Bernadette
I agree that it would be redundant to say "This work-description of
(work)-That work" twice. But if the refined designators in Appendix J.2.3
are used, then it is not redundant to say "This work-analysis of (work)-That
work" and "This work-commentary on (work)-That work" where This work is both
an analysis and commentary on That work.
Note that I am assuming the "description of (work)" designator is equivalent
to the inverse of FRSAD's "has as subject" relationship.
The point you make about unhelpful repetition in records is important,
particularly when metadata statements (triples) are being aggregated from
multiple sources. As I have suggested, the range and number of such sources
is likely to increase. We already have the experimental WorldCat and BNB
linked data making duplicate statements, and I think it is inevitable that,
say, in 10 years' time there will be hundreds of sources of linked open, but
duplicate, metadata about any one bibliographic resource. Libraries will
want to use this free metadata, but will have to work out how to reject any
duplicated or irrelevant or dodgy statements - provenance (who made the
statement, when they made it, and under what context/rules) will become
essential information.
Cheers
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: 24 October 2012 13:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
All points accept, but even if each FRBR and FRAD entity has a separate
record why would we want to give a work record two links to the same other
work for essentially the same relationship (Work A is about Work B)?
And even when we have a system where data exists as separate records or in
more granular units and is compiled only at the point of delivery, we still
have to consider how to deliver a reasonably neat package without unhelpful
repetition.
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 Gordon
Dunsire
Sent: 24 October 2012 13:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
Bernadette and others
RDA is most effectively and efficiently used in the first of the RDA
Database Implementation Scenarios
(http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor2rev.pdf), where there are separate
records for each FRBR and FRAD entity. The records are linked; the most
effective and efficient type of link is a machine-readable identifier rather
than a human-readable access point. At global scale, this becomes critical
as there is no agreed universal and exclusive system for access points.
As the document says, RDA data can be expressed in all three scenarios, but
this may be less effective and efficient in the second and third scenarios.
Unfortunately, those scenarios are the ones used by most of the LMSs
currently available.
We (the cataloguing profession) are moving to a more distributed and
disaggregated view of bibliographic metadata, in the direction of linked
data where the focus is on the single statement (e.g. "This person is the
creator of that work") rather than the record. See my presentation A short
history of the evolution of the catalogue card
(http://www.gordondunsire.com/pubs/pres/EvolCatRec.ppt) for more
information. The utility of the record will remain, of course, but records
will be assembled from statements which may have sources other than
cataloguers, such as machines ("This Dewey number matches that LCSH"),
publishers, or end-users ("This film is a comedy about librarians").
So I think it will be our long-term interests to use FRBR and RDA in all
their glory, than to hold back because of the limitations of current library
systems.
I think it is particularly important that, where at all possible, we provide
metadata at the finest level to support the widest range of uses. For
example, many people regard the introductions to each episode of "Alfred
Hitchcock presents" as works in their own right, and would, I guess,
appreciate being able to find, identify, and obtain them as such.
Of course, it can be difficult in practice to do this, especially during a
period of transition. But I don't think it will matter in the end;
presumably Hitchcock fans will do it for themselves, and someone else will
link their "Alfred Hitchcock" entity to VIAF - but whither the cataloguing
profession?
Cheers
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: 24 October 2012 12:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
Coming back very later to record 2: I very much hope that we will not go in
the direction of making RDA related-work (7XX) AAPs in records for resources
which are introductions, explanations, commentaries and criticisms of other
works. We have to make subject headings for them, and that should be quite
enough. 7XX would just be extra work and would make records unnecessarily
long and confusing for readers. Even in electronic records size matters -
people don't want to be scrolling all the time.
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 Helen
Doyle
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
I'm not aware that AACR2 does anything like this, as this is pure FRBR.
Also I am (sneakily) avoiding the MARC issue, as our LMS can't cope with it!
HelenD.
Helen Doyle
Assistant Librarian
Royal Academy of Dance
36 Battersea Square
London
SW11 3RA
0207 326 8032
>>> Nicky Ransom <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 11:36 am >>>
I can see what you mean. Is this a change from AACR2, or is it just that I
haven't understood AACR2 properly, never mind RDA!
If, for example, I'm cataloguing a manual about a computer program, I would
ordinarily have put the name of the computer program in a 630 field (title
subject). But it should also go in 740 as a related title?
Nicky Ransom
Data Quality Manager & Cataloguer
University for the Creative Arts
Farnham
GU9 7DS
01252 892739
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: CIG E-Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Helen Doyle
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
I did wonder about this. RDA 25.1 defines a related work as "a work related
to the resource being described (e.g., an adaptation, commentary,
supplement, sequel, part of a larger work)" and Vanda's book is none of
these. But, her book would not have been written if LCSH hadn't been written
first - like the example of "Bored of the Rings" she took an existing Work
and wrote her book around it, rather than just on the same subject.
I've used this reasoning for other records later, so would be good to know
if any else has any thoughts on this!
HelenD.
Helen Doyle
Assistant Librarian
Royal Academy of Dance
36 Battersea Square
London
SW11 3RA
0207 326 8032
>>> Nicky Ransom <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 11:03 am >>>
Is the relationship between the book and LCSH not one of subject, rather
than Work?
Nicky Ransom
Data Quality Manager & Cataloguer
University for the Creative Arts
Farnham
GU9 7DS
examples like that in downloaded RDA records.
