is supplanted, displaced, or
> >superceded by the referenced resource.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >15. Continues
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
>
> Although I think this is getting pretty detailed. The difference between
> Replaces, Continues, and IsVersionOf, although they are very different,
> will only be handled correctly by professional catalogers.
>
> >
> >16. Definition/Usage: The described resource is a logical continuation of
> >the referenced resource.
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >17. IsContinuedBy
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
>
> Bi-directional
>
I see Replaces/IsReplacedBy and Continues/IsContinuedBy as two
alternatives for the same concepts. If also see either of them as being
Preceding Entry and Succeeding Entry that we use for serials. So I would
think that in this case we might need the bi-directional. I sort of favor
Continues and IsContinuedBy.
> >18. Definition/Usage: The described resource is logically continued by the
> >referenced resource.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
> >
> >19. IsFormatOf
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
>
> This could be covered by IsVersionOf.
The distinction here is different physical format, while IsVersionOf is
intellectual version. So I can see that distinction (it would be the
equivalent of the MARC Additional Physical Form Entry. That would lead me
to supporting OtherFormat for the same reason that I would take
OtherVersion over IsVersionOf (because there is no bi-directionality).
> >20. Definition/Usage: The described resource is essentially the same
> >intellectual content of the pre-existing referenced resource and is
> >presented in another format.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >21. HasFormat
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
> >
> >22. Definition/Usage: The described resource pre-existed the referenced
> >resource, which is essentially the same intellectual content presented in
> >another format.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >23. OtherFormat
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
> >
> >24. Definition/Usage: Both the described resource and the referenced
> >resource contain essentially the same intellectual content in different
> >formats; the precedence of the referenced resource is unknown.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
> >
> >25. References
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
>
> I like this, but I'm not sure how it will be used. Having references
> encoded allows for all kinds of useful things like citation indexing, but
> would we expect this to also include any URLs in the document?
>
> >
> >26. Definition/Usage: The described resource references, cites, or
> >otherwise points to the referenced resource.
> >[ x ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >27. IsReferencedBy
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
>
> Citation indexing will have to be done within databases, not by catalogers.
> There will be no way to get the information to fill this in accurately!
>
I would support IsReferencedBy rather than HasReferences. We currently
often include in serial records an indication of where something is cited.
But to use References assumes that you'll give information about anything
that is cited in the resource itself. Is this something anyone would want
to do?
> >28. Definition/Usage: The described resource is referenced, cited, or
> >otherwise pointed to by the referenced resource.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >29. IsBasedOn
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
>
> Very complex -- what's the difference between is based on vs. is a version
> of? When is something based on something else, really?
Relation.IsBasedOn is really the same as Source, which is a separate
element. I guess that a version is an edition or adaptation of a resource
and has a closer relationship than something that IsBasedOn.
> >30. Definition/Usage: The described resource is conceptually based on the
> >referenced resource.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >31. IsBasisFor
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
Agree with this-- bi-directionality not possible here.
> >
> >32. Definition/Usage: The described resource is conceptually the basis for
> >the referenced resource.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >33. Requires
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
>
> I don't know about this one. Would it be used to link to the Adobe site for
> each PDF file? Can you imagine trying to keep those links up to date?
When I've asked about this one, I've been told that it might include a
piece of software or a computer (?). I agree with you here, keeping up to
date would be hard.
> >34. Definition/Usage: The described resource requires the referenced
> >resource, either physically or logically.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >
> >35. IsRequiredBy
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ x ] No
> >
> >36. Definition/Usage: The described resource is required by the referenced
> >resource, either physically or logically.
> >[ ] Yes
> >[ ] No
> >************************END OF BALLOT*************************
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior MARC Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4020 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|